Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Feb 2017, 1:41 pm

I see. You want to have a racist policy to make up for what you perceive as racism.

I do not believe the State should enact racist policies. Apparently, you disagree. We would have to just agree to disagree on that then.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 13 Feb 2017, 3:21 pm

BTW, What was your definition? You only told me what my definition was not. Try to form a definition, and post it, rather than just denigrating others' definition. That is a ploy of someone else...

I respect your abilities as a thinker more than that.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 4961
Joined: 08 Jun 2000, 10:26 am

Post 13 Feb 2017, 4:30 pm

freeman3 wrote:Wel, that definition ignores power relationships which is the biggest concern. A white majority could slightly inconvenience itself by giving preference to minorities in an attempt to even the playing field after many years of discrimination and I would not call that racism. The problem with some whites is they are seemingly unaware of the all the benefits from being a white male so when they see any attempt to give preferential treatment to another group they cry unfair. I am pretty sure you're going to go with the treat everyone equally the same argument, but the problem is that we are not starting with a blank state. If the government today came up with a policy that gave preferences for blacks or Hispanics it would only have a marginal effect on the society-wide preferences that white males get, even white males that come from poor families.


How do you measure the benefit that while males have against the detriments (hiring preferences, college admissions, etc.) Are you saying that black females born to 2 parent wealthy families have it tougher than white males born to single parent poor families? How do you even measure something like that?
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 13 Feb 2017, 4:31 pm

Doctor Fate wrote:Thank God we don't have a Democrat in the White House. That's the party that has historically fought for bigotry. See slavery; see the civil rights votes.


In case you weren't paying attention, the Democrats and the Republicans "switched sides" in the 8 or so years from 1965 to 1972. You know, Johnson, civil rights, Southern Strategy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

In American politics, southern strategy refers to methods the Republican Party used to gain political support in the South by appealing to the racism against African Americans harbored by many southern white voters
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 13 Feb 2017, 4:37 pm

If Lincoln saw today's Republican Party, he'd be ashamed.

"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy."
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 13 Feb 2017, 5:42 pm

All broad government policies/laws/regulations policy pose problems of overinclusivess (e.g wealthy black females getting preferences), RJ. The question does the overall policy make our society fairer or not? I was reacting to what I perceived Brad's oft used argument that we should treat everyone the same in all circumstances. That principle sounds wonderful...but it's not so wonderful when you consider black males and their disadvantages via-a-video white males:

(1) De facto segregation. Probably less access to good teachers than a white suburban population would have
(2) Suspicion from police. More policing of blacks leading to higher criminal rates making it harder to get jobs
(3) Suspicion from business owners
(4) Few role models in position of power
(5) Negative images of black men in the media
(6) A long history of being portrayed negatively in tv and film
(7) Teachers being more likely to believe that young black males pose behaviorial problems. Less likely to call on black students. Lowered expectations. Cultural expectations that black men are good athletes but not good students.
(8) Do not have freedom to travel where they want to free of suspicion
(9) Employers less likely to hire persons with black sounding names. Bias against ability of black workers

I am sure this list could be added to.

We can't just snap out fingers and say viola everyone is equal. Racial privilege is embedded in our culture. It's quite a bit better than it used to be but even now there is a large gap between the opportunity of even poor white males and most young black males. Therefore, I see nothing wrong with the government trying to do something to make opportunity fairer.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 7:57 am

bbauska
I do not believe the State should enact racist policies. Apparently, you disagree. We would have to just agree to disagree on that then.

Will you agree that the US did enact racist policies for many years? Lets focus on just the policies against blacks
2 centuries enslaving blacks.
Over a century of Jim Crow laws and institutionalized segregation, and discrimination in provision of services.
Uneven access to the GI Bill which built the white middle class after WWII and left black soldiers behind.
Discrimination from States in access to voting and education even after the 1964 civil rights act.
Discriminatory behavior by police and the justice system against blacks even unto today...(Freemans list...)

Now, in any situation where a person or a class of people have been wronged they have the right to sue for their damages. How were black people, who as a class had been damaged by the state for 3 centuries ever been made good on this damage?
If, having deliberately for 3 centuries, damaged a class of people....doesn't the State have an obligation to repair the damage?
Reconciliation has never really occurred in the US over the centuries because people want to avoid the notion that there should have been, and should be, some attempt by the state to repair the damage institutionalized evil did and continues to do.
When slavery was ended, it didn't repair the evil. It just ended its practice.
When Johnson cudgeled congress into passing the Civil rights act, it didn't act institutionalized discrimination. It just made it illegal. Many, especially in the in the South, resisted these laws every step of the way.
Even the attempts at providing a leg up, giving priority to access for blacks to education - didn't end the institutionalized racism.
Pretending that attempts at repairing the damage from 300 years of institutionalized racism is now racism against whites, is blithe ignorance of history. And an attempt to avoid taking responsibility for repairing the damage those centuries inflicted. I thought you were all about taking responsibility for ones actions Bbbauska? Shouldn't the State as a whole take responsibility for its misdeeds and attempt to repair some of the damage through positive actions and policies?

And frankly, it also comes across as just whining. As if white people shouldn't have to, or can't compete on a more level playing field.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 8:02 am

Updating Fate on the obstruction of Trumps cabinet picks..
Mnuchin in with 1 democratic vote
Shulkin in unanimously as Veterans Affairs.
Puzder ......in real jeopardy . May not get in. Due to 4 republicans.... (sch obstructionists these republicans).

Oh. And the Flynn era is over...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 14 Feb 2017, 8:25 am

Updating RickyP on the lack of his providing a definition of government racist policy.

I shall not answer RickyP until he give a little more answers.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 8:44 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
Again, Democrats fought to maintain slavery. That is something you can't negate
.
Its true that the 13th amendment passed with 100$ republican support and only a quarter democrats. In 1865.
What on earth makes this relevant to anything today?


The past is predicate. Democrats have always supported oppression and they do now.

Are you incapable of understanding the evolving nature of your nation and of your political parties>? That things changed in the 60s?


Yes, the Democrats became the Party of world governance, the party against the continuing independence of the USA.

Are you ignorant of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the republicans southern strategy?


No, are you?

After all, more than 3 times as many Democratic Senators voted against it as Republicans--and nearly three times as many in the House as well.

Woodrow Wilson-racist.
Robert Byrd-KKK.
Bill Clinton-trained by a segregationist.

Today's Democrats hurl all manner of racist epithets at minorities for simply holding "the wrong" views.

I read these talking points on right wing sites and hear idiots like Tomi Lahren blathering them like its somehow relevant today. Since you bring the nonsense up ...how is it relevant today Fate? How does the long ago history actually impact upon the positions of the two parties today?


FDR put Japanese into internment camps. Democrats claim Trump will do that. I'd say it's relevant. I'd also say it's ridiculous to believe Trump will do it. Republicans have always been the party of individual liberty and Democrats the party of government uber alles.

Fate
This has been unprecedented hyper-partisanship for this early in the term of a President

Since you bring up ancient history.... Like its somehow relevant.
In this case you might consider that the US appointments from (1789-1828), was considered by Privilege . A certain elite were chosen.
Then came the Patronage stage from (1829-1882), where almost all civil service and administration changed hands if the election changed things..
linked to where you can learn a little if you care...
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/brief-hi ... ric-marmer


That has zero to do with partisanship, but thanks for playing.

fate
Marrick Garland was not a cabinet pick

A difference. But meaningless.


No, not meaningless when the discussion IS ABOUT THE CABINET!
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 8:48 am

geojanes wrote:
Doctor Fate wrote:Thank God we don't have a Democrat in the White House. That's the party that has historically fought for bigotry. See slavery; see the civil rights votes.


In case you weren't paying attention, the Democrats and the Republicans "switched sides" in the 8 or so years from 1965 to 1972. You know, Johnson, civil rights, Southern Strategy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

In American politics, southern strategy refers to methods the Republican Party used to gain political support in the South by appealing to the racism against African Americans harbored by many southern white voters


I am paying attention.

Democrats treat all minorities as monolithic and reject any notion of independent thinking. Any Black who is not a dues-paying Democrat is an "Uncle Tom," a "house negro," or worse. Any Hispanic who does not hew to the Democratic theories is not true to their race or "not a real" Hispanic.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 8:49 am

danivon wrote:If Lincoln saw today's Republican Party, he'd be ashamed.

"I am not a Know-Nothing. That is certain. How could I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor of degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we begin by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes." When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy."


If Jefferson saw today's Democratic Party, he'd become a Republican.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 8:56 am

rickyp wrote:Updating Fate on the obstruction of Trumps cabinet picks..
Mnuchin in with 1 democratic vote
Shulkin in unanimously as Veterans Affairs.
Puzder ......in real jeopardy . May not get in. Due to 4 republicans.... (sch obstructionists these republicans).

Oh. And the Flynn era is over...


Updating rickyp: Mnuchin vote was delayed for no good reason.

That Shulkin received so much Democratic support is a bad sign--it means it will be "business as usual."

"Such" still has a 'u' and there is no English would spelled "sch."

The Fascists were completely against individualism in general and especially against individualism in a free-market economy. Their agenda included minimum-wage laws, government restrictions on profit-making, progressive taxation of capital, and “rigidly secular” schools. Unlike the Communists, the Fascists did not seek government ownership of the means of production. They just wanted the government to call the shots as to how businesses would be run. They were for “industrial policy,” long before liberals coined that phrase in the United States. Indeed, the whole Fascist economic agenda bears a remarkable resemblance to what liberals would later advocate. Moreover, during the 1920s “progressives” in the United States and Britain recognized the kinship of their ideas with those of Mussolini, who was widely lionized by the Left. Famed British novelist and prominent Fabian socialist H. G. Wells called for “Liberal Fascism,” saying “the world is sick of parliamentary politics.” Another literary giant and Fabian socialist, George Bernard Shaw, also expressed his admiration for Mussolini — as well as for Hitler and Stalin, because they “did things,” instead of just talk. In Germany, the Nazis followed in the wake of the Italian Fascists, adding racism in general and anti-Semitism in particular, neither of which was part of Fascism in Italy or in Franco’s Spain. Even the Nazi variant of Fascism found favor on the Left when it was only a movement seeking power in the 1920s. W. E. B. DuBois was so taken with the Nazi movement that he put swastikas on the cover of a magazine he edited, despite complaints from Jewish readers. Even after Hitler achieved dictatorial power in Germany in 1933, DuBois declared that the Nazi dictatorship was “absolutely necessary in order to get the state in order.” As late as 1937 he said in a speech in Harlem that “there is today, in some respects, more democracy in Germany than there has been in years past.” In short, during the 1920s and the early 1930s, Fascism was not only looked on favorably by the Left but recognized as having kindred ideas, agendas, and assumptions. Only after Hitler and Mussolini disgraced themselves, mainly by their brutal military aggressions in the 1930s, did the Left distance itself from these international pariahs.

, , ,

If by conservatism you mean belief in free markets, limited government, and traditional morality, including religious influences, then these are all things that the Fascists opposed just as much as the Left does today. The Left may say that they are not racists or anti-Semites, like Hitler, but neither was Mussolini or Franco. Hitler, incidentally, got some of his racist ideology from the writings of American “progressives” in the eugenics movement.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/2 ... mas-sowell


Yesterday's "fascist" is today's "Democrat."
User avatar
Dignitary
 
Posts: 3486
Joined: 02 Oct 2000, 9:01 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 9:02 am

Doctor Fate wrote:If Jefferson saw today's Democratic Party, he'd become a Republican.


Absolutely no way. He'd be a libertarian, or he'd be working toward revolution.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: 14 Feb 2000, 8:40 am

Post 14 Feb 2017, 9:07 am

doesn't the State have an obligation to repair the damage?

Shouldn't the State as a whole take responsibility for its misdeeds and attempt to repair some of the damage through positive actions and policies?

NO
The state needed to correct the wrong and make all people equal under the law. The courts handle any illegalities not the state trying to "correct" past wrongs, in their attempts to try and "correct" things, the state had created a reverse discrimination that only created more animosity between races. If you want more positive changes then why not have the state fix the other problems you liberals have spelled out? If they can force anti-discrimination then they can force things like ensuring all movies and television shows MUST have equal numbers of all races in them. Force the NBA to have equal numbers of white players, force music recording companies to stop any negative black stereotypes (no gang references, no negative light on women or blacks, no gangster references, no swearing, etc) Require we elect a black president every other term, the list goes on and on. No doubt you would not want any of these done but you allow reverse discrimination? Why is THAT ok but these others not???