/pol/ - Politically Incorrect

Loading...

[Return] [Go to Bottom] [Catalog]

File: 1592969926337.jpg (152.71 KB, 969x1200, 323:400, 1593332594387.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

 No.1373[D]

How much longer until it becomes legal to enslave White people in America?

https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/06/its-never-been-about-fairness/

 No.1392[D][DF]

Cool article, cool picture. It's certainly interesting to see legislative action like this play out. What a joke. To answer your question, I think slavery will come after assimilation/replacement. There's little bubbles of it now, like the whole "give 10 bucks to a nigger" thing in the CHAZ terrorist state. If slavery forms it will be in the form of reparations.

 No.1398[D][DF]

Why are you guys so upset? Don't you worry about reverse-racism, cuz you are certified niggers.
>https://nationalvanguard.org/2020/06/its-never-been-about-fairness/
>Source: Author
Read some fucking wikipedia please.


Anyway, your article seems upset about there being new policies which favor non-white males, to some extent disfavoring white males as a result.
But guess what? This shit ain't new at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action_in_the_United_States
Affirmative action used to refer to policies against discrimination, before shifting to policies supporting minorities in work/education.
Obviously if you favor minorities and women in a competitive environment you will disfavor white men. However, you should take in consideration the fact that perhaps because of cultural reasons white men might be favored beforehand, by growing up in a better environment or some shit. Maybe some dumbass parents would be more inclined to tell their girl not to go to a computer science university rather than their male kid. So affirmative action discrimination might act as a balancing force to cultural discrimination, with the end result ideally being equal opportunity regardless of your background.
But let's return to the idea that these policies are something new that niggers are pushing now that they are so many! These policies fucking aren't:
>In a 1973 court case, a federal judge created one of the first mandated quotas when he ruled that half of the Bridgeport, Connecticut Police Department's new employees must be either black or Puerto Rican
Huh? What's that? 20 years before the Proposition 209, and it is extremely racist towards right people. What about california?
>In 1978, the Supreme Court ruled in Regents of the University of California v. Bakke that public universities (and other government institutions) could not set specific numerical targets based on race for admissions or employment. The Court said that "goals" and "timetables" for diversity could be set instead
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_quota)
So affirmative action existed before the proposition, and actually the proposition stopped it!
It was actually opposed by some groups for this reason:
>The initiative was opposed by affirmative action advocates and traditional civil rights and feminist organizations on the left side of the political spectrum.
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_California_Proposition_209)


In other words, it was never a concession to black people, rather a ban on affirmative action which helped black people. The article makes it look the opposite.
Also, affirmative action IS a way to fight racism, and not "reverse-racism". Reverse-racism is found in bait articles made for people like you by nigger trolls.
However, I will agree that it's not that clear whether affirmative action is something good/fair. From the article on the proposition:
>Supporters of Proposition 209 contended that existing affirmative action programs led public employers and universities to reject applicants based on their race, and that Proposition 209 would "restore and reconfirm the historic intention of the 1964 Civil Rights Act." The basic and simple premise of Proposition 209 is that every individual has a right, and that right is not to be discriminated against, or granted a preference, based on their race or gender. Since the number of available positions are limited, discriminating against or giving unearned preference to a person based solely, or even partially on race or gender deprives qualified applicants of all races an equal opportunity to succeed. It also pits one group against another and perpetuates social tension.
Which sounds pretty fair. However don't forget that this doesn't consider the cultural background. Asian people have parents that value education, as such they are much better off in the competition for university positions. It's not the niggers' student fault his parents didn't put as much value in education as asian parents would've, is it? And yet he will be disadvantaged. I'm not saying that affirmative action is good, all I'm saying is that you should keep this inequality in mind. Kids don't choose where they are born, and they don't deserve a shittier future for it.
Here's the pov of the opposition:
>Opponents of Proposition 209 argued that it would end affirmative action practices of tutoring, mentoring, outreach and recruitment of women and minorities in California universities and businesses and would gut state and local protections against discrimination. Immediately after passage of Proposition 209, students held demonstrations and walk-outs in protest at several universities including UC Berkeley, UCLA, UC Santa Cruz, and San Francisco State University.

 No.1400[D][DF]

TL;DR
Affirmative action is helping niggas, chicks and latinos, for example making it easier for them to obtain places in universities (this as a result disfavors whitey)
The idea is that if you're a nigger, a bitch or a minorityfag you most likely have faced more difficulty/received less help (from parents for example) in going to university, and a slight system racism biased against white men (and ASIANS) is supposed to balance that, creating a more fair system (I understand this is not very intuitive)
Whether you believe affirmative action is moral or not, that article you posted IS DISINFORMATION. It presents the proposition 209 as a concession to black people, which it is not. Proposition 209 is practically a ban on affirmative action, so it is pretty much the opposite.
Plus the article only presents one side of the argument on affirmative action making it look like the first step to white slavery or some shit
It's a shit article to be fair. You should fact-check trash like that or even better not read it at all

 No.1403[D][DF]

>>1373
Regarding the protests, here's a quote which imo makes a point:
>How many peaceful protests have we seen? How many trending hashtags have we seen? People are tired. Now this [looting] is what people have to resort to
Also the police isn't behaving too well either:
>There have been numerous reports and videos of aggressive police actions using physical force including "batons, tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets on protesters, bystanders and journalists, often without warning or seemingly unprovoked."
Also, lol:
>Official social media accounts of police departments boosted positive images of collaboration.[119] In some cases, these displays of solidarity, such as police kneeling, have been recognized as occurring moments before police teargassed crowds or inflicted violence on them
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests
If there's something I can really dislike it's the killings that happened, but otherwise I think it's unfair to condemn the protest. Like sure, there are people who use the situation to enrich themselves, but isn't that true for any protest ever? What are you gonna propose, to never protest for anything because "someone might steal stuff during the protest"?
As for the violent part, it's already been answered by the quote

I do agree that twitter cancel culture is cancer culture. There are cases of people loosing everything with no evidence at all for their misconduct, because of manipulations of the twitter machine

 No.1409[D][DF]

OP has outed himself as a 4cohen shill
He has recently just made a thread on the same ID he's using on this thread called "racist jannies deleted my "whitoid" hate thread", in which he photographs his ban from 4chan. This was the thread in question:
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/265589699
The same image with the same filename has been posted 6 times in this past day alone:
https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/search/filename/%201593379124397/image/CeGhQtIeqLZVh8k4cZCi6A/
He is trying to frame 4chan as being "pro-white", but I'm not buying it. As we now know, 4chan's moderation has been a fed haven for well over a decade, but there seems to be a vatnik moderating the /int/ board of 4chan as a janitor. He is a known regular poster on its /balk/ general, posting under both Swiss and Israeli flags, has been caught deleting anti-Putin and pro-white threads, while keeping up and even helping jewish agitators keep up their "whitoid" spam, and other anti-white/pro-black memes, typically always using the same images and the same writing style. These memes almost always involve cuckoldry with miscegenation and are often homosexual in nature, all typical jewish fetishes, and typically promote fake shootings as real. He's also been caught promoting "yellow fever" and pro-Asian/white miscegenation all over /pol/ and /int/. Thus, it's very likely that the OP here is part of a shill team of some sorts, perhaps tied to him.
As such, I recommend posters here not to respond to OP (44f55ab)'s bait here. Report any of his posts containing negrophile attitudes as a means of disrupting meaningful conversation on this board.

 No.1411[D][DF]

>>1409
Just as another note, the vatnik has been alleged to have come from 2ch.hk (or "dvach" in Russian), which is an imageboard now owned by the Mail.RU Group, an IT conglomerate that also runs all other Russian social networks (similarly to how jewgle for all that matters runs 4chan, though indirectly), and has been thus alleged to have ties to the same group behind all other online jewtinists (which is to say, bots).
Though this isn't confirmed, I suspect the same group to have links to "trad-catholic" and faux-nationalist threads all over English imageboards.

 No.1414[D][DF]

>>1409
>>1411
>filename stalking
cringe

 No.1415[D][DF]

>>1414
He literally posted an image of the thread he was banned for, it was extremely easy to track all of his posts down whilst still having a positive identification on him.
>cringe
Is this another jewish shill buzzword? Cringe is a verb, yet for some reason a bunch of shills/detractors (seemingly this poster in particular) love to use it as an adjective.

 No.1417[D][DF]

what

 No.1424[D][DF]

>>1398
>However, you should take in consideration the fact that perhaps because of cultural reasons white men might be favored beforehand, by growing up in a better environment or some shit. Maybe some dumbass parents would be more inclined to tell their girl not to go to a computer science university rather than their male kid. So affirmative action discrimination might act as a balancing force to cultural discrimination, with the end result ideally being equal opportunity regardless of your background.

This is the bullshit argument that I heard from every girls-club recruitment team while looking for work out of college. The real "cultural discrimination" comes from the fact that this narrow-headed misconception has become so common among corporate rubes that do hiring, as well as being reinforced by the media.
It's a subjective thing that allows those who hate white males for no good reason to validate that hate.

 No.1425[D][DF]

File: 82b2843353c1dfefeba5773b95….png (380.67 KB, 693x983, 693:983, 1593539767193.png) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>1400
"Whitey" as you call him, is almost equally disfavored by university enrollment to blacks and spics. Again, you're upchucking a common misconception.

 No.1426[D][DF]

>>1425
Whether he's genuine or not, he's certainly another "how do you do, fellow white people?" poster that ignores how jews are considered "white" in the entire American system as it fits his purpose, and says that the abolition of affirmative action is "systematic racism" when if anything, it just makes jews even more set-out for university enrollment.

 No.1427[D][DF]

>>1426
Many white people on the left come from money. They have their comforts and they are a bit out of touch, so it's easy for them to hand-wave discrimination against whites. "What's the big deal? I have my job security and my creature comforts. What's wrong with giving minorities a fair shot at them too."

These people tend to overlook the fact that almost all middle states lean red because low-income, blue collar white people are the most vilified and marginalized demographic in America. They never fully bounced out of the Depression like the people living in cities on the coasts.

 No.1429[D][DF]

>>1427
>left
>red
*judeo-left and judeo-right.
It's possible that a large amount of "leftist self-hating whites" in the cities (not just coastal ones, since inland cities in the southwest and midwest pretty obviously harbour leftist anti-white sentimen) are themselves part-jewish, it's alleged that around 20 million "non-jewish white" Americans have some jewish ancestry, though otherwise the USA seems similar to Sweden when it comes to its marginalised white population.

 No.1430[D][DF]

>>1428
I realize that. And I realize it's just a smoke screen. I believe that Trump was put in the White House to put the minds of blue-collar middle-America at ease without actually solving any of their problems. He, himself, is Israel's bitch and his wall isn't accomplishing shit.
Most illegal immigrants from the south come in through underground tunnels. The FBI, INS and DEA are all aware of these tunnels but they place their border patrol above ground and sent these useless remote-control robots underground.
Corporations (especially in the agriculture industry) need these illegal immigrants for cheap tax-free labor and it's obvious the federal government is going along with it. For all the criticism the INS gets, America is still one of the easiest western countries to sneak into illegally.

 No.1432[D][DF]

>>1430
Alright, so you seem legitimate. Just keep in mind that Trump himself is 1/4th jewish (hence why he, or his family rather, made it out in New York to begin with), so by being a slave to Israel, having a jewish stepson, and actively supporting the "legal immigration" of mestizo and other immigrants alike into places such as the midwest, he's just helping his racial brethren.
Can you express your thoughts on this thread (or have you already)? >>1010

 No.1433[D][DF]

>>1432
I think it goes even deeper than that. I think this shit-flinging match between Trump and the media is a way to placate both sides. As long as Trump stays in office, the conservatives on one side will feel that the federal government it making an effort to stop illegal immigration. And, as long as this sensationalized rhetoric of "Trump is oppressing the immigrants" maintains momentum, the longer that liberals will focus on more lax border security as the solution to their humanitarian crisis. This keeps the left from looking too much at the other option. The option that (especially since the CIA deserves a lot of blame for the shitty state that Central American countries are currently in) the federal government out to send some substantial aide to Latin America. Focusing on this option would also draw unwanted attention to the $38 billion America gives to Israel a year, that they certainly do not need.

Give me a while to read that other thread and I'll post there.

 No.1434[D][DF]

>>1433
>I think this shit-flinging match between Trump and the media is a way to placate both sides.
I more-or-less agree with this, judeo-left "attacks" the judeo-right and people from both camps think there are men on their side. Presidents are obviously figureheads either servile to or in cahoots with the jewish community.

 No.1435[D][DF]

>>1434
So, I skimmed that other thread and I'd say it is basically what I am saying but with a very defeatist tone. Hispanic people, especially, are breeding like rabbits and it's easy to feel you're just bringing children into a world where they will be outnumbered and marginalized. But a real economic implosion is gearing up that will come with a realistic chance that the NWO will abandon large parts of the US. This may come when we are old men or after we are dead, but shoring up white numbers now means the difference between a fighting chance to rebuild and being swallowed by the anarchy. Because, without corporate baby-sitting, spics whither and die.

We live in the shadows of WW1 and WW2. And while things look bleak now, power will shift over time as it always does. The current wealthy elites are the crypto-Jews that European leaders feared for the future. But in the same vain, those very European rulers were the barbarian warlords that Romans feared for the future.

 No.1436[D][DF]

>>1435
Hell, i can say with accuracy that even hispanic people hate other hispanic people with a firey passion. some move away just to be free from their own people, quite sad.

 No.1437[D][DF]

>>1436
Not so, we just like poking fun at each, we are like brothers, sometimes we beat the shit out of each other, and sometimes we help each other to defeat common enemies, especially in these interweb ages

 No.1438[D][DF]

>>1436
It depends. Hispanic people deliberately enclave themselves because Hispanic countries are very ethnocentric. It's a strength and a weakness because, while it gives them a sense of unity, it prevents them from climbing any kind of social ladder within America, even with all the government aide.

As an anecdote, I grew up in Jackson Heights, Queens. It was a very Puerto Rican neighborhood and we had to put up with hostility. Spic shouting "gringo" at as as we passed and blasting music at us at 3am on school nights, deliberately trying to force us out.

Now, Jackson Heights is becoming Korean and Puerto Ricans can't match their numbers. So Puerto Ricans are gradually leaving in waves and cramming into shrinking and increasingly squalid hispanic neighborhoods. Meanwhile, whites are moving back in because the Koreans are more tolerant and keep to themselves, just like whites. Spics really represent that self-defeating xenophobia that they try hard to project onto whites.

 No.1439[D][DF]

>>1435
>But a real economic implosion is gearing up that will come with a realistic chance that the NWO will abandon large parts of the US. This may come when we are old men or after we are dead, but shoring up white numbers now means the difference between a fighting chance to rebuild and being swallowed by the anarchy. Because, without corporate baby-sitting, spics whither and die.
It's possible that the complete demolition of the US is coming far sooner than that, the jews know this, and are in on its destruction, moving their property to China and other nations.
>The current wealthy elites are the crypto-Jews that European leaders feared for the future. But in the same vain, those very European rulers were the barbarian warlords that Romans feared for the future.
But the jews have been a privileged class in some periods in Rome (though not all Romans were pro-jewish of course, most of them weren't; this applies mostly to the period leading up to its collapse, but also to the very beginning of Roman rule in Egypt), as well as for a large part of the rule of those "European rulers" with some exceptions. The jews were the only group allowed to charge interest in most of western Europe as the church barred anyone within it from doing so, and the jews barred jews from doing so to each other, and Charlemagne even gave them a kingdom in Septimania, where they vehemently oppressed the remnants of the Goths living there, leading them to be called "Cagots". The jews didn't seize power in recent years, they've constantly fought whites and have infiltrated families for millennia.
>>1436
I really don't like using the term "Hispanic" since it applies not just to Mestizos (mixed Indian/white people, often with some African/jewish blood), but more accurately (as by definition, it refers to "Hispania" or Spain) to Spaniards and other white Spanish-speaking people (including some Mexicans). It'd be like if white Latin Americans called mongrelised Americans or Canadians "Ingles", despite their low-amount of real Anglo-Saxon ancestry.

 No.1440[D][DF]

>>1439
I'm aware of Jewish history in Europe. Charlemagne is from the very early days of medieval Europe and many kingdoms from his former empire banned Jews later on. It was Italy and the Slav lands that really allowed Jews to thrive with their usury throughout the later Middle Ages and zionists had infiltrated politics in a big way [probably as early as the 1400's. On the other hand, many poor and rural Jews broke off from Orthodxy and migrated west because the corrupt zionists weren't doing much good for them either.

As for Jews in Rome, I know the Herodians were half-Jews who allowed more Greco-Roman cultural influence to taint Judea than the other way around. As for late antiquity, I'm not as well versed.

Anyway, my grandparents immigrated from Southern Italy, so we always viewed Spaniards as invaders, both in Europe and in the Americas.

 No.1442[D][DF]

>>1440
>I'm aware of Jewish history in Europe. Charlemagne is from the very early days of medieval Europe and many kingdoms from his former empire banned Jews later on.
Not really. Take France for example, there were kings that "expelled" the jews, and then once they died, they were immediately let back in,
Technically it was England and Germany too, even Spain's colonial empire had a lot of jewish influence. If we were to count crypto-jews, jewish influence should be even higher in places like Spain and Italy. As for Germany in particular however, the Ashkenazi jews originate in the Rhineland (they were documented in the city council of Cologne in 324 with the Edict of Constantine, the Khazar hypothesis is likely a dis-info campaign that was literally created by jews, likely to weaken anti-jewish sentiment), and they continued speaking yiddish for centuries (even outside of Germany), which is a bad judaised form of German. The jews were known to have influenced Austria especially, even after the black death where most German peasants rose up against the jews.
>As for Jews in Rome, I know the Herodians were half-Jews who allowed more Greco-Roman cultural influence to taint Judea than the other way around.
Those were puppet-rulers brought up in Judea that still had a large jewish-nationalist agenda though gave into Hellenising campaigns to satisfy Roman demands, despite certain jewish sects opposing him (mostly over trivial issues that didn't matter, and often opposing each other), which led to a Roman consolidation of Judea and an eventual sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD. I'm talking about the jews in Roman Egypt, the jew "Alexander the Alabarch", half-brother of another famous jew Philo actually owned most wealth in Alexandria, which was one of the largest cities in the world at the time;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_the_Alabarch
>Alexander's family lived in Alexandria, Egypt. Although nothing is known about Alexander's parents, they must have been noble and wealthy, because Josephus reports that Alexander "surpassed all his fellow citizens both in ancestry and in wealth." (Antiquities 20.100). Philo was Alexander's older brother.
>It is possible that either Alexander's father or paternal grandfather was granted Roman citizenship by the Roman dictator Julius Caesar.[3] His ancestors and family had social ties and connections to the priesthood in Judea, the Hasmonean dynasty, the Herodian Dynasty, and the Julio-Claudian dynasty in Rome.[citation needed]
>As an indication of Alexander’s great wealth, he had nine gates at the Second Temple in Jerusalem "overlaid with massive plates of silver and gold." (War, 5.205)[7]
Thus, the jews were clearly incredibly influential in Roman Egypt as well. It's also worth nothing that the jews were exempt from compulsory military service.
>As for late antiquity, I'm not as well versed.
Pretty easy to see jewish influence. The Codex Theodosianus was extensively philosemitic, issuing harsh punishments for men that insulted the jews, and even preventing any attacks on jews done in the name of Christianity. Some detractors may claim there were "anti-jewish" laws in the Codex, however those weren't even that extreme, and were quickly overturned by more pro-jewish laws at the end of it.

 No.1443[D][DF]

>>1440
Here's the Codex:
http://archive.vn/mKNUy
>"Any Jew who stones a Jewish convert to Christianity shall be burned, and no one is allowed to join Judaism. [Pharr also gives 339, but we give 315 because it is listed by Pharr as in the “fourth consulship” of Constantine.] "
(although this may seem anti-jewish, it actually protected the existence of the jewish race/subrace as it prohibited non-jews from becoming jews, while protecting racially jewish "converts")
>Jews are allowed to serve on municipal councils.
>Jewish priests shall be exempt from public service.
>Priests (Jewish priests) and synagogue rulers are exempt from public service.
>"The Jewish sect is protected by law. No regulation may be passed to ban Judaism, even in the name of Christianity."
>Jewish merchants may set their own prices.
>Persons who make disparaging remarks about the patriarch (Jewish leader) are subject to punishment.
>Jews are not to be insulted; governors are to be informed when such incidents occur.
>Jewish clergy are allowed to retain their own laws and rituals and are exempt from service as decurions.
>"Jewish synagogues may not be taken or burned indiscriminately. If such an incident does occur, they will be compensated. However, they may not build new synagogues, and existing ones may not be improved."
>Jews are protected from attacks by people acting in the name of Christianity. Jews still may not circumcise Christians.
Here's the Edict of Constantine, proving a jewish presence at the Decurionate of Cologne (proving that there has been a jewish presence in northwest Germany since 324 AD at the latest, and thus the "Rhineland hypothesis" of Ashkenazi jews' origin):
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/source/300-800-laws-jews.asp
>C.T., 16.8 .3; to the Officials at Cologne, I I xii .321.
>With certain exceptions Jews are to be called to the Decurionate.

 No.1444[D][DF]

File: mev-10192079.jpg (75.77 KB, 352x680, 44:85, 1593553475701.jpg) [Show in Hex Viewer] [Reverse Image search]

>>1441
I've read Josephus and, though he downplays Jewish influence in Rome, he doesn't deny it either. The hatred towards Herod among the Jews is evidence in his writing. He describes Herod as begging Octavian to allow him to be king and later describes him as ending his life crawling around like a dog as worms crawled out of his penis. The Herodians that followed were actually educated within Rome and, of course, their push for further autonomy ended with the sacking of Rome and full subjugation. So it's tough to say who had more influence over whom.

Herod gained special treatment, at least according to Josephus, because of the military service his father lent to Pompey in the conquest of Egypt (probably one reason Jewish influence was heightened down there). But then Pompey came along in the middle of the civil war mentioned in Maccabees and played two Jewish factions against each other.

 No.1454[D][DF]

>>1424
Firstly, my main point was that the article is shit. You know, affirmative action is indeed a dubious thing, but that article is unambiguously deceptive shit
Secondly, I believe that this idea that there is discrimination emerges from the fact that there are still fields were for example there is a 20:1 ratio between men and women. Is that really because women are dumb-asses? Or is it because women tend to prefer other fields? If so, why?
And you know I don't find it hard to suspect that it's partially a cultural thing. Maybe some girls don't take into consideration a career as a programmer because by default they think it's a "guy" thing to do
Also close minded people still exist, which could (depending on the location) be a disadvantage
What do you think about it?
>It's a subjective thing that allows those who hate white males for no good reason to validate that hate.
Don't you hate it when people discard your ideas saying stuff like "anybody against affirmative action is racist"? So please don't do it yourself
>>1425
In this context jews aren't considered a minority, but white. So affirmative action would hurt jews just as much as other white people. Regarding asians, I don't know how exactly affirmative action works but it hurts them too. They were the strongest opponents to the attempts to remove the Proposition 209. I guess it's because they are the majority in some colleges, or because as a minority they perform so well they would be harmed and not receive benefits from affirmative action
You see, this isn't just "anti-white" laws

 No.1455[D][DF]

>>1454
>In this context jews aren't considered a minority, but white. So affirmative action would hurt jews just as much as other white people.
But jews already (though unofficially) clearly have an advantage when it comes to university enrollment over both whites and blacks even with affirmative action, going by this chart: >>1425
Thus, via abolishing affirmative action, jews are simply favoured even more. Blue-collar whites are already disfavoured as they are, so even without affirmative action, they still occupy a grim place in society compared to the more favoured races.
Nevertheless, I feel that the abolition of affirmative action could be just a tool to keep the negroids more savage, by restricting education, already very low among blacks as it is.

 No.1456[D][DF]

>>1454
>Or is it because women tend to prefer other fields? If so, why?
They do. And the question isn't "why"? The question is "so what?" The fact that tech remains largely male despite the hiring advantage that women have now should be enough to make most reasonable people see that "closing the gender gap" is a flailing, sexist initiative. Furthermore, the assertion that gender gaps exist in STEM as a whole is a bold-faced lie. And this public misconception permeates all fields, including the ones where women dominate. And it gives women in those fields the power to harshly discriminate with impunity. Something I dealt with working in television and that other men deal with working in video games, customer service, fashion, office administration, to name just a few.

 No.1457[D][DF]

>>1454
>Don't you hate it when people discard your ideas saying stuff like "anybody against affirmative action is racist"? So please don't do it yourself
I haven't discarded your opinion. I've experienced the direct consequences of this opinion, starved through one 8-month period of unemployment and on 12-month period of unemployment. In that time, I've had plenty opportunity to mull over that opinion and assess it as ignorant garbage with confidence.
See above my comment that, when you are privileged, it is easy to wave away discrimination against white men.

 No.1459[D][DF]

>>1455
Oh I see
>>1456
>fact that tech remains largely male despite the hiring advantage that women have now should be enough to make most reasonable people see that "closing the gender gap" is a flailing, sexist initiative
I don't think it's supposed to have a big immediate effect
Anyway I think you might have a point. However I feel like we should look at specific examples at this point
I agree that something based on these principles can be abused, and I'm sorry that it has affected you
>>1457
I'm a white man and the only affirmative action I've seen in my life was a team math olympics girls only competition (in addition to the mixed one) and I've heard of girls only cs-related conferences
I personally saw it as an attempt to bring more girls in the field and nothing else. It didn't give girls in the field "power to harshly discriminate with impunity"
But I don't exclude that could happen. However it's unfair to say that it's always like that
I don't know maybe in my country it's not as bad, or maybe I just haven't seen much yet

 No.1461[D][DF]

>>1459
Without doing searches for hours on google, the only examples I can give would have to be anecdotal. This is about 8 years ago now. But I can tell you television in the bigger American cities is broken into three industries: pre-production, production, and post-production.

Pre-production, obviously, is where all the money moves. It involves organization of both the production (actual on-location or in-studio filming) and post (editing and distribution). Pre-production is handled by "pre-production" houses, which are primarily staffed by females and openly brag about this fact. The production process is put together entirely with freelance work, but this is where all the skill is involved, so it is mostly male. Post is the only industry where you see an even mix of male and female.

Now, within pre-production, there is a serious problem of producers deliberately only hiring women in order to "make a difference" as they put it. They hire women straight out of school with generic communications degrees even when men with actual practical experience are applying. Below the producers (who act as managers) are what they call "associate producers" who are meant to go on location and oversee the actual production process. Yet (and this is not an exaggeration) they are so utterly incompetent that they have begun hiring freelance "production managers" to do their jobs for them as they play on facebook on their macbooks throughout the entire process.

In case you were wondering why television has been getting worse and worse, that's your main reason.


[Reply to this Thread]
[Return] [Go to top] [Catalog]
[Post a Reply]