Author Topic: Hell, I'll bet this guy has gotta be black.... (Read 3464 times)

midnight Target · « **Reply #90 on:** May 12, 2003, 07:34:53 PM »

You should be proud of the fact that you are passionate about things GRUN. Seriously! Too many young people just don't give a crap. At least you have conviction, that is a very good thing.

Mini D · « **Reply #91 on:** May 12, 2003, 07:42:50 PM »

There you go grun. Now you're getting it. No... wait... you aren't.

I mean... an office with 390 white people having to hire a black guy. Do you realize that actually means a more qualified white guy wasn't hired to fill that slot? And... its not like the company was trying to overcompensate for 50 years of hiring prejudice... its hand was FORCED by that DAMN AA! I mean, if they'd just been able to not hire this guy in the first place... everything would have been better for everyone.

Ya.

Do you guys still wear hoods to the meetings?

MiniD

AKS\/\/ulfe · « **Reply #92 on:** May 12, 2003, 07:45:45 PM »

Not that it matters much, but I can see where Grun thought black and minorities could be interchangeable.

Case in point: I got a cab ride home a while back when I was tanked as hell from this dude who used to live in Pakistan. He came to this country several years ago, with two degrees- Chemistry and Biology... yet he drives a cab.

Another reason why I can't stand Affirmative Action, because it's BS... complete BS, doesn't help minorities... helps a select race for reasons that have long since expired.
-SW

EDIT: Change Affirm Action to minorities.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #93 on:** May 12, 2003, 07:53:39 PM »

MiniD go read my first post, read the last sentance. What does it say?

I think this kind of stuff gives AA a bad name, the very appearence that it might have had something to do with him being being part of a minorty outreach program is very bad. And there are now many many respected people begging to question that.

MT - you are right I am very passionate about my disike of the abuses that seem to have struck here - I feel that if AA programs allow substandard performance for the sake of convenient diversity then there is somthing wrong. I bet there were 100s of qualified young black journalists who would have been redy to take that guys job in a second, but I feel the NYT management was lazy and just wanted to keep up the charade because he was good for their image as they paraded his career story out in front of black advocacy groups.

And yes that is merely my opinion of what happend based on the articles I read and that I linked to.

Bodhi · « **Reply #94 on:** May 12, 2003, 08:12:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
MiniD go read my first post, read the last sentance. What does it say?

Grunherz,

Man, give it a rest, MiniD is not interested in learning, gaining, or constructively participating in anything that is posted. All he is concerned about is trying to bring the bad out of every possible situation and advance his liberalist agenda at the expense of any minority that happens to provide him with ammo. He is like a long list of liberal panzies before him, and like the future of his ilk....

they will fade to nothingness in time.

SirLoin · « **Reply #95 on:** May 12, 2003, 08:17:09 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Bodhi
Grunherz,

Man, give it a rest, MiniD is not interested in learning, gaining, or constructively participating in anything that is posted. All he is concerned about is trying to bring the bad out of every possible situation......

Yep..He is DejaVu.

Mini D · « **Reply #96 on:** May 12, 2003, 08:46:01 PM »

Oh, right bohdi. You got me figured out.

I just want to bring bad things to the most positive uplifting converstations.

And here.. this thread could have been such a peacefull discussion about the pitfalls of affirmative action. Where a bunch of people that hate it got together and discussed it in a rational form.

Yes... I just want to bring bad things to the most positive discussions.

Of course, the problem just might be that this argument is so far out in left field that all those in agreement don't even realise it. It could be that "the need for affirmative action" hasn't disappeared, its just become more covert.

Yes... the problem is that a black man hired under AA was bad and thus AA is bad. The problem isn't that there were zero black people working at the NYT, a newspaper located in downtown NY, a city with some 5,000,000 black people living in it. The problem wasn't that managers didn't know how to handle black people because... well... they'd never seen one before. The problem was that damn AA.

So... pick and choose examples of AA and wrongdoing. Just don't get too upset when people pick and choose examples of gun ownership gone bad. You can't look at the good one does while ignoring the good the other does. When you do... well, you are a bigot just like grun.

MiniD

Batz · « **Reply #97 on:** May 12, 2003, 09:54:20 PM »

In the news report they didnt bring up AA specifically. What they brought up was the possibility that because this guy was black they may have fast tracked him for promotion inorder to help "diversify" their national news desk. There were discrepencies in the Times management in regards to who knew what. One guy said senior management was aware of the problems, another saying they werent.

I could give a damn either way but painting Gruen into corner over what he thinks as if hes the only one is stupid. Other folks think the same thing and have said so. But they are a racists to.

Its not up to Gruen to decide whether AA is bad. The courts, governments and institutions are. Slowly it will done away with. So the clan better get to working on some new white hoods because lotsa folks agree that AA should be scrapped entirely.

midnight Target · « **Reply #98 on:** May 12, 2003, 10:03:12 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
In the news report they didnt bring up AA specifically. What they brought up was the possibility that because this guy was black they may have fast tracked him for promotion inorder to help "diversify" their national news desk. .

And why do you think they felt this was necessary?

Mini D · « **Reply #99 on:** May 12, 2003, 10:11:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Batz
In the news report they didnt bring up AA specifically. What they brought up was the possibility that because this guy was black they may have fast tracked him for promotion inorder to help "diversify" their national news desk. There were discrepencies in the Times management in regards to who knew what. One guy said senior management was aware of the problems, another saying they werent.

Ah... so this is what is making the news.

How is his "fast track" the issue with this whole scandal? It seems more people are reacting because this guy was considered a goldenboy than anything else. Most people seem to attribute this to the fact he was black, instead of the fact he was blatantly lieing to enhance his stories (making them front page worthy).

This is called racism... when you chose to ignore all else involved and focus on the color of skin as the reason for the whole situation.

MiniD

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #100 on:** May 12, 2003, 10:35:51 PM »

But MiniD his case specifically was used to promote the NYT times diversity program - while management knew he was performing poorly. Thats a FACT.

"The problem isn't that there were zero black people working at the NYT, a newspaper located in downtown NY, a city with some 5,000,000 black people living in it. The problem wasn't that managers didn't know how to handle black people because... well... they'd never seen one before. The problem was that damn AA."

And i find it funny how you say there are no black people working at the times - do you know this for a fact or are being full of crap as you have been so far. In fact there seems to be quite a number of blacks and other minirities working at the times at all levels of the organization. But hey why let the fcats get in the way of a good witchunt...

And frankly I dont think I ever said AA was broadly at fault for this. I did say that I think a mishandled AA case carried out by lazy management like this is what gives outreach programs a bad name. I said so clearly in my first post. And have been saying that the whole thread - that a FACT. But again lets not let the facts get in the way of a good witchunt - that would be no fun at all.

Mini D · « **Reply #101 on:** May 12, 2003, 10:49:21 PM »

No Grun, you seem to have your facts somewhat mixed up.

The individual was having articles printed on the front page of the New York Times. This is not because of shoddy performance. The articles were highly controversial and were selling papers. The fact that they were based on lies is the only thing that made this an issue.

You see... despite all of the NYT's use his case to specifically promote the diversity program, he was still a liar. The AA did not make the NYT promote this individual. Fear did not make them promote this individual. Threats did not make them promote this individual. For some strange reason, they thought that because he was selling papers with his articles, with his fabulous articles that nobody else seemed to have the inside track on, he should be promoted. Him being black made it all the better, cause they could prove how diverse they were by promoting a minority. Yippee. Touting your diversity program... that's the answer.

The point is, he was not being promoted just because he was a minority. He was not being promoted because AA told the NYT that they had to promote him or else. He was being promoted because the NYT made a long series in errors in judgement for completely self serving reasons. He was writing the kind of articles they loved to print, he was the only one with the sources, he sold papers, and he was black.

But this thread, and most responses are all about how a black man can get promoted just because he's black. Nevermind those that will never be promoted for the exact same reason. AA is bad and caused this. Its not the managers that are ever trying to cover their ignorant blame everyone else asses.

Nah.

MiniD

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #102 on:** May 12, 2003, 10:57:55 PM »

But his managers knew he was lying, they knew he made constant factual errors in more than 1/2 of his stories over a given period of time - yet he still kept getting promoted. Is this how the NYT runs it business regularly? If so then thats ok, my bad and I take it all back. But do you really think thats true?

Couple the discrepancy of performance/promotion and tie it into the fact that that he was a useful PR prop to upper management because of him being in the minority outreach program and I dont think it's too much of a streach to think there were some conflicts of interest and that some corners were cut.

And guess what more and more people are seeing it that way, and I feel that as more facts come it's likely that will become clearer.

Mini D · « **Reply #103 on:** May 12, 2003, 11:05:14 PM »

Oh.. so now its about how the NYT regularly runs its buisness... because I didn't see that stated anywhere in the articles. The story was about one man... you filled in the rest based on... what was that term again.... bigotry.

I don't know what newspapers do in every situation where factual errors occur. The point is, neither do you... you just think you do.

I do know that newspapers have fact checking divisions for a reason. Sounds to me like the NYT's let the team down. They didn't print 4 pages about all the errors the caught then corrected, they printed 4 pages on all the errors that they missed. They don't miss errors because of AA.

And... this is not a story because of the errors they caught... its a story because of the errors they didn't catch. Nobody forced those articles to be printed and nobody forced them to be on the front page. The NYTs made its own decisions on what to release and how to release it. That's pretty much the end of the story.

Well... unless you get ahold of it... that is.

MiniD

Steve · « **Reply #104 on:** May 12, 2003, 11:09:17 PM »

MiniD is a racist and a hypocrite. The only thing I can do is hope he doesn't procreate or vote.