Compliance to "diversity" and "affirmative action" cost 4% of GDP each year.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by phenomena, Mar 6, 2011.

  1. <iframe src="" width="400" height="265" frameborder="0"></iframe><p><a href="">The Costs of Diversity feat. Richard Spencer</a> from <a href="">Western Youth</a> on <a href="">Vimeo</a>.</p>
  2. Wow using Neo Nazis and their arguments? In video the presenter only gave his opinions and made one of the weakest arguments that I have ever heard. Please tell me that you were making a joke in posting that utter nonsense.

    Some leftist could make an argument that diversity and affirmative action adds 10% to the GDP by keeping the prison population and welfare rates of blacks and hispanics lower than it would otherwise be. Just like the presenter in the video they would show graphs that would make their point and fail to make any sort of logic based arguments.

    The presenter seemed to end his discussion arguing that too many people are going to college. Good grief.

    Presentations like that seem okay to the KKK & Neo-Nazi crowd, because they have long since abandoned reason in favor of an all consuming hatred of blacks and hispanics.
  3. Phenom you are really starting to slip. Get some perspective bruh. The tea party will expunge itself of this type of behavior, count on it.
  4. This was a lecture at Vanderbilt University, with no "neo nazis" , klansmen, or any other boogey men present. The fact that you have to use ad hominem to challenge the premise is telling.

    You think you'd hear a leftist advocating diversity and AA on the basis of high prison populations? Diversity and AA don't apply to prison populations first of all, and second of all high prison budgets don't add to the GDP, they subtract from it, as they are an expense. Furthermore even if prisons did magically create wealth, which is a stupid assertion in and of itself, you'd NEVER hear a leftist advocating for prisons on those grounds. AA and diversity for prisons which are not nation expenses, but sources of revenue? WTF are you talking about? The expense of keeping a prisoner is higher than the expense of dolling out welfare benefits. Please tell me that you were making a joke by posting that utter nonsense.

    The presenter ended the discussion with the fact that printing diplomas and distributing them to people doesn't make them smarter or more capable. The declining academic standards don't magically get fixed because standards are lowered and more diplomas are printed.

    Naturally, you end your argument with yet another ad hominem attack, and have yet to refute the premise... All have done is some name calling. You don't like what he says, so you invoke the KKK/neo nazi "boogey man" imagery, when in fact it was an professor speaking at Vanderbilt University, with nothing which could be considered "hate" by any objective measure.

  5. How do you feel that I'm "slipping"? This wasn't a Tea Party gathering, so I don't see the relevence. I have worked for a Tea Party chapter and although each tea party organization is independent, this specific issue is never one I've heard raised. The tea party platform is largely economic, and this wasn't a tea party affiliate or tea party sponsored gathering. I'm confused as to what the tea party has to do with this, and what "this type of behavior" consists of?

  6. The argument of the thread was that Diversity and Affirmative Action cost 4% of GDP per year. At least that is the title of the thread. That speaker provided absolutely no proof of that claim and perhaps the weakest argument for that claim possible. Look he may be right, but he sure as hell did not make a good logic based argument for that point. A lot of people have made very good arguments against diversity and affirmative action over the years, but his points were those of a fool.

    I said that leftist can argue that affirmative action and diversity programs add to GDP based on the fact that without them the prison population of blacks and hispanics would be higher and that it would detract from GDP more than 4%. That point could be that having more blacks and hispanics working and paying taxes is better than having more of them on welfare rolls and taking up space in prison. As you stated GDP is negatively effected by higher prison populations, therefore policies designed to reduce those populations would seemingly add to GDP.

    One does not have to invoke Neo Nazi and KKK boogey men when the people making their arguments are staring you in the face. You need to review the video yourself...maybe a few times so that you can appreciate the very dark and foolish path that he is trying to take you down. For the committed racist crowd he is not required to make any logical sense or provide any credible facts...all he needs is a conclusion...too many minorities are getting ahead. Too many are getting college degrees.

    I was looking forward to you countering my arguments with some facts or some logical points that AA programs and diversity were negatively effecting GDP. Instead you missed my point about the leftist arguments regarding increased prison populations and welfare rolls being an effect of less minorities in college and the professional workforce. You also spent time arguing that I was bringing up the Nazi and KKK bogey man when it was clearly that fool in the video.
  7. I have seen you make posts indicating that blacks are "different". Different how phenom, plz spell this out. Now, you are here with the claim that Affirmative Action costs too much. What I think you are implying is the same argument used when it was believed that blacks could not QB in the NFL. They make better recievers because they are "different".

    Now, the attack on affirmation action. It is beginning to look like you have an axe.

    As far as "type of behavior" this smells of thinly veiled racism. As the Tea Party grows and coalesces into an actual party, it will be necessary to define a social platform. What do you think that platform should be phenom?
  8. Precisely what posts are you talking about?

    Are blacks different? Of course they are different. Blacks are different from latinos who are different from asians who are different from indians who are different from whites.

    I can identify a black person as distinctive from a white person 99.xx% of the time visually. We can identify a black person genetically with virtually 100% certainty. Blacks, like some other ethnic groups, have diseases and genetic disorders, like sickle cell, which rarely, if ever, occur outside of the black gene pool. There are several other objective criteria which make blacks "different" or distinctive, both visually and biologically. Same for pretty much all the other races, not just blacks.

    Why is it you single out blacks? You seem particularly defensive about that one group. Why?

    I don't know what argument you are talking about regarding the NFL. The only sport I watch is UFC. I don't know how any QB/NFL argument could be analagous to the anti affirmative action argument, but I'm willing to hear your explaination. However, the argument is not only that AA costs too much, but that it's systemic anti white discrimination; and that's true by any objective criteria.

    Damn right I have an ax. I have an ax agaist anti white discrimination, particularly if it's sponsored by the goverment!!

    My "behavior" (and you have yet to specify what this consists of) smells of "thinly vieled racism"? LOL! How's that? If I'm opposed to anti white discrimination, and the spending of billions of public funds on it, then that makes me "racist"? GTFO!

    Let's get this straight. If you take issue with racism in the name of anti racism... if you are in favor of NO racial discrimination, if you want the job to go to the most qualified, or the college admission to go the the best student REGARDLESS of race, then you are the racist? Gtfo.

    Yet, if you are in favor of anti white discrimination and policies which discriminate against whites in the favor of nonwhites, and use public funds to do so, only then are you NOT a "racist". Hmmm, starting to sounds like all these "anti racist" measures would be better described as anti white... In fact to any honest observer, it's hard to reach any other conclusion.

    Now, we live in a naiton which more jobs, easier admissions to university, and a plethora of public funds and government programs are available to people precisely because of their skin color. That is precisely the deffinition of racism, and is anything but equality. "not by the color of her skin, but by the content of her character"... that IS what it was about right?? There is nothing equal about the racial double standards. It's perfectly fine for any black or latino group to gather. It's perfectly legitimate for blacks or latinos to have group interests and organize as a group. Yet the mere suggestion of whites organizing as whites, and persuing white group interests is somehow unthinkably wicked. We can have "wise latinas" and black congressional caucuses, la raza ("the race") and NAACP, but the mere notion of a white organization is somehow the ultimate moral depravity... But they tell me that's "equality".

    I'm being respectful enough to answer all of your questions directly. I notice that you have neglected to answer mine, or respond to all of my points. I hope you'll be fair enough to correct that...

    Finally, the tea party as of yet has no intention to coalesce into an actual party. What do I think the platform should consist of? That could go on forever, but for the sake of brevity; limited goverment, decreasing the current size and scope of internal government, border security, fiscal responsibility. Race does not and will not have any part of the tea party platform. As far as I'm concerned, any one with any racial view or no racial views could participate, so long as they have a belief in freedom and limited government. Race and racial views are irrelevant to the tea party, and they should continue to be. Maybe one day they will also be irrelevant to our government.... I have a dream....

  9. Good job! You have critisized an argument by using the classic boogey man terms like "klansmen" and and "skin heads" while failing to even address, much less refute the premise.

    You have said it's a poor argument, yet you can't even address it, much less refute it... I guess you already knew... LOL!!!


    Way to go....

  10. Damn right I have an ax. I have an ax agaist anti white discrimination, particularly if it's sponsored by the goverment!!

    So, white people are discriminating against.......themselves?? Who controls in terms of absolute votes in a racial breakdown?? It aint even close.....

    Are u serious phenom, really?

    As far as your other questions that I failed to address, I want to be fair, and balanced, so you ask one, and I will address one. If you notice my posts are rarely lengthy. But if you ask one, maybe my differences will allow me to focus and address one.

    Go for it.
    #10     Mar 7, 2011