It's only a minority of Muslims right ?

[jimmyd41]

So talking about changing race/religious demographics in the place you were born in is a "red herring" yet pontificating on the same issues in your adopted home is grand..... btw are you a permanent resident or are you US citizen ?

Regardless of the history between protestant/catholic the ethnic cleansing of protestants from the south and, especially in Donegal, is a shameful episode in Irish history and it is something that gets swept under the carpet. Not only did you fail to acknowledge how shameful it was you couldn't resist getting a dig in about them "having much of the better farmland". I sense there is plenty of homegrown bigotry underneath that liberal veneer of yours.

Getting on a plane is like confession for lads like you. It seems to absolve you of all race/religious guilt leaving you free to preach to the nasty, white racists in 'murica.

[jimmyd41]

Speaking of diversity, the NACB must be the whitest sporting organization in America. We used to play soccer with a bunch of lads of different backgrounds e.g Hispanic, east European. We convinced a few of them to play GAA. One of the Honduran lads described finals as "the clan at play"  It was a joke of course and we all took it in good humour but with the extreme whiteness on view, all the celtic crosses etc it was hard not to see how it might look like to someone like him. 

Irish people are extremely cliquey yet we seem to produce some of the most strident, insistent voices for "diversity for others  (but not for us)" that I know of. It is a very peculiar national trait.

[J70]

So talking about changing race/religious demographics in the place you were born in is a "red herring" yet pontificating on the same issues in your adopted home is grand..... btw are you a permanent resident or are you US citizen ?

Er yes... talking about something that happened almost a hundred years ago, which has zero relevance to the topic at hand, and implying that it has some relevance to my opinion on the topic at hand, is a complete red herring.

But feel free to tell us how the ethnic cleansing, supposedly by my ancestors, in parts of Ireland post-partition has any relevance to my opinions on the imagined persecution of white people in America today and the real legacy that minorities in America have to contend with.

Regardless of the history between protestant/catholic the ethnic cleansing of protestants from the south and, especially in Donegal, is a shameful episode in Irish history and it is something that gets swept under the carpet. Not only did you fail to acknowledge how shameful it was you couldn't resist getting a dig in about them "having much of the better farmland". I sense there is plenty of homegrown bigotry underneath that liberal veneer of yours.

It was a tongue in cheek response to an idiotic ad hominem attack (like I said, what the f**k have anything my ancestors did or did not do got to do with this discussion?). I don't personally give a bollocks. And I've never heard anyone else complain either. Simply a legacy of history, and even if some stuck-in-the-past moron did/does care, given modern agricultural technology, it would not be a big deal today.

And yeah, ethnic cleansing was and is shameful, wherever and whenever it has or does occur. Something that hardly needs saying. Or maybe it does when the psychology minors are about, "cleverly" reading between the lines...

Getting on a plane is like confession for lads like you. It seems to absolve you of all race/religious guilt leaving you free to preach to the nasty, white racists in 'murica.

I don't have any religious guilt. Why would I?

As for race, I'm well aware of my privileged position as a white male in the US. Its a shame the GOP can't acknowledge white privilege, but that would pretty much alienate the base they've been cultivating for years with the politics of white resentment.

As for preaching, you're fairly presumptuous and full of shit yourself, coming on here in your fourth and fifth post and telling us what we apparently really think and feel.

[jimmyd41]

Relax. You seem a bit stressed.

It is a common reaction amongst virtue signallers that they overreact when anyone questions their own virtue. Also an ad hominem attack is directed at a person rather than a position. If you keep making highly partisan attacks on certain issues then you blur this distinction so your charge is disingenuous. Ann Coulter is a case in point.

You need to learn a little humility. Instead of constantly sneering at your political enemies you should really try to understand their position.

It's also interesting that you mention white privilege as it gets to the heart of the matter. Can you give a concrete example of when you personally had to give up some of this white privilege that you speak of ? It is meaningless to simply talk about white privilege and get all high and mighty about it unless you consciously, deliberately give it up.

My guess is you are college educated and that education has enabled you to lead a comfortable middle class life in the US. The truth is that when people talk about checking white privilege it means the working/lower middle class having their white privilege forcibly checked. It has minimal impact on our "class".

Like you I am aware of my white privilege but I don't feel any need to give it up or insist that others do so.

[J70]

Relax. You seem a bit stressed.

It is a common reaction amongst virtue signallers that they overreact when anyone questions their own virtue. Also an ad hominem attack is directed at a person rather than a position. If you keep making highly partisan attacks on certain issues then you blur this distinction so your charge is disingenuous. Ann Coulter is a case in point.

You need to learn a little humility. Instead of constantly sneering at your political enemies you should really try to understand their position.

It's also interesting that you mention white privilege as it gets to the heart of the matter. Can you give a concrete example of when you personally had to give up some of this white privilege that you speak of ? It is meaningless to simply talk about white privilege and get all high and mighty about it unless you consciously, deliberately give it up.

My guess is you are college educated and that education has enabled you to lead a comfortable middle class life in the US. The truth is that when people talk about checking white privilege it means the working/lower middle class having their white privilege forcibly checked. It has minimal impact on our "class".

Like you I am aware of my white privilege but I don't feel any need to give it up or insist that others do so.

Instead of addressing the points I made, you went off on a tangent questioning my right to even make those points, based on some speculated role my ancestors played in the expulsion of protestants from Donegal back in the 20s.

That's a pretty clear-cut example of an ad hominem attack in anyone's book. You attacked the person, not the argument.

And spare me the humility bullshit. Seriously. You've been here two days and you're already arrogantly attacking and making pronouncements about people you know nothing about.

As for sneering, well, some things deserve it. Not every opinion is worthy of respect. If you want to mount a defense of the crazier elements of the GOP platform and agenda, go for it.

Your white privilege bit doesn't make any sense. How can you say that someone can talk about ONLY if they've had to give it up? If I lost out on a job due to an affirmative action decision (and I have), what does that prove? The evidence lies in the differing everyday experiences and outcomes of people who are and are not white. Not on some single event in the life of a white person.

[jimmyd41]

Your white privilege bit doesn't make any sense. How can you say that someone can talk about ONLY if they've had to give it up? If I lost out on a job due to an affirmative action decision (and I have), what does that prove?

What it "proves" depends on how you react to it. The appropriate reaction is to be outraged that you were discriminated on the basis if your skin colour. That, however, is not your reaction. You positively welcome it with masochistic glee....as if you have "done your bit" for diversity.

I have worked in tech for 20 years and for a good share of that I was in charge of hiring. We were explicitly told to hire "diversity" candidates. Not only that but I never even received resumes from white candidates when I was in a bay area position. They are simply filtered out. It is quite outrageous what is going on.
 

[J70]

Your white privilege bit doesn't make any sense. How can you say that someone can talk about ONLY if they've had to give it up? If I lost out on a job due to an affirmative action decision (and I have), what does that prove?

What it "proves" depends on how you react to it. The appropriate reaction is to be outraged that you were discriminated on the basis if your skin colour. That, however, is not your reaction. You positively welcome it with masochistic glee....as if you have "done your bit" for diversity.

I have worked in tech for 20 years and for a good share of that I was in charge of hiring. We were explicitly told to hire "diversity" candidates. Not only that but I never even received resumes from white candidates when I was in a bay area position. They are simply filtered out. It is quite outrageous what is going on.

"Masochistic  glee"??

Well jaysus, thanks for, once again, telling me what I felt and thought when I made no comment whatsoever on my reaction.

As for the rest, one anecdote does not prove anything. No one said an individual company couldn't go too far the other way.

Is there any evidence that, overall, white men are suffering due to affirmative action policies? Is the "Lakisha-Jamal" study no longer valid?

[foxcommander]

Your white privilege bit doesn't make any sense. How can you say that someone can talk about ONLY if they've had to give it up? If I lost out on a job due to an affirmative action decision (and I have), what does that prove?

What it "proves" depends on how you react to it. The appropriate reaction is to be outraged that you were discriminated on the basis if your skin colour. That, however, is not your reaction. You positively welcome it with masochistic glee....as if you have "done your bit" for diversity.

I have worked in tech for 20 years and for a good share of that I was in charge of hiring. We were explicitly told to hire "diversity" candidates. Not only that but I never even received resumes from white candidates when I was in a bay area position. They are simply filtered out. It is quite outrageous what is going on.

"Masochistic  glee"??

Well jaysus, thanks for, once again, telling me what I felt and thought when I made no comment whatsoever on my reaction.

As for the rest, one anecdote does not prove anything. No one said an individual company couldn't go too far the other way.

Is there any evidence that, overall, white men are suffering due to affirmative action policies? Is the "Lakisha-Jamal" study no longer valid?

J70 - just a question
If the future of your family depended on getting this one job that was available would you be as supportive of "affirmitive" discrimination?

[J70]

Well, it was very important at the time.

And even if I did personally resent the outcome, that does not make the affirmative action programme wrong.

How many times did someone look more favourably on my application because I'm white, and not some black kid called T'Shawn from a troubled part of the city?

We all complain or curse the rules and regs when it's personally inconvenient. Doesn't mean they're not important and for the greater good.

Was the policy in NI post-1998 to increase the proportion of catholics in the police wrong?

[foxcommander]

Well, it was very important at the time.

And even if I did personally resent the outcome, that does not make the affirmative action programme wrong.

How many times did someone look more favourably on my application because I'm white, and not some black kid called T'Shawn from a troubled part of the city?

We all complain or curse the rules and regs when it's personally inconvenient. Doesn't mean they're not important and for the greater good.

Was the policy in NI post-1998 to increase the proportion of catholics in the police wrong?

Was that an answer to my question?

[J70]

Well, it was very important at the time.

And even if I did personally resent the outcome, that does not make the affirmative action programme wrong.

How many times did someone look more favourably on my application because I'm white, and not some black kid called T'Shawn from a troubled part of the city?

We all complain or curse the rules and regs when it's personally inconvenient. Doesn't mean they're not important and for the greater good.

Was the policy in NI post-1998 to increase the proportion of catholics in the police wrong?

Was that an answer to my question?

Yes.

But if you want a simple direct answer, that would be "yes" too.

Like I said, when it did happen, I missed out on a major opportunity, a career changing one, even if I didn't have a family at the time.

And the question reminds me of someone asking me, when one of my parents had died, if I was questioning my atheism in light of what had happened. And my answer was "no". While it would be nice if dead family and friends would pass on to a better or even another existence, that didn't change the facts. Same goes for this. Personal inconvenience is irrelevant.

[foxcommander]

Was that an answer to my question?

Yes.

But if you want a simple direct answer, that would be "yes" too.

Like I said, when it did happen, I missed out on a major opportunity, a career changing one, even if I didn't have a family at the time.

And the question reminds me of someone asking me, when one of my parents had died, if I was questioning my atheism in light of what had happened. And my answer was "no". While it would be nice if dead family and friends would pass on to a better or even another existence, that didn't change the facts. Same goes for this. Personal inconvenience is irrelevant.

Wow - you'd be happy to support a policy that discriminates even if it means you'll go under and your family hit skid row.

If this wasn't a theoretical question I doubt you'd give that answer.

[J70]

Was that an answer to my question?

Yes.

But if you want a simple direct answer, that would be "yes" too.

Like I said, when it did happen, I missed out on a major opportunity, a career changing one, even if I didn't have a family at the time.

And the question reminds me of someone asking me, when one of my parents had died, if I was questioning my atheism in light of what had happened. And my answer was "no". While it would be nice if dead family and friends would pass on to a better or even another existence, that didn't change the facts. Same goes for this. Personal inconvenience is irrelevant.

Wow - you'd be happy to support a policy that discriminates even if it means you'll go under and your family hit skid row.

If this wasn't a theoretical question I doubt you'd give that answer.

So I'd be on skid row because of one failed job application?

Get a grip.

And don't presume to project your own feelings and opinions onto others.

Finally, discrimination is not automatically  wrong or immoral.

[J70]

What do you think should be done, Foxcommander, to address the issues affirmative action has tried to address? What about the kid who doesn't get a call back due to his "ghetto" name, while the identical cv with the white sounding name does? Is the policy to address the under-recruitment of catholics in the PSNI wrong?

[foxcommander]

Finally, discrimination is not automatically  wrong or immoral.

WHAT???

Did I just read that ?