Monday, October 15, 2012
Lyndon Baines Johnson 1963
”These Negroes, they‘re getting pretty uppity these days and that‘s a
problem for us since they‘ve got something now they never had before,
the political pull to back up their uppityness. Now we‘ve got to do
something about this, we‘ve got to give them a little something, just
enough to quiet them down, not enough to make a difference.......I’ll have them niggers voting Democratic for the next two hundred years.”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
59 comments:
I must be reserved in my comment for LBJ is held on high esteem by socially minded progressives.
But damn that man was a bigot and a racist of high order. Never did like the bast*rd!
He was prophetic, though. The Democrats pretty much DO have the African-American vote.
And they get it with a lowbrow tactic of offering them special advantage, instead of treating them equally just like everyone else.
He was prophetic, though. The Democrats pretty much DO have the African-American vote.
Oh, and the White House.
Dmarks, they were not "treated like everyone else" and had "special advantages" to try to undo the damage of them not being treated like everyone else in the past. If not for Affirmative Action, they would not be as able to compete as they are today. It was the right thing to do.
Oppressing someone because of their skin color was wrong. Offering advantages because of ones skin color would also be wrong, but we have never done that. Instead we offered advantages because they had been oppressed. We were not trying to help individuals with these advantages. We were trying to heal the damage we had done to a race of people.
Helping one race while punishing another is destructive any way you look at it.
I agree with this! We should not punish races. Thank God we don't.
Affirmative action was and is the wrong thing to do. And you assume that blacks are inferior or feeble with your claim that they cannot "compete" without it, and will only fail on a level playing field.
Irrational. I assume instead that they were less educated, lived in poverty and oppressed neighborhoods, and therefore were less able to compete. I assume they were in this state due to no inherent flaw in themselves, which is proven by the fact that once they join other peer groups, they do succeed. You, on the other hand, seem to assume that they were less successful because of the color of their skin.
You are the first republican I have ever debated on this topic that I actually believed was a racist, which is a nice distinction for you to hold. Congratulations.
You are right: we don't punish races. But through affirmative action quotas, we punish and deny opportunity to individuals solely because they are of the "wrong" race.
Less educated, etc? Some are, some are not. Why not judge on individual situations and real merit, instead of skin color?
As for the "racist" thing, you are supporting policies designed to punish and reward and deny equal opportunity due to skin color. That does fit in within the definition. I apparently have a lot less tolerance for racism here, so I strongly oppose any racial discrimination.
No, I don't make any assumption that anyone is less successful to to the color of their skin. However, if affirmative action is in place, you do have unqualified failures present who can't cut it otherwise
John, what is so wrong about having no racism at all, and using real merit in considerations, instead of the 'irrational' policy of hiring unqualified people that happen to have the 'right' skin color?
Again, I am not a racist, so I find all racism to be irrational, counterproductive, and destructive.
John, what is so wrong about having no racism at all
Can you articulate the purpose of affirmative action? If you don't under it, then you have no legitimate opinion about it. If you do understand it, then you should have no problem articulating it.
I understand it completely, and also understand that punishing and rewarding individuals due to ignorant racial generalizations is injust, and racism.
Motive and purpose do not matter in this regard, as there is no such thing as good racism, no matter how supposedly ill intended.
As you gentlemen are aware, I've essentially carved out a middle-ground on this one. On the one hand, I think that diversity and outreach are a laudable thing (I would probably pick a B+ kid from the inner-city over an A- kid from the suburbs, for example, postulating that the former had a much harder row to hoe) and in that sense, race can be utilized as A factor. On the other hand, I do not like quotas and other types of rigid affirmative action practices that all too often help middle-class minorities who essentially do not need the help. I don't know, I guess that I kinda agree with Lewis Powell on this one.
I understand it completely, and also understand that punishing and rewarding individuals due to ignorant racial generalizations is injust, and racism.
Motive and purpose do not matter in this regard, as there is no such thing as good racism, no matter how supposedly ill intended.
You use the term "racism" as s label for affirmative action in order to denigrate it. The label is irrelevant as anything other than an appeal to emotion, so I will not address it (see common fallacies for further understanding).
Use then argue that you have a moral imperative that says AF must be wrong (since you label it racism and your moral imperative says racism is wrong). However, moral imperatives are illogical, so I also you not address your personal imperative.
You also refuse to explain affirmative action, but merely claim that you understand it, so I will assume that you are uncertain in that area as well.
Other than all that, great response, sir.
Will,
As you gentlemen are aware, I've essentially carved out a middle-ground on this one.
Funny thing, me too! I am usually arguing that this AF policy or that is racist, which is odd considering the tone of this discussion.
What drove me onto the other side of the discussion was DMarks lack of understanding. I don't support most AF policies. I consider them divisive at best and unduly racist at worst.
However, I do support most historical AF policies. It was the right thing to do and it is the only reason we ultimately took down our "Niggers Not Welcome" signs and it is the only reason we have a black president today.
Obama earned his position. It was not donated via AF. However, if not for policies like AF, neither he, nor any in his race, would likely be able to compete, and it would have nothing to do with anything inherent to his race, and would have everything to do with the oppression (damage) white America did to his race and did not undo when given the change. AF undoes that damage. We robbed blacks of education, opportunity, and the ability to gain skills and knowledge. Replacing what we robbed is not racism.
Saying that blacks were unable to compete with whites merely because for other reasons is racist. It is saying that blacks are inferior to whites, which I think is commonly believed by those who reject AF summarily.
Saying that we insult blacks when we say they were unable to compete after the oppression had done its job, is a lie. Honest whites say this and blacks say this. All people who are denied education, segregated into the worst parts of a society, and written off by that society, are unable to compete with those who were given opportunity, education and respect: regardless of skin color.
Either DMarks is ignorant, racist or both. I probably should not have been so hard on him. I think it is mostly pure ignorance, not intrinsic racism. I think he does not comprehend AF or the problem it solved; and I think he took a position long ago, and now must defend it, because to deny his former position in favor of reason, makes him feel that he was wrong, and that is something he seems unable to intellectually abide.
Dmarks keeps talking about punishing whites individuals and rewarding black individuals. AF has nothing to do with individuals, punishment or reward. He literally does not comprehend the fundamentals of what it is about.
It is about repairing damage done to a race. The race was broken by whites. Whites mended it, not to punish themselves, but to fix what they broke. Everyone is happier, not just blacks, with the conflict of continued black oppression mostly behind us. Part of removing that oppression was removing the effects of it, which allowed the nation to come together and start to heal.
If DMarks says we should rid ourselves of most AF policies today, I can consider getting onboard. He did not do that. Instead he proved that he did not even comprehend AF before he firmly committed to a position on it, a position that he cannot let go of now, because of the cognitive dissonant agony such a thing would cause.
JM said: "Obama earned his position. It was not donated via AF. However, if not for policies like AF, neither he, nor any in his race, would likely be able to compete,"
I strongly disagree. Without AF, they would be able to complete. On a lavel playing field. Yes, I believe black people are very bit as good as whites.
"AF undoes that damage."
IT does not undo anything. Because it rewards blacks of privilege and power along with the downtrodden ones. And it punishes whites at the bottom of poverty along with the powerful ones. All done without regard to whether or not the individuals being punished or rewarded were ever involved.
"We robbed blacks of education"
Giving a special consideration/advantage to badly educated blacks is not a solution. Fix the education system to solve real problems.
"Replacing what we robbed is not racism."
It is definitely racism if it involves judging individuals by skin color. And that is what you appear to be doing. It is not my lack of "understanding". It is your support of racism, poorly worded points, or a combination thereof.
"Saying that blacks were unable to compete with whites merely because for other reasons is racist."
I never said this. I was only referring to unqualified blacks (the ones boosted by AA. Because these policies specifically bypass real qualifications in favor of skin color.
"Either DMarks is ignorant, racist or both."
I am well informed on these policies, and dislike ALL forms of racism. Unlike you. I never see any need to punish individuals for having the wrong skin color.
"I probably should not have been so hard on him."
You are being dishonest if you claim I am racist. Especially considering that I oppose all
"I think he does not comprehend AF or the problem it solved"
I fully comprehend it. And the quota/goals part of it solved nothing, since it only added new instances of racial injustice against individuals.
"and I think he took a position long ago"
Yes, true. I was brought up to support justice, equal opportunity, and due process. And also to oppose racism.
"and now must defend it"
I don't find it difficult to defend a position against racism, especially against someone who outed himself as a racist several comments ago.
"because to deny his former position in favor of reason"
I am sticking with reason. You are sticking with the idea that it is a good idea to inflict racial injustice against individuals. Your "reason" is similar to that of Jim Crow. Not as bad, but similar.
"If DMarks says we should rid ourselves of most AF policies today"
Of course We should never have had them, since they are a form of racism, by definition.
Instead he proved that he did not even comprehend AF"
I proved that I comprehended it. You seem unable to look beneath the surface, and appear to believe that supposed good intentions justifies racist acts.
"a position that he cannot let go of now"
Yup. I am consistently against racism in all its forms. I will not let go of that.
"because of the cognitive dissonant agony such a thing would cause."
Well, for one, you got that right. To agree with your oft-repeated demand to punish innocent individuals based on their skin color for "historic" wrongs would be dissonance indeed.
One missed point: "Saying that we insult blacks when we say they were unable to compete..."
Quite true. It is condescending, racist, and demeaning of you to insist that these people are unable to complete on a level playing field.
You know what would probably help here is if, instead of looking predominantly at race, we looked at socioeconomic status. That way we would be helping those black people who were actually more in need of it AND there wouldn't be the stigma attached.............As for the historical need for affirmative action, while I have a tendency to agree with you, John, I would also point out that some of the greatest economic gains for black people actually happened from 1940 - 1960, the years BEFORE affirmative action, the Great Society, and the Civil Rights laws. To de facto say that black people NEEDED affirmative action may or may not be accurate. Just a thought.
IT does not undo anything. Because it rewards blacks of privilege and power along with the downtrodden ones. And it punishes whites at the bottom of poverty along with the powerful ones. All done without regard to whether or not the individuals being punished or rewarded were ever involved.
This proves that the whole issue is completely over your heard. You are still focuses on an individual getting rewarded whether or not damage was done to him. His race was consider undesirable because the majority of his race were uneducated and in the slums. It is about a race being uneducated and consider disrespectable. You keep worrying about why this individual or that is “rewarded or punished.” You don’t understand AF and now you can’t because you are too committed to your position formed without understanding. Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this any further. This topic is beyond your comprehension. No offense intended.
You are being dishonest if you claim I am racist.
I was not, but I don’t think you are racist, per se, and I apologize for making the statement.
..As for the historical need for affirmative action, while I have a tendency to agree with you, John, I would also point out that some of the greatest economic gains for black people actually happened from 1940 - 1960, the years BEFORE affirmative action, the Great Society, and the Civil Rights laws. To de facto say that black people NEEDED affirmative action may or may not be accurate. Just a thought.
Irrelevant, my friend. There is a long way from having some legally enforced rights and equality. Equality would not have happened without AF. Without AF, Obama would not the president. Without AF we would still speak of Niggers when outside our homes.
I don't know if you can say that with certitude, John. When the poverty rate for blacks goes down nearly 45% from 1940 to 1960 (and at a lesser rate after that) absent any remediation, I think that it's possible that it would have continued without it after 1960, too.......And I also think that your "we" is far too encompassing. Nobody in my family (parents, grandparents, etc.) had ever used such profanity.
Will,
I don't know if you can say that with certitude, John. When the poverty rate for blacks goes down nearly 45% from 1940 to 1960 (and at a lesser rate after that) absent any remediation, I think that it's possible that it would have continued without it after 1960, too.......And I also think that your "we" is far too encompassing. Nobody in my family (parents, grandparents, etc.) had ever used such profanity.
This was before the Civil Rights movement. Your argument implies that the Civil Rights movement itself was not needed. Most of the blacks whose poverty rate climbed, did nothing to move them into professional jobs. Only education and respect do that. The black population had neither, and were not going to get it quickly by themselves. Oppressed people have trouble making things happen short of revolution or revolt.
By the way, my grandfather, a Pentecostal minister, used the term “nigger” until the day he died a few years ago. He used it to mean “black person” and never used any other term, as far as I know. My brother, a very liberal attorney, used the word up until a few years ago. One of my life-long friends explained to me once that he wishes he could sit on his porch and pic the niggers off one-by-one. I am glad no one in your family has ever used the term and that you feel that this means that blacks would have enjoyed equality without AF. In reality, uneducated and disrespected people are not given equal opportunity. Common sense and history are on my side on this: see women in earlier America or women in much of the world now. By forcing the white race to educate the black race, whom the white race had denied education, we made them more respectable in the eyes of their former oppressors; and they were: they were more articulate, communicative, and capable as a result.
It seems that your argument suggests that because progress happens in spurts, and not very evenly and smoothly over time, then AF was not needed. You seem to believe that if their economic standing improved as whites were willing to pay them more to serve them than before, then they were now on the way to equality, all on their own and no action is needed.
With all due respect, I find that analysis shallow and short-sighted. When the Civil Rights movement began, blacks were not respected, not educated, overall, and did not earn high pay. They were not welcome in Whites-only barber shops, cafeterias, “white” schools and in the front of the bus. Without education and respect, they could never have earned high pay or ever been welcome among us, the great white man.
The fastest way to undo the denial of education (and therefore respect) was AF, and without it, it would have been a very long rode. Your argument suggests that even without AF, they would have become educated and respected, even though vastly fewer of them would have been accepted to good colleges or allowed into the White man’s workforce. The argument is patently preposterous (with all due respect). Educate fewer blacks and you will have a more uneducated black race. This is a prima facie common sense and cannot be intelligently denied.
Would blacks have gained equality without AF? Yes. Would they have gained equality as fast, the answer is patently NO. And I think it is logical to assume that without AF and such policies, we may well be arguing, not about whether blacks are equals, but about whether the niggers should be treated the same way we treat Whites.
I'm not saying that the Civil Rights movement wasn't needed (Brown versus Board of Education, especially). I just protest vociferously to the notion that only through government laws is progress attainable. And I certainly don't think that a sustained 20 year improvement in ECONOMIC well-being among African-Americans could ever be considered a "spurt" (the numbers are clear, John - the African-American rise out of poverty was just as dramatic prior to the Civil Rights era as it was after it - again, this is NOT an argument against civil rights).......Yes, discrimination was and is a factor. But it is only one of many factors. I would argue that skills deficits and the burgeoning illegitimacy rate are far more deleterious to black people. And the latter you can NOT simply attribute to poverty. The illegitimacy rate in 1940 was 19% and the poverty rate was 87%. In 2007, those numbers have essentially flipped. The illegitimacy rate was 72% and the poverty rate was 27%. The black family survived slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow but it couldn't survive the 1960s. So, am I still being shallow here (I'm sure that you only meant it in a positive way)?
I would also point out that West Indian blacks, who also suffered under the damaging system of slavery, have consistently performed better than their African-American counterparts. And there are always, ALWAYS, side-effects to government policy (Cash for Clunkers decimating the used car industry, the luxury tax decimating the Yacht building industry in Rhode Island back in the '90s, etc.). To say that affirmative action (which I've stated before that I support generally and not rigidly) has been uniformly positive represents an ideological rigidity that I would much more expect from somebody like wd than you.
Will: About the black West Indians, when I checked this stat a while ago, it showed that they did better economically than the average white in the US
John said: "Equality would not have happened without AF. "
Equality does not exist when AF is present, because AF tilts the playing field and explicitly adds racism
"Without AF, Obama would not the president."
Now you are asserting that Obama was not qualified. How insulting.
"Without AF we would still speak of Niggers when outside our homes."
Not in the least. You are linking two entirely unrelated things.
"This proves that the whole issue is completely over your head."
I understand it a lot more than you do. The elephant in the room is the blatant racism of this policy. You refuse to see it.
"You are still focuses on an individual getting rewarded whether or not damage was done to him."
Of course. Because, like any policy, it always ends up affecting individuals.
"His race was consider undesirable because the majority of his race were uneducated and in the slums."
Which is an ignorant generalization, and of course results in white individuals who are in the slums being kicked in the teeth, and black individuals of middle class or better being rewarded.
"It is about a race being uneducated and consider disrespectable."
Every race is made of individuals with marked differences.
"You keep worrying about why this individual or that is “rewarded or punished."
Yes. Because justice is based on what happens to people based on their own situations. Injustice is based on what you demand in which you punish people for their skin color.
"You don’t understand AF"
I understand it completely. You keep insisting that we should ignore how it affects people.
"and now you can’t because you are too committed to your position formed without understanding."
My position is formed with a complete understanding, and commitment to justice.
"Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this any further."
Good cop out, rather than you getting past your blinders of ignorance.
"This topic is beyond your comprehension. No offense intended."
It is hard to take any from someone who is refusing to even consider the ramifications to policies on the lives of the individuals affected.
"You are being dishonest if you claim I am racist."
I am being quite honest, because again and again you defend a racist policy, and insist that it is OK for policies to punish individuals for their skin color.
"I was not, but I don’t think you are racist, per se"
There is no evidence of my being racist. Especially in this discussion.
On education: "The fastest way to undo the denial of education (and therefore respect) was AF"
It did not undo the denial of education at all. It just covered it over, and even encouraged people to ignore it.
The fact is, people who are poorly educated, black or white, and much less qualified and much less prepared. The racist policy known as AF gives unqualified uneducated blacks a special boost, and leaves unqualified uneducated whites in the dust.
Of course, the answer to this is to improve education for all.
"Your argument suggests that even without AF, they would have become educated and respected"
Without AF, you have nothing but qualified people in positions. With AF, you have even less respect, because of all the unqualified people present who are there only due to skin color.
"even though vastly fewer of them would have been accepted to good colleges or allowed into the White man’s workforce."
Only because the individuals in question were not qualified. Even with AF, they are still not qualified, but thanks to AF they are there where they don't belong. Why not fix the problem at the start to ensure that they are qualified to begin with?
"Educate fewer blacks and you will have a more uneducated black race. "
I have seen AF work at the university level. In particular, one policy that assumed that black people were intellectually inferior. All blacks at this college got given an extra 0.5 GPA, while whites had to earn it.
And finally back to an earlier paragraph:
John said: "Dmarks, they were not "treated like everyone else" and had "special advantages"
Exactly: under AF, blacks are not treated like anyone else, and have a special advantage.
"... to try to undo the damage of them not being treated like everyone else in the past."
This is untrue, as AF policies give no consideration at all to whether or not the individuals given special advantage were treated badly in the past.
"If not for Affirmative Action, they would not be as able to compete as they are today."
It actually makes them less competitive, as it tells them they don't have to try as hard, but instead just be black.
It was the right thing to do."
Racial discrimination is always the wrong thing to do.
"Without AF, Obama would not the president."
Now you are asserting that Obama was not qualified. How insulting.
DMarks, you are playing stupid. I am saying that Obama is qualified and would not have been given the opportunity. I think you know this. Mischaracterizing my position does not inject reason to yours. It only makes it more unreasonable.
John said: "Dmarks, they were not "treated like everyone else" and had "special advantages"
Exactly: under AF, blacks are not treated like anyone else, and have a special advantage.
Since you don’t understand AF, I think we should no longer discuss it. There is no point.
"... to try to undo the damage of them not being treated like everyone else in the past."
This is untrue, as AF policies give no consideration at all to whether or not the individuals given special advantage were treated badly in the past.
You don’t understand AF, as I noted a number of times. AF is not about helping an individual. It is about restoring a damaged race, and the race was damaged and this is considered. You continue to comment on individuals, which demonstrates that the topic is completely over your head. There is no point in discussing it with you, sir.
It actually makes them less competitive, as it tells them they don't have to try as hard, but instead just be black.
That statement is insincere and dishonest, thus requires no rebuttal.
It was the right thing to do."
Racial discrimination is always the wrong thing to do.
Your imperatives do not add reason to your argument. Any imperative used to substantiate a philosophical position weakens the position, not strengthens it.
John: Again, about the matter of Obama.
If he was indeed a beneficiary of affirmative action, not only does this mean you are saying he wasn't really qualified, but there is a major problem with applying AA to him at all. There is no evidence that Barack Obama suffered in any way from the racist Jim Crow, etc slavery system of the US. Nor did any of his ancestors..
In fact, Barack Obama led a relatively privileged upbringing, with above average education and wealth.
Since you brought it up by defending the idea of Obama getting affirmative action, why in hell does he deserve it?
"DMarks, you are playing stupid."
Please stick with the facts, rather than hollow insults.
"I am saying that Obama is qualified and would not have been given the opportunity."
If he really were qualified (and yes I think he is, he would get opportunities without any AA at all. This assumes that Obama is te uneducated social cripple that you argue that blacks tend to be. We all know he is not, so again, why should AA apply to him at all?
Mischaracterizing my position does not inject reason to yours."
I described it rather accurately. It is not my problem that you use careless wording, or rely on wild assumptions that are not implied by anything you say.
"Since you don’t understand AF,"
I understand it completely. In how it impacts groups, and in how it impacts individuals. You insist again and again that the latter does not matter.
I refuse to accept your insistence that when we talk about policies, we have to ignore how it affects people.
"I think we should no longer discuss it. There is no point."
Not until you close major logic holes, and stop saying that I don't understand AF, when I understand a lot more about it than you.
"... to try to undo the damage of them not being treated like everyone else in the past."
"You don’t understand AF, as I noted a number of times. AF is not about helping an individual. It is about restoring a damaged race"
I know, I know. And by punishing and rewarding by race, it is racist in general. And the major point you forget again and again is that such policies affect individual human beings. Whether or not it is about individuals, it ends up impacting them. I am willing to look at this dimension and see how it affects people's lives.
"and the race was damaged and this is considered."
If one gives just one bit of thought to this idea, it is saying that all members of this race are damaged.
Now, to address this concept. No race can be "damaged". Individuals, some of them anyway, can be damaged. The example Barack Obama is proof of this. He has black skin, so he is elligible to get special advantage conferred upon him as a black individual, by many institutions. However, Barack Obama has not been damaged at all by the past racism of the US. He and his ancestors did not experience Jim Crow or slavery in the old South.
Yet, under the assumption you stick by that every black individual is damaged, he gets special treatment."
It actually makes them less competitive, as it tells them they don't have to try as hard, but instead just be black.
"That statement is insincere and dishonest, thus requires no rebuttal."
My statement that the racism you favor actually makes blacks less competitive, as it tells them they don't have to try as hard, but instead just be black is sincere, honest, and accurate. Fine with me if you realize this and completely weasel out of it.
The "logic" of racists is an ugly thing. Even of mild racists like you, John, who insisted that all black individuals are "damaged" and deserve special treatment, and that they would have no opportunity given a level playing field.
As for this, "Your imperatives do not add reason to your argument. Any imperative used to substantiate a philosophical position weakens the position, not strengthens it. "
Yes, I believe racism is wrong. The same as how I believe rape and other forms of injustice are wrong. Sorry if I stick to my principles, and keep my "imperatives". It's easy. Your arguments that racism is sometimes good have major logic holes and "don't go there's", such as the thing you keep bringing up how we must only look at policies in the general, and never at how they affect people.
Dmarks,
If he was indeed a beneficiary of affirmative action, not only does this mean you are saying he wasn't really qualified, but there is a major problem with applying AA to him at all.
Obama belongs to a race that would be far more oppressed were it not for AF. I have explained this repeatedly, but you don’t understand race vs. individual, so I am content to say that the AF is over your head entirely and leave it at that.
There is no evidence that Barack Obama suffered in any way from the racist Jim Crow, etc slavery system of the US. Nor did any of his ancestors..
It’s about race, and you have no idea what you are talking about. You have no idea what Obama or his ancestors went through, but I suspect it is much less than it would have been for Obama if not for AF.
In fact, Barack Obama led a relatively privileged upbringing, with above average education and wealth.
Again, if blacks were not respected as educated and capable, he could not have become president.
Since you brought it up by defending the idea of Obama getting affirmative action, why in hell does he deserve it?
I never once stated that Obama got AF. You don’t understand AF. It was the race that AF was for. So far as I know “Obama” did not personally get AF, as that is not even a concept AF strives for. AF is not about individual equality, per se, but about individual equality through race equality. Until you understand this, you sound like a babbling idiot in your rebuttals (no offense intended).
"DMarks, you are playing stupid."
Please stick with the facts, rather than hollow insults.
You claim the facts are over your head. I tried that first. I tried educating you about what AF is, but you instead insist it is what you need it to be: oppression of whites.
Not until you close major logic holes, and stop saying that I don't understand AF, when I understand a lot more about it than you.
You don’t even understand its core purpose, which is the foundation. You continue to rebut something it is not about.
[Continued ...]
[Conclusion ...]
I know, I know. And by punishing and rewarding by race, it is racist in general.
Again, you don’t understand AF. AF is not about rewards and punishment, but equality of race. I have never met someone with such a strong philosophical opinion about something whose philosophy is something they have never considered. It’s ridiculous, my friend.
And the major point you forget again and again is that such policies affect individual human beings.
I know they affect individual human beings. The thing you continue to focus on is equality. That is what AF was all about: all individuals having an equal chance regardless of race. In order to get there as quickly as possible, we had to repair the damage we had done to one race. To you equality is defined as the crippled race, the race we crippled, competing with the educated and respected race. That is not equality. If I admit that the race was crippled, something the race itself admits, and a point on which all intellectually honest intelligent people agree, you rebut that by saying I think the race is inferior. No, I think their education and opportunity was made inferior, and your rejection of AF would have kept it that way for a long time, which is what you call equality.
On a side note, equality is a concept that republicans in general don’t understand. (See Grandpa’s Coins at Mysterious Things for an expose). AF is about race equality. I think there are many milestones you must reach before you can have a reasonable discussion about this; therefore, as I said before, we should not discuss it.
Now, to address this concept. No race can be "damaged". Individuals, some of them anyway, can be damaged. The example Barack Obama is proof of this. He has black skin, so he is eligible to get special advantage conferred upon him as a black individual, by many institutions. However, Barack Obama has not been damaged at all by the past racism of the US. He and his ancestors did not experience Jim Crow or slavery in the old South.
This is another statement that shows you don’t understand. You argue that a race cannot be damaged and as proof you cite the excellence of a specific individual. If not for AF, I strongly doubt that Obama could have been president, not because he would be less excellent, but because his race would not be respected as credible. AF did exist. You assume that AF was not needed, and without it Obama would still be as successful, and as evidence you cite the fact that Obama is successful. Your logic falls apart quickly. AF did exist, sir. Oops.
Yet, under the assumption you stick by that every black individual is damaged, he gets special treatment.
I don’t have that opinion. You don’t understand AF. I do not think Obama is damaged. I think the race WAS. More evidence that you don’t understand: you continue to attempt to rebut a position I don’t hold.
It actually makes them less competitive, as it tells them they don't have to try as hard, but instead just be black.
Just being black has not been made anyone especially successful. You don’t understand, sir. Go to almost any American big city and you will find that you were mistaken. Oops.
The "logic" of racists is an ugly thing. Even of mild racists like you, John, who insisted that all black individuals are "damaged" and deserve special treatment, and that they would have no opportunity given a level playing field.
I don’t insist this, you insist I insist it, but that is not valid. You don’t understand AF and you also don’t understand racism. It is better to be silent and thought a fool, my friend…
I don’t ask for your concession. You cannot concede a point you cannot follow. I only ask that you stop talking. I find myself repeating myself and you continually debating someone else who does not think the way I do, and who also does not understand AF, but is for it. Please leave me out of that debate. I find it silly.
Will,
I would argue that skills deficits and the burgeoning illegitimacy rate are far more deleterious to black people
What do you attribute this to again? Modern, educated, respected blacks (which is certainly not all of them by any means), don’t seem to have as many of these problems.
What do you attribute this to again? Modern, educated, respected blacks (which is certainly not all of them by any means), don’t seem to have as many of these problems.
The illegitimacy rate in 1940 was 19% and the poverty rate was 87%. In 2007, those numbers have essentially flipped. The illegitimacy rate was 72% and the poverty rate was 27%.
There was no such thing as an inner city culture in the 1940’s. That is an irrelevant comparison.
The black family survived slavery, lynchings, and Jim Crow but it couldn't survive the 1960s.
Not so. The black family did survive the 60’s. You did not see black presidents then. I certainly would not have likely reported to a black at work, but they did survive. AF is not about survival.
So, am I still being shallow here
I apologize if I accused you of a shallow analysis. In fact, I apologize for any instinct that continues to make me feel that way as well.
At least DMarks can claim he doesn’t get AF as a defense. You do get it. Therefore, I just want to point out, that closing the education and therefore the respect GAP had a purpose. Arguing that it had no positive affect would be pointless, as it has / had a prima facie affect. Therefore, the only logical argument one can make is to how much longer it would have taken us to get where we are today if we had not had AF. One can also argue that though AF repaired damage, it was not fair. One cannot argue that educating more of a race does not make the race more educated or that education does not give the race a more equal chance. At least if that argument can be made, I have never seen it. Are you prepared to introduce me to the argument? If so, what is your rebuttal to the prima facie: educating a race makes the race more educated?
John said: I have explained this repeatedly, but you don’t understand race vs. individual"
Repeating something that is invalid does not make it any more valid. You should know by now that there is no "race vs individual": these policies impact individuals despite your denial of it.
"so I am content to say that the AF is over your head entirely and leave it at that."
You are content to lie in this matter, as it is clear that I am looking way beyond the surface on AA and understand it in ways you refuse to understand.
"It’s about race..."
If it is about race, and ignores individual differences, it is racist. By definition, and in fact in a very similar way to how "racial profiling" is racist.
"and you have no idea what you are talking about."
I have complete knowledge of what I am talking about, as you will find out again shortly.
"You have no idea what Obama or his ancestors went through"
I know for a FACT that Obama and his ancestors did not go through the American scandal of lynchings, slavery, and Jim Crow. The evils that AA is supposed to counteract. If you are not aware of this, you are apparently too lazy to research it. ,
"but I suspect it is much less than it would have been for Obama if not for AF."
Unlike you, I believe Obama is qualified for his positions.
"Again, if blacks were not respected as educated and capable, he could not have become president."
That is one of my points. Without Aa, you have a level playing field, where blacks are respected for their education and capable. With AA, you have unqualified individuals boosted into high places, which demeans any respect for all.
"I never once stated that Obama got AF."
Actually, you did. You said he would not be anywhere if not for it. Thus insulting him as someone who could not make it if there were equality.
"You don’t understand AF."
I understand it in more dimensions than you do. It was the race that AF was for.
"but about individual equality through race equality."
That's like having sex for virginity. Treating people due to race instead of as individuals negates any individual equality. Completely.
"you sound like a babbling idiot in your rebuttals (no offense intended)."
Sorry, you are like a babbling idiot when you refuse to acknowledge that punishing and rewarding people for skin color instead of individual merit is counterproductive, unjust, and by definition racist.
"DMarks, you are playing stupid."
If I were being stupid, I would forget the facts and become a racist like you.
"You claim the facts are over your head."
I have proven that I have much more of a sound factual basis on this subject.
"I tried educating you about what AF is"
You said something that simply was not true. The only thing I have learned is how deluded racists like you can be.
"but you instead insist it is what you need it to be: oppression of whites."
AA quotas, where they insist that individuals be denied jobs because of skin color, is indeed that. It meets it by definition, not because "I need it to be".
"You don’t even understand its core purpose"
I do understand it completely. But unlike you, I remember that a racist policy is still racist despite its "purpose"
"You continue to rebut something it is not about."
I have stuck to the core.
Again, you don’t understand AF. AF is not about rewards and punishment"
AA explicitly rewards and punishes individuals due to their skin color. You would realize this if you looked into the people affected by it.
"but equality of race."
It is about less equality, because it injects more racism into the picture.
"I have never met someone with such a strong philosophical opinion about something whose philosophy is something they have never considered."
I did consider it. And yes, I have a strong opinion that ALL racial injustice is wrong.
"It’s ridiculous, my friend."
Sorry. It is racism, in ANY form, that is ridiculous.
"I know they affect individual human beings."
Yet your rebuttals sweep it under the rug. Again and again.
"That is what AF was all about"
No, it is not. It explicitly demands inequality.
"all individuals having an equal chance regardless of race."
Any AA policy in place explicitly prohibits equal chance.
"To you equality is defined as the crippled race, the race we crippled"
What a load of racist crap. Excuse me. I did not cripple anyone. And black individuals are strong, proud, smart, and capabie. Not the cripples you accuse them of being.
"competing with the educated and respected race."
There is no such thing. Such a concept is intellectually invalid.
"If I admit that the race was crippled"
"Admitting" a mindless generalization is not something to be proud of.
"something the race itself admits"
No race can ever say anything.
"you rebut that by saying I think the race is inferior."
Your claiming that individuals of the Black race are crippled is pretty close to calling them inferior...
"and your rejection of AF would have kept it that way for a long time, which is what you call equality."
Hahaha. I am so glad we have AF, and the education of black schoolchildren is as good as that of whites.
"AF is about race equality."
No, it is about inequality. The policies demand that individuals of one race be giving a better treatment than individuals of another race. How is that equal?
"I think there are many milestones you must reach before you can have a reasonable discussion about this"
No, I won't go there. As your milestone is one of my wanting people to be punished for having the wrong skin color, I will never go there. Sorry, I am too smart, and believe in equal justice.
"This is another statement that shows you don’t understand. You argue that a race cannot be damaged and as proof you cite the excellence of a specific individual."
It shows I do understand. People are individuals, not races. Please let go of the bigotry.
"If not for AF, I strongly doubt that Obama could have been president"
Again with your argument that he is inferior, and could not succeed on a level playing field.
"You assume that AF was not needed"
OF course. No injustice is needed. Jim Crow wasn't needed either. John.
"...and without it Obama would still be as successful"
Yes, because I assume Obama is capable. You think he is inferior due to his skin color.
"and as evidence you cite the fact that Obama is successful."
Of course. It's REAL EVIDENCE about an actual person.
"I don’t have that opinion."
You have again and again said that
'you continue to attempt to rebut a position I don’t hold.'
By saying all Black individuals are damaged and can't cut it if they have a level playing field, you are saying this of OBama. He is one of the subset of blacks.
"Just being black has not been made anyone especially successful.'
Actually, any time AA policies are adhered to, it does.
"You don’t understand, sir. Go to almost any American big city and you will find that you were mistaken. Oops."
It only shows how AA, being so destructive in many ways, does not accomplish what it sets out to do for the group.
"You don’t understand AF and you also don’t understand racism."
I understand racism. Check the definition.
"You cannot concede a point you cannot follow."
I follow your point. But I do not accept it, as I lack any sort of racial bias.
"I only ask that you stop talking."
We'd be better off without your voice of bigotry. No, I will not shut up and stop saying that black individuals are not crippled or inferior.
"I find myself repeating myself and you continually debating someone else who does not think the way I do"
You got that right. I believe in equality.
"and who also does not understand AF, but is for it."
I understand it, but do not accept and approve.
"Please leave me out of that debate. I find it silly."
Was this even a debate? you came to it rather uninformed.
John said: "At least DMarks can claim he doesn’t get AF as a defense."
I completely understand it. But I believe that adding new instances of racial injustice helps nothing.
By the way, Will "gets it" for sure. On this issue, he is always interested in the merit and accomplishments of individuals, and I can't imagine him passionately arguing that wealthy educated black people are "damaged" and need any special boost or consideration of any kind.
He gets it because he knows it is about individuals.
DMarks, you are waste of time. You continue to make the same debunked arguments, phrased different ways. This discussion has not only made me weary of this discussion with you, but it has made me bored with any discussion with you. I have to believe you are not trying to be analytical, but just want to appear not to have lost, which was not how saw you previously (but I did not pay that much attention). This is boring repetition.
John said: "DMarks, you are waste of time."
Yes, you won't get anywhere with me, because I refuse to accept your assertion that some racism is OK.
"You continue to make the same debunked arguments"
You have not debunked any of my arguments. Perhaps this is why they get phrased different ways.
"This discussion has not only made me weary of this discussion with you"
Good. Then come back when you have learned to let go of the racism and the resulting ludicrous ideas such as that Obama is damaged.
"I have to believe you are not trying to be analytical"
Only if you are an uninformed boob with poor reading skills. I have been very analytical.
"This is boring repetition."
Yeah, starting with your idea that all black people are damaged and deserve a special advantage.
You blew it on this one, like you did with the argument at Heathen about Obama's choices to make trillions of dollars in purchases which caused the debt to go so much higher.
Anyway, learn some critical thinking. And when discussing political issues, some day realize that it's not taboo to discuss how policies affect individuals.
Yeah, starting with your idea that all black people are damaged and deserve a special advantage.
Your idea, one I had never heard of until you introduced it as a concept.
Labeling something racism and then rejecting it based on your supposed moral imperative about racism is fallacious. You don’t know what AF is and your philosophy is based on an idea that does not exist in the real world.
Additionally, your reasoning is wholly fallacious. How can I continue with you?
Anyway, learn some critical thinking
I am a life-long student of the soft science of critical thinking, as is well known. You are using the term with no understanding behind it. It is a whole discipline, which you have demonstrated you have not studied. Your whole approach is fallacious. You cannot assume a position and then use your assumption as proof of your philosophy about the issue, which is what you are doing with your moral imperative.
I can recommend some excellent books on the topic. I have read plenty. I am staring at two in the mini bookshelf at my desk right now. You have but to ask.
John said: "Your idea [that all black people are damaged and deserve a special advantage]
, one I had never heard of until you introduced it as a concept.'
Actually, you have used it a lot, starting with "It is about restoring a damaged race" in which you first said that Blacks were damaged. A blanket smear by you which included President Obama.
"Labeling something racism"
It is not a matter of labeling. It is about knowing the concept thoroughly.
"and then rejecting it based on your supposed moral imperative"
Yes, my moral imperative, the one you hate so much, is that it is bad to inflict racism on anyone.
"You don’t know what AF is"
I know exactly what it is. Your cooking up this whopper again and again doesn't make it any more true. I know exactly what it is much more than you. I have dared to look at how it affects individuals. To you that is a no-no.
" and your philosophy is based on an idea that does not exist in the real world."
AA exists in the real world, sorry.
"Additionally, your reasoning is wholly fallacious."
Since you cannot come up with even one example of this, you are just making a hollow insult.
"How can I continue with you?"
Perhaps if you did a little research you would do better.
"I am a life-long student of the soft science of critical thinking,"
Then how can you come across as soft-in-the-head when you get actually kind of shrill at the very idea of discussing how this policy impacts individuals?
"You are using the term with no understanding behind it."
Yawn. Another lie.
"Your whole approach is fallacious."
Yet, you cannot come up with even one example of this.
"You cannot assume a position and then use your assumption as proof of your philosophy about the issue"
Sorry, AA is explicitly racist whether or not my assumption (that racism is bad) is involved. You have it backwards.
Accusing people who have philosophies you don't like of being racist promotes racism quite a bit. Your hostility in this matter is troublesome. What race am I against? My own? I am white. Blacks? Then by your definition most blacks are racist against blacks, as they mostly supported AF.
I think you are insane.
From Google, by the way. Remember, these are not my definitions. But just the generally accepted ones:
"rac·ism/ˈrāˌsizəm/
Noun:
[1] The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
[2] Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
The first, [1] is strongly present in your insistence that blacks are damaged, etc.
The second is very explicitly present in your demand for discrimination against individuals based on this policy.
There. Hopefully you won't have anything to fall back on anymore in your insistence that the racism problem isn't something that is at the root of your policy you favor but instead something I made up.
Insane? Well, crazy. Crazy like an informed fox.
And now to use some more critical thinking at one of John Myste's specific points that was so completely and provably untrue:
"AF is about race equality.""
Let's check out one specific and very typical AA policy. The infamous one at the University of Michigan law school, Gratz v. Bollinger
From the text:
"The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, an automatic 20-point bonus on this scale, while a perfect SAT score was worth 12 points."
There. The 20 point difference, granted to some races and denied others (not only to whites). A requirement which denies and prohibits race equality, thus directly contradicting your claim "AF is about race equality."
IF you want, I can go through example after example of specific affirmative action policies which explicitly mandate race inequality through such methods as this one to reward some individuals for their skin color and punish others. In fact, we will find that most of these policies demand race inequality.
Remember, as it appears you have entirely lost sight of the concept, that equality (in a social setting) refers to "The state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities".
Dmarks, you also don't understand reward and punishment. I do not have time or interest in educating you on this. You speak your own language and you base imperative belief on Dmarks Language.
I can honestly say that you now hold the distinction of the most irrational person I have met at Contra O'Reilly, by far.
As I have stated already, there is no point in continuing. Your faith is indisputable and included among it are that those who supported policies that equalized race are therefore racist. By your definition, most blacks are racist and those who tried to leave the damage the white man did in place are not racist. I cannot reason with someone like you.
You also don't understand reward and punishment, both concepts to deter action or penalize someone, none of which are applicable to AF.
Please stop talking. It is painful to try to communicate with you.
Dmarks,
Listening to a loud mouth who responds with total jibberish to each point ruins the site. You are making me disgusted with the entire site because people who had the patience to deal with you have been banned, leaving your nuttiness to dominate and become the site.
You don't have to agree, but damn! Labeling those racist who understand the policy and then spouting off continued nonsense is just painful.
John said:
"Dmarks, you also don't understand reward and punishment."
Do you want go to into these words? I can assure you that you have no idea what you are talking about, just like with the definition of the words racism.
"I do not have time or interest in educating you on this."
That's real rich, as you are making so many claims that simply aren't true at all. You are only educating me on how uninformed, idiotic, and ill-intentioned racists are, and how they don't understand their own policies, and how they hate it when you look at how they affect people. Also stupid and unintellectual is how you rest things on blanket assumption such as the idea that blacks are all damaged, and then insist it doesn't matter that your claim is false.
If you are doing like you did before, you will be making up your own definitions of the words on the fly.
"You speak your own language"
Wow. You really are such a liar. I refer to what words actually mean, and you do not.
"and you base imperative belief on Dmarks Language."
Wow. What an idiot you have turned out to be. I refer to what words actually mean, and link to it. I notice now you are refusing to address any of the actual points made, and are just lobbing insult after false claim after insult.
"I can honestly say that you now hold the distinction of the most irrational person I have met at Contra O'Reilly, by far."
Which, given the complete lack of any evidence, is just a lame insult.
"Listening to a loud mouth who responds with total jibberish to each point ruins the site.';
Yet, you can't give one example of total gibberish.
"You are making me disgusted with the entire site"
Your racism (which I mistakenly called "mild" and the lengths to which it makes you go, like insisting that Obama is "damaged" and could not have made it on a level playing field is far more disgusting than my imperative that "racism is bad" that offends you so.
"because people who had the patience to deal with you have been banned"
Will banned WD for lying repeatedly to WD, not for what he did in regard to me.
"leaving your nuttiness to dominate and become the site."
Yeah, people like Klansman and you think I am nutty.
You don't have to agree, but damn! Labeling those racist who understand the policy"
"I understand completely this explicitly racist policy. You do not. People who embrace it and support it are racist by definition. You should know this by now. It's a fact whether or not I believe in it.
"and then spouting off continued nonsense is just painful."
You can't name one bit of nonsense from me. But there is plenty from you, such as how all black individuals are damaged and inferior.
It's fine if you stop lying and insulting and making fact-free comments, and go back to being the bigot you are.
Also stupid and unintellectual is how you rest things on blanket assumption such as the idea that blacks are all damaged, and then insist it doesn't matter that your claim is false.
I never said that. You did.
Reward and punishment are intended to encourage or deter actions, or to recognize actions (in the name of justice). I know you are too proud to ask, so I thought I would help. This has nothing to do with AF.
Your racism (which I mistakenly called "mild" and the lengths to which it makes you go, like insisting that Obama is "damaged"
I never said that, you did.
. But there is plenty from you, such as how all black individuals are damaged and inferior.
I repeatedly stated it was not about individuals, which was the gist of my main thesis. You are intentionally lying because you are angry. I know you now understand the argument, but you seem embarrassed to acknowledge it, which I also understand, sir.
As for your removed comment about me not voting, sorry. I am a liberal. I intend to vote twice, perhaps more.
Also stupid and unintellectual is how you rest things on blanket assumption such as the idea that blacks are all damaged, and then insist it doesn't matter that your claim is false.
I never said that ["idea that blacks are all damaged"]. You did.
You did many times. This is the first time: "It is about restoring a damaged race" (your own words)
"Reward and punishment are intended to encourage or deter actions"
Yeah, which is why I find the polices you advocate, which punish people for things they never did and never will do, and reward people for things they never had anything to do with, to be very strange and misguided. Not to mention entirely unjust.
like insisting that Obama is "damaged"
I never said that [insisting that Obama was damaged], you did.
John's own words: "Without AF, Obama would not the president". And yes this is the same AF that John so many times assumes that all blacks are damaged.
Also, as you said blacks were damaged, and Obama is black, you also called him damaged there too.
"I repeatedly stated it was not about individuals, which was the gist of my main thesis."
An invalid, disproven thesis which crumbled to dust as soon as we came up with examples in this damaged group who are not damaged at all, in any way.
"You are intentionally lying because you are angry."
No, I am calmly pointing out that the (by-definition) racist assumption that all blacks are inferior is worthless due to the preponderance of blacks in this group who are not damaged.
"I know you now understand the argument"
I understand it more than you do. You find it a weakness to dig deep and critically look at a careless blanket assumption such as yours.
As for your removed comment about me not voting, sorry. I am a liberal. I intend to vote twice, perhaps more."
Well, yes, this will happen. Thanks to leftist groups lying in the courtroom and filing frivolous lawsuits to protect voter fraud.
Also stupid and unintellectual is how you rest things on blanket assumption such as the idea that blacks are all damaged, and then insist it doesn't matter that your claim is false.
I don’t think this, as I have stated repeatedly. You made that up. You are continually intentionally making up things, which you would not do if you were confident in your position. I said that the “race” was damaged, discredited and set back that needed to be fixed.
John's own words: "Without AF, Obama would not the president". And yes this is the same AF that John so many times assumes that all blacks are damaged.
The race was uneducated and considered un-credible. Neither applies to Obama. AF did exist. If you were confident in your position, you would not invent things to refute.
An invalid, disproven thesis which crumbled to dust as soon as we came up with examples in this damaged group who are not damaged at all, in any way.
You don’t understand the problem AF intended to solve. It was about a race, not specifically about rewarding or punishing individuals.
No, I am calmly pointing out that the (by-definition) racist assumption that all blacks are inferior is worthless due to the preponderance of blacks in this group who are not damaged.
I agree, that is a racist idea. It happens to be one you came up with, though, and to which I do not subscribe. All the blacks who support AF also do not assume they if you support AF you are saying blacks are inferior or worthless. Only you say that and I acknowledge that it is irrational.
I understand it more than you do. You find it a weakness to dig deep and critically look at a careless blanket assumption such as yours.
Projection. I don’t make blanket assumptions (categorical imperatives), nor do I believe them. That is your approach, not mine. I think Obama is superior to most whites, present company included.
As for your removed comment about me not voting, sorry. I am a liberal. I intend to vote twice, perhaps more."
Well, yes, this will happen. Thanks to leftist groups lying in the courtroom and filing frivolous lawsuits to protect voter fraud.
Your chain is too lax, my friend.
" I said that the “race” was damaged, discredited and set back that needed to be fixed."
The race is made up 100% of individuals. When such a statement is made, we must analyze how it applies individuals covered by it.
"The race was uneducated and considered un-credible. Neither applies to Obama."
Then it follows that Obama, as a qualified individual, was not helped by AA.
"If you were confident in your position, you would not invent things to refute."
You invent plenty of them already, my friend.
"You don’t understand the problem AF intended to solve."
I understand it completely. However, unlike you, I look at the following:
1) How it ignores the problem it is supposed to solve.
2) How it is based on false assumptions.
"It was about a race, not specifically about rewarding or punishing individuals."
Yet, as the damaged race is made up of individuals, it does end up affecting them. This cannot be denied.
"I agree, that is a racist idea. It happens to be one you came up with, though"
You broke it here, and have repeated it. I opposed it each time.
"...AF you are saying blacks are inferior or worthless. Only you say that and I acknowledge that it is irrational."
AF says this, and I counter that it is racist. Blacks are not "damaged". They are diverse people of many levels of skill and income.
Projection. I don’t make blanket assumptions"
Do you want me to count how many times you have insisted that all blacks are damaged and uneducated?
"I think Obama is superior to most whites, present company included."
Then it follows that AF, which assumes all blacks are damaged and need special consideration to place unqualified people in positions, would not have applied to him at all. He's not damaged.
"Your chain is too [insert mindless insult here], my friend.
The Democrats' fight for voter fraud is well documented throughout the summer and fall.
Do you want me to count how many times you have insisted that all blacks are damaged and uneducated?
I do not believe that all blacks are damaged or uneducated, so the count is zero. The fact that you keep lying about this is what has completely turned me off this Dmarks inanity dominated site.
"I do not believe that all blacks are damaged or uneducated, so the count is zero"
Which means you have entirely flip flopped from the "damaged race" racist claim of yours. Which is fine, since that is racist.
"The fact that you keep lying about this is what has completely turned me off this Dmarks inanity dominated site."
I have told the truth about this. The record is clear in the many comments in which you claimed that the black race (which includes all black individuals) is damaged. I have not lied one time about it. But again, if you have flipped on this issue, and rescind this racist smear about damaged blacks, that is great.
I wonder if you have also rescinded this racist claim: "We robbed blacks of education, opportunity, and the ability to gain skills and knowledge. Replacing what we robbed is not racism."
Giving extra reward to educated high achieving black individuals while punishing white individuals who have no education/opportunity/etc (which is the core of the intent and action of AA). is by definition racist.
As for this, "Dmarks inanity dominated site."
what is inane is your repeated insistence that all blacks are damaged. I'm sorry I am not as stupid and ignorant as you like, and thus refuse to accept your disproven repeated claim.
The record is clear in the many comments in which you claimed that the black race (which includes all black individuals) is damaged.
You don't understand AF. I will sit down and shut up, though. I suspect most liberals will ultimately do the same. This is now Dmarks place, and like his own site, a complete bore. I like Will and enjoy his commentary, but Will is a minor player on his site and you refuse to debate honestly.
"You don't understand AF."
I completely understand it. Just like I understand racial profiling and Jim Crow. However, I dislike all of these policies for the same reason.
What is happening here is your insistence on something illogical.
You repeatedly mention a certain set (blacks) which contains individuals who are all damaged/uneducated/etc. That is your premise. That this describes blacks. And then you go haywire when I point out the blacks who are not damaged. And the whites who are damaged, and how your assertion completely falls apart based on the facts.
"I suspect most liberals will ultimately do the same. This is now Dmarks place, and like his own site, a complete bore."
How like WD you are, making lame insults. But if it means you will stop making ignorant assertions, fine.
"I like Will and enjoy his commentary"
Then you should read his about AF. He always realizes that there are individuals involved. And he has shown strong evidence that blacks have advanced completely without its presence.
"but Will is a minor player on his site and you refuse to debate honestly."
You can't come up with one example where I did not debate honestly.
But you are right. It is Will's place to tell you to sit down and shut up, not mine. And if you make such crazy faith-based assertions about race, I will not shut up either. Logic and intelligence are important.
Anyone wanting further education on this might want to visit this post by Will which shows strong proof that racist "solutions" like AF are very ineffective in doing what they are supposedly trying to do. It is hard for one to claim to "understand" AF without knowing about this.
And to make one last correction. John said: "You use the term "racism" as s label for affirmative action in order to denigrate it. The label is irrelevant as anything other than an appeal to emotion, so I will not address it (see common fallacies for further understanding)."
I went to the dictionary to check the definition of racism before I even said this. You have refused to, proving that you don't care what words mean at all.
The "label" (more like accurate description) has nothing to do with emotion, and everything to do with properly identifying such destructive policies.
"so I will not address it"
In other words, you know well that this policy is explicitly racist and you are afraid to bother to check the meanings of words. If anything is "boring" it is your repeated use of unintellectual cop-outs like this when caught making very careless statements.
In retrospect, it is good to bring this issue up again, especially in light of this year's recent polling data:
http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/06/11/18885926-nbc-newswsj-poll-affirmative-action-support-at-historic-low?lite
"As the Supreme Court prepares to once again weigh in on the issue of affirmative action, a record-low number of Americans support such programs, according to the latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll.
Just 45 percent of respondents said they believe affirmative action programs are still needed to counteract the effects of discrimination against minorities, while an equal 45 percent feel the programs have gone too far and should be ended because they unfairly discriminate against whites."
The chart in the article shows a decades-long erosion in support for this type of racism.
That's real societal progress. Of course, it shows that there are still many racists, including Mr Myste who argues that blacks are inferior ("damaged" his word) goods.
It's very true. I saw LBJ say the nigger vote quote on television in 1963, and saw it again on the internet just about two years ago. It also has been on the internet 'til recently.
Paula Deen could have used this as a social defense.
LBJ was a nasty low life who has others killed for his political rise. Read: "A Texan Looks at Lyndon". Horrible bastard.
Post a Comment