Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

SCOTUS aren't morons....today.Follow

#102 Jul 03 2014 at 4:26 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Translation: Everyone else is just stupid and don't realize how non-racist the GOP is. Also: 47%, Party of Santa Claus, blacks were better off on the plantation because they had jobs, Obama wants to end welfare regulations, illegal immigrants are just like criminal @#%^philes and axe-murderers, Obamaphone Outrage and don't forget that Cadillac Queens are stealing all your tax money.


You forgot about women's automatic rape sensing fallopian tubes.


And even if that doesn't work, those rape kits that the doctors have just get up in there an clean everything out making sure you can't get pregnant.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#103 Jul 03 2014 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
What's funny is that your quote from Atwater

Completely shatters your worldview, entirely, leaving broken pieces of your integrity scattered on the floor?


Not remotely. I read the quote (read the whole interview and it's even more obvious) and see a guy talking about how Reagan's campaign didn't use any racism at all, in contrast to southern campaigns in previous decades (by both parties btw). And I laugh at liberals who are so desperate to hang racism around the neck of the GOP, that they'll quote a guy out of context from an interview he gave nearly 35 years ago and repeat it over and over as apparently their best "proof" of this.

So yeah. That's pretty darn laughable.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#104 Jul 03 2014 at 4:30 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
29,491 posts
Not remotely.

Oh, yeah, obviously. We knew you had no integrity. I was just kidding. No one is under the impression that you're remotely capable of independent thought and changing your mind based on data. That's even funnier than my intention that you might have thought it was a serious critique. Never forget that you're the town drunk we keep around because we want to kick something once in a while. Nothing more. Don't make the crazy mistake of thinking that anyone is trying to persuade you of something. Why would they bother?

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 6:31pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#105 Jul 03 2014 at 4:38 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
You forgot about women's automatic rape sensing fallopian tubes.

I also forgot voter ID laws designed to suppress minority votes and the always popular "fliers mysteriously sent to minority neighborhoods giving the wrong voting date/location" stories each election cycle. But you have to look at it logically, Smash.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#106 Jul 03 2014 at 4:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
they'll quote a guy out of context from an interview he gave nearly 35 years ago and repeat it over and over as apparently their best "proof" of this.

Multiple Republican National Committee chairmans admitting to it seems like decent proof by itself but that's just my opinion.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#107 Jul 03 2014 at 4:42 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
How about we start the discussion with a workable definition of "racism" though. To me, racism involves treating people differently primarily based on their skin color.

Interesting insight into your psyche. Thinking people would define it this way: racism involves treating people negatively primarily based on their skin color
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#108 Jul 03 2014 at 4:59 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
To start I'm not accusing Republicans of acting any differently than any other group in the world. Every ethnic group has a set of morals and values which are intrinsically beneficial to them. Traditional American values reflect moral stances that your stereotypical WASP would find very agreeable and preferable. That's the reason they became laws in this country in the first place. Every other culture in the world has a similar set of values that make the most sense to them.


The GOP is a party, not an ethnic group. And I'm not sure at the connotation you're using. The logic is backwards. Yes, your stereotypical WASP may find traditional values agreeable, but so do middle class Americans of all races and religions. It's not about skin color.


Quote:
However those same values aren't held by other groups to the same degree. Many things about WASP values will not sit well with people from a different background and they'll find adapting to those values more difficult.


Which things though? Let's look at the positions and policies themselves and assess them. Doesn't that make more sense? Otherwise we end out making absurd arguments like "Hitler liked to paint, so anyone who enjoys paintings must agree with Hitler". It's ridiculous. And frankly, I'm not even sure what you mean by "WASP values".

Quote:
If given a voice in government they'll use that voice to attempt to alter the laws of the region to be more inline with values they feel are natural and intrinsic. This in turn will put more pressure on the WASP who now finds themselves adapting to cultural values they don't share.


Cultural values aren't always aligned with ethnic groups though. That's the problem I have with much of what you (and many other posters) appear to be saying. It's like you believe that the conservative principles are indelibly aligned with "white majority", and all the other absurdities that follow from that assumption. I don't see that at all though. I see conservative principles as principles which benefit everyone equally. They are fundamentally those which align most closely with those upon which this nation was founded and that they embody the most practical approach to the creation and maintenance of a free society. Those principles have nothing to do with race.

The racial elements are introduced by the political left. They're the ones who create the "we're for minority groups, so conservatives are against them (cause they're against us), so conservatives are racists" narrative. But that's wholly fabricated and entire made up by the left. While this does not mean that no conservatives are racist, they aren't racist *because* they are conservative. Racism exists on both "sides" of our politics. But if we're going to assess which party has a platform which is explicitly racist, we'd have to conclude that it's the Democrats.

Quote:
In one sense this isn't racism *****, people aren't setting out to kill each other, deprive each other of jobs, etc. On the other hand it's very passive aggressive as these value conflicts weight more heavily on other groups. On the first hand though, many of these things are held as important beliefs that define a particular culture, and members of a group can hardly be blamed for upholding the things they believe in.


I disagree. I think that there is a perception of this (largely because that's what the Left keeps telling people). But the reality is that a middle class black man benefits from conservative positions exactly as much as a middle class white man. And a poor white woman benefits from conservative positions exactly as much as a poor black woman. Our positions are about maximizing liberty and minimizing the degree to which the government decides our outcomes. There is no racial element to this and any perception of a racial element steps entirely from the other side intentionally creating one.

Quote:
Simply put the values that our country is founded on aren't as universally agreeable as they once were.


Of course they are. Why would you say otherwise? Be specific. I suspect that your idea of what our "founding values are" has been manipulated by the very folks who are trying to convince you that conservatives are inherently racist.

Quote:
Those who share the older set of values will view the intrusion of new laws as an attack on them, as it necessitates they act in ways that aren't natural to them. On the other hand those who have been struggling to adapt to values that aren't reflective of their own culture will view the older set of values as oppressive.

Myself, I would view this as passive racism.


Again, I disagree entirely. Can you be specific? Give me an example of a "new law" that is being proposed and which conservatives oppose, and explain why you think that this is aligned on cultural or racial lines, and why it's the conservatives who are being racist in their opposition to said law.

Quote:
However, it's also something that's universal across ethnic groups (as I mentioned earlier), and not necessarily evil. It's simply human nature, and something we're all guilty of to one degree or another. The best we can hope for is to minimize the parts of the different cultures that negatively impact others outside the group, while at the same thing trying to celebrate the things that make the different groups unique. There's no clear black line here, and people are often terrible at assessing things in their own culture that negatively impact other groups.

So that's the kind of "racism" I'm talking about, whether or not you'd consider that racism. I would certainly understand why someone would view it in a different manner.


See. This is what I don't get. The whole point of the principles of the right is to create and use a set of rules that allow us to have a society in which outcomes are determined via a process as unbiased and free of corruption and racism as possible. By clearly defining rights and minimizing the degree to which our system of government infringes those rights, we can also minimize the degree to which any one group within our society (racial, cultural, or other) can impose and infringe upon any other. It's not perfect, but it's better than the left's approach of empowering the government to "fix" perceived imbalances between every group in society.

The left's approach is doomed to creating more racism, not less. Which is why I find it so strange that so many people just swallow this idea that by *not* having the government decide which racial group gets what that we're being racist. I think it's the other way around. We can't *not* have racism in a system like the one the Left wants. It's inevitable.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#109 Jul 03 2014 at 5:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
In one sense this isn't racism *****, people aren't setting out to kill each other, deprive each other of jobs, etc.

Well, they are setting out to deprive them of their right to vote. And both Ron and Rand Paul have said that they wouldn't have voted for the Civil Rights Act and businesses should be allowed to discriminate based on race (Rand Paul backtracked on this one pretty quickly once it got out).


Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 6:08pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#110 Jul 03 2014 at 5:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Recognizing that a minority currently has a disadvantage isn't racism, it's reality.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#111 Jul 03 2014 at 5:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
How about we start the discussion with a workable definition of "racism" though. To me, racism involves treating people differently primarily based on their skin color.

Interesting insight into your psyche. Thinking people would define it this way: racism involves treating people negatively primarily based on their skin color


So if a white person gives free stuff only to white people, he's not being racist? That's an unworkable definition of racism. "Differently" is the correct method to use. If you treat one group "better", then kinda by default, you're treating another group "worse", right?

You must not consider the race of a person when making decisions that affect that person. It has to apply both negatively and positively, or the whole thing is meaningless. If you give preference in hiring to people of a given skin color, then you are racially discriminating against everyone who isn't that same color. That's racism. This is why racial preferences are racist. Period. The idea that it's not racist based on what the race is that you're preferring is *also* racist.

Please tell me you understand why this must be so?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#112 Jul 03 2014 at 5:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Recognizing that a minority currently has a disadvantage isn't racism, it's reality.


Sure. But reacting to that by creating programs which benefit that minority *is* racism. The correct way to deal with a disadvantage is to eliminate the disadvantage, not to try to offset it with something else. Because the latter approach only institutionalizes the racism even more.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#113 Jul 03 2014 at 5:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Racism is when someone thinks someone is inherently better or worse based on race.

Recognizing disadvantages and attempting to deal with them is something else. You may disagree with it, but it's not racism.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 6:20pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#114 Jul 03 2014 at 5:21 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
they'll quote a guy out of context from an interview he gave nearly 35 years ago and repeat it over and over as apparently their best "proof" of this.

Multiple Republican National Committee chairmans admitting to it seems like decent proof by itself but that's just my opinion.


Admitting to what? When? Who? I assume you have a source for this?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#115 Jul 03 2014 at 5:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Racism is when someone thinks someone is inherently better or worse based on race.


That's *also* racism, but that's racism inside someone's own head. Unless you're proposing some kind of thought police system, we kinda have to stick to external acts of racism. And those are absolutely when you use race as the determining factor for what you choose to do.

Quote:
Recognizing disadvantages and attempting to deal with them is something else.


If what you do is to benefit or disadvantage a group of people based on their race then it is racism.

This really isn't that freaking difficult. The problem is that those on the left don't want to believe that they support racist policies, so they deny that the policies that the left engages in are racist, even though they obviously are by any workable definition of racism. And this tends to require some really strange mental gyrations to accomplish. What's so laughable about the whole thing is that most of these same people will point out how white racists in the south in the first half of the 20th century used to use all sorts of excuses to convince themselves that what they were doing (segregation specifically) wasn't really racist at all, while unable to see that they are doing the exact same thing today.

When you defend affirmative action you are being just as racist as some white guy in Alabama defending segregation back in the 50s. And the really funny thing is that segregation was created for nearly the same exact reason as affirmative action was. I suspect that most modern liberals are unaware of that as well. You guys are simply repeating the same mistakes made in the past and failing to see it.

The correct answer to the problem is to stop trying to force a solution. It's really that simple.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#116 Jul 03 2014 at 5:55 PM Rating: Excellent
No, it's not racism. Racism has to involve the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Policies can be bad without being racist. Racism tends to lead towards certain types of policies, so a particular type of policy might indicate that there is racism at play.

We shouldn't try to force a solution sure, but your approach appears to be to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the problem, which also won't help.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#117 Jul 03 2014 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,004 posts
gbaji wrote:
The GOP is a party, not an ethnic group. And I'm not sure at the connotation you're using. The logic is backwards. Yes, your stereotypical WASP may find traditional values agreeable, but so do middle class Americans of all races and religions. It's not about skin color.
Yes, the logic is extendable to any two groups of people, be they political parties, races, ethnic groups, or 2 groups of 20 school kids picked at random. The same mechanism is at the heart of all those, and the differences evolve over time. At some point we were all simply the group of 20ish people who happened to chase a group of deer around the next bend in the river.

The ethnically based problem I'd consider racism, as for the others, is "groupism" a word?

There's also no homogeneous group of course, and shared group values can be difficult to define and pinpoint at times. I vastly oversimplified the problem for the sake of fitting it all into a single post (that was already becoming way too lengthy for my tastes). However it seems you're already well aware of the inherent complexities, so I'll leave that well enough alone.

gbaji wrote:
See. This is what I don't get. The whole point of the principles of the right is to create and use a set of rules that allow us to have a society in which outcomes are determined via a process as unbiased and free of corruption and racism as possible. By clearly defining rights and minimizing the degree to which our system of government infringes those rights, we can also minimize the degree to which any one group within our society (racial, cultural, or other) can impose and infringe upon any other. It's not perfect, but it's better than the left's approach of empowering the government to "fix" perceived imbalances between every group in society.
I generally agree with the concept that government should be as little involved in this as possible (I mean, I do lean Libertarian after all...), though we may well disagree on the specific cases I'd imagine. That, by the way, makes for a good example of a cultural value that's commonly American but not universally appreciated and shared to the same degree elsewhere.

Also, just for fun, I'd say that the Democrats' biggest error is assuming the changes necessitated by urban living are applicable and necessary outside of an ethnically diverse, densely populated, city core.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 5:00pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#118 Jul 03 2014 at 6:41 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
No, it's not racism. Racism has to involve the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.


No. That's *also* racism (it's like I'm saying the same thing), but is not the whole of what is racism. Again, you can't read people's minds, so what they believe isn't relevant to any sane legal system. What they *do* and why they do it is what matters. If you pay a black man a higher wage than a white man for the exact same job because you want the black man to earn more money, then that is racism. If you do it because the black man does better work, then it is not.

If you create a policy where the direct intention is to give one group of people an advantage based solely on their skin color, that is racism. I know that this is hard to accept for people who have supported a political platform which includes this and who also don't think of themselves as racists, but no matter how much you want to deny it, it is racism. And the fact is that there is no racism in the Republican party platform, and a whole **** of a lot of it in the Democratic party platform.

Quote:
Policies can be bad without being racist.


Of course. But the issue I was responding to wasn't "that's a bad policy", but "the policies of your party are racist, so therefore you are racist, or at least a racist sympathizer". And yeah, I find that amusing coming from anyone who has voted Democrat.

Quote:
Racism tends to lead towards certain types of policies, so a particular type of policy might indicate that there is racism at play.


Yes. Like a policy which says "we're going to use your race as a factor when determining whether to admit you to a college or employ you". You mean those kinds of blatantly racist policies? ****. Even under your own definition above, this qualifies as racism. Assuming an "historical disadvantage in society" can be viewed as a racial trait, right? I'm honestly curious how far you'll go with the mental gyrations to try to deny this?

Quote:
We shouldn't try to force a solution sure, but your approach appears to be to stick your fingers in your ears and ignore the problem, which also won't help.


Not at all. My approach is to understand the difference between negative and positive actions and recognize that the government can and should work via negative actions, but *not* positive ones. As long as we follow those guidelines we can fight things like racism without utilizing racism ourselves. What this means is that we recognize that there's a difference between elimination of a negative factor and creation of a positive factor. So the government should work to eliminate negative actions within the context of racism. So if you see an employer hiring and paying people based on race, you punish him so as to eliminate that behavior. If you see a law which treats people unfairly based on their race, you eliminate the law. It's all about eliminating things which negatively impact people on the basis of race.


What you *don't* do is try to create "positive" actions. By that I mean, create a program which benefits the members of one race in order to counteract the negative racial effects in society believed to be affecting them. The reason you don't do this is because it relies on faulty human interpretation of those negative effects, is imminently susceptible to corrupting influences, and ends out simply institutionalizing racism as the means of implementing social policy. Oh. And it also apparently has the side effect of making people not realize what racism actually *is*, thus making it harder to recognize actual negative effects when they occur.

You seem to be assuming that if we don't do what you think we should, that we're not doing anything. We absolutely should oppose acts of racism where they exist. But we should *not* be creating new acts of racism ourselves. That's completely counterproductive.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 6:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#119 Jul 03 2014 at 7:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
I generally agree with the concept that government should be as little involved in this as possible (I mean, I do lean Libertarian after all...), though we may well disagree on the specific cases I'd imagine. That, by the way, makes for a good example of a cultural value that's commonly American but not universally appreciated and shared to the same degree elsewhere.


Elsewhere meaning nations other than the US? Oh, absolutely. This is not surprising, given that US liberalism was based on the principles of Locke, while most other western nations adopted versions of liberalism based on the principles of Rousseau. Which in itself is not surprising given the historical conditions of those nations and their need to implement the ideas of liberty and rights within the context of societies accustomed to more or less feudal(ish) expectations of government responsibilities. That's in stark contrast to the US, which formed among a group of individualists who had long since abandoned the idea that the government was responsible for providing them with anything at all (or that such a thing was even desirable).

Quote:
Also, just for fun, I'd say that the Democrats' biggest error is assuming the changes necessitated by urban living are applicable and necessary outside of an ethnically diverse, densely populated, city core.


I agree with that, but will go a step further and say that the Democrats first mistake is in making assumptions about what changes are needed by those living in urban environments in the first place. I think the Dems (and a lot of surrogates in various social organizations) spend an amazing amount of time and money convincing people that the biggest things they should care about are X, Y, and Z, when in many cases, and in the absence of such insistent instruction, those same people might really care more about A, B, and C.

Want to talk about "coded messages", just think about that whenever a Democrat talks about the need to "educate people on the issues". More often than not, it's not about educating people about how to resolve issues, but about teaching them what things they should prioritize as "issues" in the first place. And yes, they then expand that to assume that folks in rural communities have the same concerns about those same things. Which is just a step too far past absurdity in many cases.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 6:23pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#120 Jul 03 2014 at 8:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Well you can certainly insist that racism means something other than what it actually means, but the result is that people won't take you seriously and dismiss you as a lunatic living in a bubble world. which is too bad, because there might actually be something meaningful somewhere in your rambling posts.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#121 Jul 03 2014 at 8:44 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Which is too bad, because there might actually be something meaningful somewhere in your rambling posts.
I read them all. There really isn't.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#122 Jul 03 2014 at 8:59 PM Rating: Excellent
My biggest problem with Gbaji's re-definition of racism is that it waters down what is still a legitimate problem, and if you take him seriously disallows any actual discussion on how to deal with racism, and also how to deal with segments of society that are disadvantaged. There are arguments against affirmative action that could be addressed as part of a productive conversation, but when you insist that it's somehow racism, you stop the conversation before it gets started, and also dismiss the disproportionate lack of representation of said minority as an actual problem.

That and it's completely wrong.

For the record, I don't consider the voting policies as racist even though the disproportionately affect minorities. I don't think most of the people enacting them care about the race of the voters, I think they just care that they vote for democrats. I do think racism is one of the factors that allow this sort of policy to persist mind you.

Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 10:00pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#123 Jul 03 2014 at 10:04 PM Rating: Good
Does gbaji's strange and convoluted definition of racism remind anyone else of Alma's strange and convoluted definition of discrimination?
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#124 Jul 03 2014 at 11:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Sage
**
649 posts
gbaji wrote:


This has nothing to do with anything though. The GOP isn't calling for a return to Jim Crow, or to segregation, or anything remotely like that. What we do is oppose the idea that the way to counteract those historical inequalities in our system is to balance them out with new inequalities today. We believe that equality under the law means just that: everyone is treated the same. Those are the kinds of traditional ideas we want this country to return to. Because we believe that we can't ever achieve anything remotely resembling actual racial equality as long as we're constantly rigging the system to benefit or disadvantage groups of people based on race. We believed this a hundred years ago when the Democrats were arguing for segregation, and we believe this today when the Democrats argue for affirmative action.
Edited, Jul 3rd 2014 2:55pm by gbaji

Sure, equality is great. Unless you are *** and want to get married. Or you want special exemptions because of your faith. Or any other attempts spent changing the law so that it only benefits a targeted group of people. Remember, everybody is equal, but some are more equal than others.
#125 Jul 07 2014 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
Equality for all white male hetero Christians of Germanic ancestry.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#126 Jul 07 2014 at 4:27 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
... Gbaji's re-definition of racism...


Friar Bijou wrote:
... gbaji's strange and convoluted definition of racism...


What's strange or convoluted (or "re-defined") about my definition of racism? It's very simple. Using someone's race as a determining factor when making decisions about that person, or which affect that person is racism. That's not convoluted at all. It's a very clear and useable definition.

What's convoluted is a definition of racism that determines whether an action is racist based on the direction of harm/help of the action in the context of historical real or perceived advantages or disadvantages of a given racial group within the society in question. That's an absurd definition. It's one that also happens to be racist itself since you're using the persons race to determine whether the action being made is racist.


And no, Xsarus, I disagree with your assessment about opening or closing discussion. What closes discussion is when someone insists that the course of action they support cannot be questioned and/or must not be assessed via any sort of objective external criteria. When someone says something like "Hey maybe we should rethink this whole affirmative action thing because we're really just using racism to fight racism, and I don't think that's a good way to go about this", and the response "It's not racism and you're weird/evil/whatever for saying such a horrible thing!", it's the response that's designed to prevent discourse.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#127 Jul 07 2014 at 4:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Using someone's race as a determining factor when making decisions about that person, or which affect that person is racism. That's not convoluted at all. It's a very clear and useable definition.

It's also not the definition of racism. I'll let you Google that one yourself.

So, yeah, when you pull definitions out of your *** and start using them as your metric, people will in fact call you on it. Then you can start crying and weeping about how the mean ole liberals are mistreating you and stuff but they're the real racists for not using your definition.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#128 Jul 07 2014 at 5:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Using someone's race as a determining factor when making decisions about that person, or which affect that person is racism. That's not convoluted at all. It's a very clear and useable definition.

It's also not the definition of racism. I'll let you Google that one yourself.


Obviously, the correct term to use is "racial discrimination", but given that everyone else just used the terms "racism" and "racist" within the context of this discussion, I should not be faulted for following along and using the same terminology.

Voter registration isn't "racism" either, is it? Nor is anything that anyone in this thread accused me of participating in by being a member of the GOP. Given that this is where this portion of the discussion stemmed from, it's kinda silly to swoop in and play dictionary lawyer now. However, if it makes you feel better, can we agree then that affirmative action programs are a form of racial discrimination?


I'll also point out that the dictionary definition of racism still fits the motivation behind liberal policies far more than conservative ones. The argument for AA revolves around the assumption that "inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement". The whole point of AA is to counteract this, right? Ergo, it's based on a racist assumption that success is determined by race.

Conservatives believe that success is determined by your own actions regardless of your skin color. We believe that a black man can be just as successful as a white man. There's nothing "inherent" in either that determines their outcomes. Let's not forget that this started with other posters claiming that *I* was racist (or was at least siding with racist by being a member of the GOP). And yeah, I'm still scratching my head trying to figure out how one comes to that conclusion.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#129 Jul 07 2014 at 5:24 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Obviously, the correct term to use is "racial discrimination", but given that everyone else just used the terms "racism" and "racist" within the context of this discussion, I should not be faulted for following along and using the same terminology.

So you're going to give some asinine lecture on what "racism" really is, while using the wrong term the whole time and supposedly being fully aware of it?

Thanks, Professor.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#130 Jul 07 2014 at 6:02 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
I'll also point out that the dictionary definition of racism still fits the motivation behind liberal policies far more than conservative ones. The argument for AA revolves around the assumption that "inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement". The whole point of AA is to counteract this, right? Ergo, it's based on a racist assumption that success is determined by race.
No, the point is to recognize current problems and address them. Affirmative action correctly recognizes the fact that for a variety of historical reasons currently the black population is disproportionately under represented in certain areas. It recognizes long standing problems in society that we are slowly fixing and tries to help address them faster. There is nothing in this policy that has anything to do with any inherent superiority of either race, and as such it is not in any way racist. You can argue it doesn't solve the problem, but arguing it's racist is simply incorrect.

Quote:
We believe that a black man can be just as successful as a white man
But in your society this is clearly not the case. It's clear that there are challenges that a black man would face that a white man won't. Saying you believe something does not make you correct.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#131 Jul 07 2014 at 6:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
Voter registration isn't "racism" either, is it?
from my earlier post

For the record, I don't consider the voting policies as racist even though the disproportionately affect minorities. I don't think most of the people enacting them care about the race of the voters, I think they just care that they vote for democrats. I do think racism is one of the factors that allow this sort of policy to persist mind you.

It really depends on the motivation behind the law. It certainly could be racist, but I'm cynical enough to think it's just about stopping people who won't vote republican.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#132 Jul 07 2014 at 6:22 PM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
What closes discussion is when someone insists that the course of action they support cannot be questioned and/or must not be assessed via any sort of objective external criteria.
Liberal bias, oversampling, liberal media conspiracy, and constitution. But I'm sure someone will insist how they're above these sorts of discussion closers.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#133 Jul 07 2014 at 7:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Obviously, the correct term to use is "racial discrimination", but given that everyone else just used the terms "racism" and "racist" within the context of this discussion, I should not be faulted for following along and using the same terminology.

So you're going to give some asinine lecture on what "racism" really is, while using the wrong term the whole time and supposedly being fully aware of it?


I used the same term(s) in the same context as everyone else in the thread. You're the one cherry picking who you decide is misusing the term. The words racism and racist are commonly used as replacements for the longer terms "racial discrimination' and "those who racially discriminate" respectively.

Quote:
Thanks, Professor.


You're welcome. Now. Care to actually address what I'm saying rather than nitpick over word choice?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#134 Jul 07 2014 at 7:41 PM Rating: Good
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
I'll also point out that the dictionary definition of racism still fits the motivation behind liberal policies far more than conservative ones. The argument for AA revolves around the assumption that "inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement". The whole point of AA is to counteract this, right? Ergo, it's based on a racist assumption that success is determined by race.
No, the point is to recognize current problems and address them.


Recognizing that there are statistical outcome differences within society aligned with race? Sure. Concluding that these outcome differences are "because" of race is where you slip into racism. My issue is with the implication that absent some kind of benefit/crutch/handicap/whatever that blacks can't perform as well as whites within say the job or education markets. To me, that's a pretty stock form of racism.

Quote:
Affirmative action correctly recognizes the fact that for a variety of historical reasons currently the black population is disproportionately under represented in certain areas. It recognizes long standing problems in society that we are slowly fixing and tries to help address them faster.


And I already talked about this. You address this by finding cases of racial discrimination (I'll use the longer and more correct term for the Joph's in the audience) and eliminate them. What you *don't* do is create your own racial discrimination to act as some kind of counter. IMO, all that does is institutionalize racial discrimination and lead to more racism down the line. Intended or not, the resulting implication is that which I mentioned above. That somehow people of color are inferior to white people and can only compete if they have an advantage. To me, that's an incredibly harmful message to send. It helps white racists continue to maintain their own racist views *and* instills in people of color a constant doubt as to whether they can succeed without the "help" of AA type programs and policies.


Quote:
There is nothing in this policy that has anything to do with any inherent superiority of either race, and as such it is not in any way racist. You can argue it doesn't solve the problem, but arguing it's racist is simply incorrect.


I was originally responding to claims that the GOP engages in policy positions which are either based on or encourage racist views. I'd say that AA programs fit that bill far better than any GOP policy. They may not "be racism", but they do come from and potentially encourage racist assumptions and viewpoints. Belief in the inherent superiority of one race must be coupled with a belief in the inherent inferiority of another. AA has some serious undertones of racial inferiority because it grants that "help" to every member of a race regardless of their actual condition or background.


If such "help" were targeted based on need and not race, it wouldn't be such an issue. But by targeting them based on race, the assumption is that by the mere fact of "being black" (for example) one has a disadvantage. I've brought this point up before. Statistically, there's no difference in the outcomes of a black child adopted by a white middle class family and the white children raised by the same family. It's not actually about people's skin color, yet we target assistance based on skin color in the case of AA. I think that just serves to perpetuate the belief among some people that black people are inferior to white people. How can it not? You're out and out saying that black people need this extra help, not just to offset a condition of poverty, not just to offset a single parent home, not just to offset growing up in a bad neighborhood, not just to offset attending a crappy public school, but purely because they are black.


It's the wrong message to send. It's absolutely the wrong way to address statistical differences in outcomes that align by race within our society. Because the first step to addressing that issue is to first recognize that those differences are not caused by race. They are caused by other aspects of our society which just happen to also be aligned by race. But by focusing on race, we're distracting attention from those other factors. And to me, that's counter productive.

And at the very least, it's totally wrong to point to the group of people saying "we shouldn't be using AA to try to solve racial inequalities in society" and calling them racists.

Quote:
Quote:
We believe that a black man can be just as successful as a white man
But in your society this is clearly not the case. It's clear that there are challenges that a black man would face that a white man won't. Saying you believe something does not make you correct.


Those challenges aren't there because he's black though. This is what I'm trying to get people to grasp. They exist because he was raised by a single mom, in a poor neighborhood, with crappy schools, and with gangs, and whatever other negative social effects you choose to lump in there. "Society" isn't causing him to fail because he's black. Black outcomes are statistically lower than white outcomes because they are statistically more likely to be afflicted by those negative social factors. That's it. Focus on those factors and the statistics will change.

By focusing on race, you give people excuses for those factors. Black people can blame failure on white racism instead of addressing whatever choices they might be making which affects their own success and the odds of success for their children. White people will pat themselves on the back for "doing something to help", when in fact they're just perpetuating the problem.


And by the way, I'm not trying to argue that being a liberal makes you racist or anything. It's not about motivation in this case, but how an action ends out affecting other people's views and actions going forward. This actually fits a larger pattern of differences in approach to social issues based on liberal versus conservative ideology. Liberals tend to be very direct and try to fix problems by eliminating the symptoms. People don't have money for food? Give them food stamps. People can't afford health care? Give them health care. People can't afford <whatever>? Give it to them. Black people don't get admitted to universities at the same rate as whites? Adjust the admissions requirements. Black people don't get hired in certain fields as much as white people? Provide incentives to hiring a more "balanced" workforce. It's very direct.

Conservatives tend to try to fix the underlying problem itself. People don't have money for food? Let's find out why they can't and try to fix that instead. We can make free food available, but trying to mask the symptoms themselves is counterproductive to our way of thinking. Ditto with health care and a host of other issues. We believe that problems become worse if all you do is address the symptoms. It's like taking pain medicine to address back pain. Sure. It'll work today, but pain is what tells us we're doing something harmful. Over time, in the absence of that pain, we'll continue to make our back worse. Similarly, not being able to afford things, or living in a bad neighborhood, or whatever, are all things that tell us we're doing something wrong. We should work hard to change the things in our lives that cause those outcomes. Just masking the symptoms of poverty doesn't fix poverty. It just makes it more comfortable, and reduces the incentive to avoid it. In the same way that just taking pain medication for a bad back doesn't fix the bad back, it just makes it more comfortable, and reduces the incentive to avoid aggravating and further injuring it (cause you don't feel the pain when you twist or bend the wrong way, right?).

It's a different way of looking at social issues. I happen to think it's a better way. And yes, it certainly can easily be demonized as being uncaring, but I really do believe that in the long run someone is better off if we don't tilt the playing field in order to account for some disadvantage they're currently suffering. Because while that may seem like a nice thing to do for that person today, it's not going to help him in the long run.

Edited, Jul 7th 2014 6:47pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#135 Jul 07 2014 at 7:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
Voter registration isn't "racism" either, is it?


For the record, I don't consider the voting policies as racist even though the disproportionately affect minorities.


Sure. It was just an example. You'd have to ask the people claiming that the GOP platform as a whole is "racist" what precisely they mean and which exact things they're talking about.

Quote:
It really depends on the motivation behind the law. It certainly could be racist, but I'm cynical enough to think it's just about stopping people who won't vote republican.


It's about stopping people from committing voting fraud. This also happens to result in fewer people voting Democrat, but that ought to say more about the Dems than the GOP. And I'm also cynical enough to assume that if the GOP believed that they were benefiting more from voter fraud than the Dems that they'd not be pushing the issue (and the Dems presumably would be). Which I suppose *also* speaks volumes about what's going on.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#136 Jul 07 2014 at 9:27 PM Rating: Excellent
Quote:
It's about stopping people from committing voting fraud

Ahahaha, no. It's not. It's been stated by people organizing these policies that it's not. Smiley: lol

Quote:
Those challenges aren't there because he's black though.
There are challenges that exist just because he's black. I know you want to pretend there aren't because it interrupts your worldview and makes you feel bad, but it's still true. Put in the same economic circumstances, a black man has challenges that don't exist for a white man.

your rhetoric is all very pretty, but it's based on lies. It's based on statements that are fundamentally untrue. And so it falls apart. you also put forward that the entirety of the non conservative approach to helping disadvantaged people is giving them free stuff. you insist that somehow helping people to develop skill to feed themselves is something only conservatives do. This is not only completely BS, but it's absurd, because you aren't actually arguing that. you somehow expect people to miraculously figure out how to bypass the massive disadvantages they're presented with.

Quote:
I happen to think it's a better way
your 'better way' is to ignore the problem and hope that somehow people manage to struggle to a better life. That's not a plan. That's not helpful. that's not a way. Maybe if you offered any kind of solution besides, 'let them suffer, then they'll suddenly figure out how to pay for food lodging and school' maybe people would listen to you. you're not working at solving the underlying problems of anything, you're ignoring them and insisting they don't exist.

Edited, Jul 7th 2014 10:36pm by Xsarus
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#137 Jul 08 2014 at 7:42 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
And I'm also cynical enough to assume
Being contrarian doesn't make you cynical.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#138 Jul 08 2014 at 11:03 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,603 posts
gbaji wrote:
So if a white person gives free stuff only to white people, he's not being racist?...If you treat one group "better", then kinda by default, you're treating another group "worse", right


Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol
Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol
Smiley: lolSmiley: lol

(I made a great big Tie-Fighter out of them, but it didn't work, Smiley: mad)
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#139 Jul 08 2014 at 2:57 PM Rating: Good
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
.

 
Smiley: lol  Smiley: lol 
Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol 
Smiley: lol  Smiley: lol 



____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#140 Jul 08 2014 at 3:43 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
2,603 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Professor stupidmonkey wrote:
.

 
Smiley: lol  Smiley: lol 
Smiley: lolSmiley: lolSmiley: lol 
Smiley: lol  Smiley: lol 




No, It was going to be like 7 Smiley: lol tall, and about 12 Smiley: lol across
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#141 Jul 08 2014 at 6:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Quote:
It's about stopping people from committing voting fraud

Ahahaha, no. It's not. It's been stated by people organizing these policies that it's not. Smiley: lol


Who? You have a quote, I assume? This is a total side issue, but it seems unlikely that front and center proponents of voter ID laws have come out publicly and said "It's not about fraud at all, we just don't want people voting Democrat".

Quote:
Quote:
Those challenges aren't there because he's black though.
There are challenges that exist just because he's black.


No, they aren't. I've explained at length why they aren't. Repeating the same assertion over and over without any explanation or supporting argument isn't terribly helpful.

Quote:
I know you want to pretend there aren't because it interrupts your worldview and makes you feel bad, but it's still true. Put in the same economic circumstances, a black man has challenges that don't exist for a white man.


No, he doesn't. He is statistically more likely to have been raised in an environment that will create additional challenges for him. Once you account for those environmental factors, blacks perform roughly equally to whites. I recall posting a study brief that discussed this the last time this subject came up. IIRC, it focused more on violent crime rates, but I believe it touched on economic status as well (because that was one of the factors that the study had to account for).

Basically, poverty and crime breed poverty and crime. Skin color has more or less nothing at all to do with it. It's just a convenient canard to use, and an easy way to polarize people on the issue itself. Make it about race, and you can both convince poor people that they're poor because of their skin color (thus reducing their likelihood to end their condition of poverty) *and* convince them to vote for the side that tells them this. It's a win win for the Democrats by playing the race game. Want to know who looses? Poor blacks and latinos. The very people they are claiming to help and who turn around and support them politically for that "help".

Quote:
your rhetoric is all very pretty, but it's based on lies. It's based on statements that are fundamentally untrue.


I disagree. The rhetoric that blames it all on race is based on lies. That's the truth that so many are uncomfortable with. It's easier for both white and black to believe that lie, but that does not change the fact that it is a lie. The truth is that the correlation between race and poverty/crime is just a correlation between the two. There is no causation. But as long as people continue to believe there is one, the correlation will continue to exist. The perception of a racial problem will continue to exist. People will continue to support failed ideas like AA. And we'll continue to have a nation divided by race.

If you want that, then by all means continue to believe the lie.

Quote:
And so it falls apart. you also put forward that the entirety of the non conservative approach to helping disadvantaged people is giving them free stuff. you insist that somehow helping people to develop skill to feed themselves is something only conservatives do. This is not only completely BS, but it's absurd, because you aren't actually arguing that. you somehow expect people to miraculously figure out how to bypass the massive disadvantages they're presented with.


The biggest disadvantage most people have is believing the people who tell them they can't succeed.

Quote:
Quote:
I happen to think it's a better way
your 'better way' is to ignore the problem and hope that somehow people manage to struggle to a better life. That's not a plan. That's not helpful. that's not a way. Maybe if you offered any kind of solution besides, 'let them suffer, then they'll suddenly figure out how to pay for food lodging and school' maybe people would listen to you. you're not working at solving the underlying problems of anything, you're ignoring them and insisting they don't exist.


I'm not ignoring the problem. I'm saying that trying to "fix" these problems by throwing money at them is counter productive. And I've already explained how I believe we should be approaching these problems. Obviously, there's no 100% all or nothing solution here. It's always a matter of degrees. The difference is where the focus lies. And on the Left, the focus is on treating the symptoms. The Left puts simply providing people with the things they can't obtain themselves ahead of helping people to be able to obtain them in the first place. It's the classic "give a man a fish vs teaching a man to fish" argument.

The funny thing is that this same argument pops up in nearly every social context. It's not really about the specific thing at hand, but the overarching approach to social issues as a whole. Assuming that "doing something!" is the right thing to do assumes that the something you're doing isn't counter productive. And while it may seem cruel, allowing people to suffer some pain is often the best motivator to change the conditions that are causing it. Obviously, I'm not advocating letting people starve in the street or anything, but providing benefits designed to mimic the condition of not wanting for them in the first place has the effect of removing the negative feedback of the condition itself. And while it's easy to say that no one would choose poverty, the reality is that if you provide everything that poverty denies to someone, you've made the choices that result in poverty easier and more likely to occur.

And that's more harmful in the long run than the condition itself. Because you're not just harming the person you're trying to help, but also harming their children and grandchildren as well. I think that's far worse.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#142 Jul 08 2014 at 7:03 PM Rating: Excellent
Helpful image for gbaji:

Screenshot
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#143 Jul 08 2014 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm not bored enough to debate Gbaji about race in the US. I am, however, a bit amused that he'll go through these great contortions to explain how it's all the Left and how conservatives aren't at all racist and blah blah and then some GOP pundit or politician will say minorities only vote Democratic "because they want Santa Claus" or flip their shit over a 15 second Youtube clip with some poor black lady yelling about wanting a welfare check or something... and then bemoan the next election loss. "Why won't they vote for us? Didn't they hear how non-racist we are?"

Edited, Jul 8th 2014 8:16pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#144 Jul 08 2014 at 7:27 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,098 posts
Jophiel wrote:
"Why won't they vote for us? Didn't they hear how non-racist we are?"


Nope, because liberal media never lets the conservatives talk.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#145 Jul 09 2014 at 7:33 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
I've explained at length why they aren't.
Explaining something incorrectly doesn't make it correct no matter how much you try to inflate it or repeat it.
gbaji wrote:
Repeating the same assertion over and over without any explanation or supporting argument isn't terribly helpful.
Repeating the same thing by just jacking up the word count doesn't either.
gbaji wrote:
I disagree.
Truly the surprises never commence.
gbaji wrote:
The biggest disadvantage most people have is believing the people who tell them they can't succeed.
After a while, you really should believe the people telling you that you're not that smart or cunning.
gbaji wrote:
The funny thing is that this same argument pops up in nearly every social context.
The funny thing is this same argument pops up here so often because you're the mook that makes the trigger argument preceding it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#146 Jul 09 2014 at 7:08 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Helpful image for gbaji:

Screenshot


That's cute, as long as one doesn't realize that the picture labeled as "justice" isn't justice. Justice offsets injustice. Meaning that it only exists within the context of unjust actions. If I take something from you, justice would require (at a minimum) that it be taken from me and returned to you. Justice does not act to offset natural conditions. The tall person did not take height from the short person. Thus, no system of justice would require that his box be taken from him and given to the short person in order to balance out their respective heights.

This, in a nutshell, is where most people go wrong with the concept of rights, liberty, justice, etc. They fail to understand the difference between naturally occurring conditions and those imposed on one by someone else. Government can and should act to adjust for the latter, but while it *may* act to adjust for the former, it is not required, and it's absolutely not "unfair" or "unjust" for it not to.


The image is helpful at illustrating how people apply incorrect labels to things though. So thanks, I guess.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#147 Jul 09 2014 at 7:44 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
Justice does not act to offset natural conditions.
So, in the context of Affirmative Action, slavery and centuries of bigotry were just "natural conditions"?

Interesting thought process there, buddy.


Edited, Jul 9th 2014 7:44pm by Bijou
____________________________
Allegory wrote:
Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.
#148 Jul 09 2014 at 8:10 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Justice does not act to offset natural conditions.
So, in the context of Affirmative Action, slavery and centuries of bigotry were just "natural conditions"?


No. Why do you keep switching things around though? Actions versus conditions. Do you understand the difference?

Being born poor is a condition. No one's stealing your money from you. That sucks and all, but just like being born short, the rest of society is not to blame for it, nor should any concept of "justice" require that others adjust for your lack of height (or wealth).

Get it? Slavery is an action imposed on someone. Bigotry (let's not change terms once again, and stick with "racial discrimination") is an action someone does to you. If I charge you more for something because of your skin color, I'm taking an action which harms you. If I refuse to hire you because of your skin color, I'm taking an action which harms you. Justice requires that we seek out and eliminate those acts of discrimination and unfairness. I'm all for that.

What is *not* justice, or fairness, or anything remotely like that, is the idea that I must provide you with a better life because you were born poor. Or grew up in a high crime neighborhood. Or had abusive and/or drug addicted parents. Or any of a number of environmental factors which can put you at a disadvantage in life. And the fact that racial statistics show that some racial groups suffer these conditions more than others does not (and should not) change that. Affirmative Action, at the risk of being obvious, is an action. It is an action which intentionally treats people differently based on the color of their skin. It is sold as some kind of counter action, but for that to be true, or to be "justice", there must be another action that it is countering. What do you think that action is? Vague crap like "a history of bigotry", or "institutionalized racism", or "statistical disadvantages based on race" aren't sufficiently identified "actions" to qualify.

Pass laws that punish people for discriminating based on race? Sign me up. Because that's the correct approach. Trying to offset conditions people live in with actions that target 'help" based on skin color rather than need? Bad idea. You're not making things better. You're making them worse.


Funny thing. I flipped over to Fox News last night and caught the tail end of Red Eye, and there was a guy on there named Jason Riley, who was promoting a book that covers this exact topic and makes (or appears to make anyway) many of the exact same arguments I'm making. Dunno. Haven't read the book (hadn't heard of it until last night). I just found it interesting that it covers this same topic and addresses many of the same false claims and rhetoric that I'm seeing in this thread. Maybe some of you should read it.

Edited, Jul 9th 2014 7:12pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#149 Jul 09 2014 at 8:19 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,876 posts
In case the previous post was too long, let me nutshell it for you (again):

gbaji wrote:
They fail to understand the difference between naturally occurring conditions and those imposed on one by someone else.

____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#150 Jul 10 2014 at 7:28 AM Rating: Good
******
44,314 posts
gbaji wrote:
If I charge you more for something because of your skin color, I'm taking an action which harms you.
But you're totally okay with different business practices based on beliefs.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#151 Jul 10 2014 at 7:45 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I just found it interesting that it covers this same topic and addresses many of the same false claims and rhetoric that I'm seeing in this thread. Maybe some of you should read it.

So, if I find your arguments to be asinine, I should spend money to read more of them? Tempting.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CST
Almalieque, Poldaran, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (43)