Peacock

If you don't beat up strangers your odds of getting shot go down.

KSwift76

If you don't follow strangers, your odds of getting beat up go down too.

tyler durden

Hopefully this will help answer your question:

In a motion filed with Senior U.S. District Court Judge Hubert F. Will, the EEOC charged that United failed to hire minority and female pilots at twice the percentage of qualified applicants, as it had agreed to do in 1976.

An EEOC spokesman said that if 10 percent of pilot applicants in a given year were women, United had agreed that 20 percent of the applicants hired would be women.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1988-09-13/business/8801300011_1_entry-level-pilots-pilot-applicants-minorities

A United spokesman, Joe Hopkins, said in 1987 that the company had begun complying with the requirements of the court decree in that year, and had been hampered before that by intense demand among all airlines for minority and women pilots.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-05-20/business/9405200384_1_entry-level-pilots-women-pilots-united-airlines

Not sure how I can make it any clearer but I'll try. If you were in a pool of candidates, would you want to be in the "average" pile that represents the 95% white male or would you want to be in the 5% 'special' (privileged?) pile that, by law, MUST get hired at twice the rate of their white male counterparts?

You don't believe this to be unfair? How bout illegal? Unethical? Racist/sexist? Why should KSwift, an African-American brought up in a successful household with educated parents be accorded legally enhanced status over an under privileged white male...because of the color of his skin? I believe there is a name for that behavior.

What about white females? Aren't they equally likely to come from a "privileged" household then their white male counterparts?

If, as you claim, they are just as qualified as their white male counterparts, why does the law stipulate they are hired at twice the rate? Why the special scholarships, internships, quotas?

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex

Peacock

One of those things is against the law

KSwift76

Doesn't make it right. If I thought hard enough I'm sure I could name several things that are legal but not right...like shredding a company's pension plan in bankruptcy then leaving with millions of dollars. Not illegal, but also not right. Curious how you would react if I were following your son around and questioning him? I suspect you would not be thrilled.

Peacock

I think Zimmerman is a creep. I think it was tragic. It was also the correct result legally. Don't attack people.

deadseal

Ummm whites have a crap ton more wealth than blacks.....how is that not true? Please explain precisely


And they are not history at all, in the slightest, in the least bit.....
Your parents would have been segregated from whites, that is one generation
Why don't you ask 70 year old southern black folk if those issues are gone.
Your childish inability to separate your feelings from facts are quite entertaining

KSwift76

Legal or not, how do you think it would have played out had the situation been reversed. You think there would have been been an acquittal? I don't. Which speaks to how we are perceived differently based purely on how we look which speaks to all of the examples I have tried to illustrate in this thread. You're right. It is tragic.

Floobs

He went home and came back out looking for him and once he found him he assaulted him. It is pretty clear it was 100% justified and probably should have never gone to court.

Probably would have gotten zero press, much like the police shootings of white people you never ever hear about despite the fact that they are killed more than everyone else combined.

Peacock

If it was reversed it would have been a story about a black kid killing a Hispanic dude, even though he was named Zimmerman. Do not pass go, do not collect white privilege.