Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MrRoboto75]

There aren't enough woman garbage truck operators and woman toilet scrubbers

We need affirmative action to solve this

[origamiscienceguy]

great segway into the wage gap.

[Pwnzerfaust]

There aren't enough woman garbage truck operators and woman toilet scrubbers

We need affirmative action to solve this

Yep, why no affirmative action to get more women into dirty, dangerous jobs which are 90%+ male? Why just the glamorous ones?

[Lord Shonus]

Nobody is denying that the US has a pretty shitty story in regards to racism,

TBF though, we were only ~30 years behind the British Empire...  Sorta?  It's actually really complicated.  Britain apparently abolished most slavery in 1834.  But a cursory look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
Shows that that was far from absolute, particularly looking at 1838 (apparently there was "forced apprenticeship".)  Which might have been a good idea, considering we did a similar thing but laissez-faire, which basically meant slaves largely became indebted workers.  There was a promise of some acres and a mule, but my impression is that it didn't pan out.

Sidenote, Firefox offered to correct "laissez-faire" into "bouillabaisse".  Dash and all.  Fucking hell.

Did Britain have to fight a war in order for it to end?

That is primarily because slavery was no longer particularly profitable in the regions the British ruled. In the British Empire, slave labor was almost entirely used for the production of tobacco in the North American colonies (cotton didn't become a profitable cash crop until well after the War of Independence) and sugar outside it. Once the North American colonies were lost and the sugar plantations collapsed (partially due to poor agriculture sapping the profit capacity of the land and partly to a massive spread of sugar farming to capitalize on the high profit margins which caused prices to plummet), the slaveowners were practically bankrupt. The fact that slavery was also confined almost entirely to the colonies and was fairly rare on the British Isles themselves also played a part.

For a shorter reason, Britain was able to abolish slavery easily because nobody was making much money off of it anymore.

[Loud Whispers]

Also the British Empire had industrialization, child labour, indentured serfs and such which rendered slavery obsolete; moreover it had an economic incentive to crush the international slave trade. For starters it had built up a powerful navy, the most powerful in the world - but the navy didn't have much to do since Napoleon's Empire was dead. So the Brits turned this navy into a police force shutting down the international slave trade. This attacked rival Empires that had slavery still a core particle of their economy; by attacking slavery, it would increase their dependence on British manufactured goods, increasing the influence and wealth of the British Empire whilst looking good doing it. Hence why
'Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves,' is followed immediately by 'Britons never never never shall be slaves'

All according to keikaku

[Strife26]

I got the impression he was just strawmanning me, Rolan, rather than referring to your earlier comment.

Yep, a shameless strawman. We need more edginess and strife.

(It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. )


All jokes aside, I was being hyperbolic to (poorly) prove my point. I need to get better at spelling an argument out instead of just making jokes and expecting people to think CORRECTLY to fill in the lines.

You can't seriously argue that AA is as harmful to white people as anti-black racism is to African Americans, unless you're a filthy racist bigot who should be EXCLUDED.

Shit, I shifted to sarcasm mid-sentence again. It was inevitable.

I wouldn't touch much here with a ten and a half foot pole

[origamiscienceguy]

Also, I have been living my life not noticing or caring about race in any way, but now that I am in college, people tell me that "colorblindness" is a bad thing. I don't see why it is though, and they never explain.

[PTTG??]

There aren't enough woman garbage truck operators and woman toilet scrubbers

We need affirmative action to solve this

Yep, why no affirmative action to get more women into dirty, dangerous jobs which are 90%+ male? Why just the glamorous ones?

And here I thought red-pill idiots couldn't read. So are you commenting on "how stupid it is to let women into the military and fire departments" in annother tab right now, or were you planning on doing that later?

[Baffler]

There aren't enough woman garbage truck operators and woman toilet scrubbers

We need affirmative action to solve this

Yep, why no affirmative action to get more women into dirty, dangerous jobs which are 90%+ male? Why just the glamorous ones?

And here I thought red-pill idiots couldn't read. So are you commenting on "how stupid it is to let women into the military and fire departments" in annother tab right now, or were you planning on doing that later?

Nice strawman friend.

[Wolfhunter107]

There aren't enough woman garbage truck operators and woman toilet scrubbers

We need affirmative action to solve this

Yep, why no affirmative action to get more women into dirty, dangerous jobs which are 90%+ male? Why just the glamorous ones?

And here I thought red-pill idiots couldn't read. So are you commenting on "how stupid it is to let women into the military and fire departments" in annother tab right now, or were you planning on doing that later?

Firefighting and the Military are dirty and dangerous, but I'm not really sure that I'd call them unglamorous.

[wierd]

Toilet scrubbing seems fairly gender unbiased.

I see plenty of women scrubbing toilets.

There might be a reporting issue because of race there though. Anectdote is not data, but most of the women I have seen scrubbing toilets are latinas.

[Neonivek]

My research is a bit limited...

But it SEEMS to suggest that there is a serious problem with affirmative action... In that it SEEMS to be doing the opposite of what it is set out to do.

Maybe because affirmative action is for some reason legitimizing racism... giving a racism quota.

I have no idea. I need to do more research.

[hector13]

Well considering the entire point of AA is treating people differently based on race...

I'm not much of a proponent of it, at least of the "you must have x number of ethnic minorities in your group" variety.

[Neonivek]

Well considering the entire point of AA is treating people differently based on race...

I'm not much of a proponent of it, at least of the "you must have x number of ethnic minorities in your group" variety.

It is like a minimum wage for races, when you think about it.

So what happens when there is a minimum wage? Everyone uses it.

[wierd]

AA is a pragmatic solution.

"We acknowledge that racism happens, and that we cannot correct wrong thinking, but we can limit the damage done through penalty" kind of thinking.

The deal is when one conflates "limit damage done" with "stopping all damage"

One of those things is not like the other.

That is to say, AA does not stop racism. It mitigates some of the effects.

We cannot eliminate racism without going full thought police+soma.