Chevy SS Forum banner

681 - 700 of 778 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
282 Posts
.. As a means to end prop 209 aka affirmative action in regards to considering employment / education based on merit instead of race / sex.

I dont see a problem with reversing the anti-discrimination policy that discriminates against more qualified persons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Well, here's some of the latest insanity to come out of "liberal" Commiefornia.
I guess when you're planning on discriminating against people, it's best to make it legal first. Doesn't sound so liberal to me; sounds downright fascist. This isn't just some kooky idea, this actually just happened !

California Legislature Votes to Strike ‘the State Shall Not Discriminate’ from Constitution, Opening the Door to Legalized Discrimination

Equality before the law is at the heart of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

I used to say "unbelievable!" But living in this state has jaded me away from that I guess.
We must keep the straight white man down! Lord help us....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
.. As a means to end prop 209 ...
Yes, and they're clearly willing to do it BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Do you think any of them ever stop to consider any other potential consequences of literally eliminating anti-discrimination language from the state's Constitution, and thereby permitting discrimination? Yeah, what could go wrong with that?
282878
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
.. As a means to end prop 209 aka affirmative action in regards to considering employment / education based on merit instead of race / sex.

I dont see a problem with reversing the anti-discrimination policy that discriminates against more qualified persons.
Did we read the same thing?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Yes, and they're clearly willing to do it BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Do you think any of them ever stop to consider any other potential consequences of literally eliminating anti-discrimination language from the state's Constitution, and thereby permitting discrimination? Yeah, what could go wrong with that?
View attachment 282878
This will go to the people for a vote. It will be worded/named in such a way as to confuse the CA voters just like the rest of propositions have been. This state is sick in the head.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
This will go to the people for a vote. It will be worded/named in such a way as to confuse the CA voters just like the rest of propositions have been. This state is sick in the head.
You got that right!

Quoted for the article: . . .supporters of the vote said the move, which would permit state discrimination based on race, sex, color, ethnicity and national origin, would “advance true racial and gender equity in this state."

Just spitballing here, but I suspect this will be applied to more than just the UC admissions quotas. I see a direct application for employment quotas based entirely on gender (including ALL the myriad of identities) and LGBQT as well.

Yep, we are officially in clown world here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
.. As a means to end prop 209 aka affirmative action in regards to considering employment / education based on merit instead of race / sex.

I dont see a problem with reversing the anti-discrimination policy that discriminates against more qualified persons.
Apparently our comprehension of the implications are not on the same level.
To further help anyone who's level of "comprehension of the implications" is not on par with yours, can you please elaborate your initial point more clearly? Perhaps there are too many double negatives going on in there to be sure of what you're intending to say. Are you advocating that:

The state SHALL discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

YES, or NO?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
282 Posts
To further help anyone who's level of "comprehension of the implications" is not on par with yours, can you please elaborate your initial point more clearly? Perhaps there are too many double negatives going on in there to be sure of what you're intending to say. Are you advocating that:

The state SHALL discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group, on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

YES, or NO?
Neither - that statement alone implies that you believe things will actually change or make any difference.

Discrimination has always been a part of the public / private sectors under the surface. We just invent excuses so its not called what it is.

I do not believe we need anti-discrimination or equal opportunity employment legal waivers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Neither - that statement alone implies that you believe things will actually change or make any difference.

Discrimination has always been a part of the public / private sectors under the surface. We just invent excuses so its not called what it is.

I do not believe we need anti-discrimination or equal opportunity employment legal waivers.
But the evidence (i.e. history) is clearly there that things did change; the practice of affirmative action was discontinued. Do you really think for one second that it will not be reinstated in a heartbeat if there is not language specifically preventing it?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
But the evidence (i.e. history) is clearly there that things did change; the practice of affirmative action was discontinued. Do you really think for one second that it will not be reinstated in a heartbeat if there is not language specifically preventing it?
Exactly, they didn't write this proposition for the fun of it, there is an agenda here and being a Californian I think it's obvious what it is....
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
282 Posts
But the evidence (i.e. history) is clearly there that things did change; the practice of affirmative action was discontinued. Do you really think for one second that it will not be reinstated in a heartbeat if there is not language specifically preventing it?
Those rules had already been well established since the 1964 civil rights act and they still exist today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
Those rules had already been well established since the 1964 civil rights act and they still exist today.
Rules or suggestions? You mention the 1964 CRA, and yet it obviously wasn't strong enough and they passed affirmative action in CA anyway, prompting the prop 209 initiative in 1996 which explicitly stated the aforementioned 'you shall not' discriminate. That initiative has stood up to many attempts to overthrow it since. This current action henceforth eliminates from the CA state constitution that explicit statement banning discrimination. Why do you think they are doing that if it has no effect, as you say?
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
282 Posts
Exactly, they didn't write this proposition for the fun of it, there is an agenda here and being a Californian I think it's obvious what it is....
Enlighten me please.

Why do you think they are doing that if it has no effect, as you say?
To reduce the amount of Asian college students by 50%. If you have kids you plan on sending to a UC ( admissions scandals aside ).

You will have your opportunity to vote this November.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,670 Posts
.. As a means to end prop 209 aka affirmative action in regards to considering employment / education based on merit instead of race / sex.

I dont see a problem with reversing the anti-discrimination policy that discriminates against more qualified persons.
Apparently our comprehension of the implications are not on the same level.
Neither - that statement alone implies that you believe things will actually change or make any difference.

Discrimination has always been a part of the public / private sectors under the surface. We just invent excuses so its not called what it is.

I do not believe we need anti-discrimination or equal opportunity employment legal waivers.
...
To reduce the amount of Asian college students by 50%. If you have kids you plan on sending to a UC ( admissions scandals aside ).

You will have your opportunity to vote this November.
Why be so evasive- you’re talking in circles. First you say it won’t do anything, and that we don't need anti-discrimination language, then you say it will reduce Asian students populations by 50%. Just the tone of that comment clearly implies that you actually do advocate for discrimination. Why all the dancing with the truth, why not just come out and say that you advocate for discrimination and are perfectly happy if they strike the anti-discrimination language from the state Constitution so that the state can pick and choose which races and genders it prefers to give special treatment to?

I also find it quite telling that you state there are currently "more qualified persons" that are being discriminated against. I presume you perceive their better qualifications to be based on their race or gender (providing it's not Asian) then. So again, why can't you just come out and say you advocate for selective discrimination, at the state's discretion?

I will definitely be voting in November, and I will be honest with myself about what the initiatives I'm voting for really mean and what their full implications are, without any selective blinders.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
282 Posts
Pretty sure my personal views are clear .. I already said that I do not have a problem with reversing anti-discrimination language from the state constitution. People are easily offended, so I attempt to tread lightly.

I have to be the bad guy because I want my Native American children to have the opportunity to attend a university - in competition with "other students" who have better grades and SAT scores.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Enlighten me please.
Well, seems simple to me, easier to discriminate against people. The phrase they eliminated is too easy for a lawyer to use against them, so, just get rid of it. Great large first step toward discrimination, right?

Funny how if you're white you can be discriminated against, AND it's just A OK to do so. Just another double standard of many...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,174 Posts
Pretty sure my personal views are clear .. I already said that I do not have a problem with reversing anti-discrimination language from the state constitution. People are easily offended, so I attempt to tread lightly.

I have to be the bad guy because I want my Native American children to have the opportunity to attend a university - in competition with "other students" who have better grades and SAT scores.
Ok got it now....
Well, your kids best sign up as gay or better yet transsexual too, this will help a lot.
 
681 - 700 of 778 Posts
Top