Speaking of the Tea Party, I just saw this story:

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/01/12/az-republicans-resig/

Quote :

"Legislative District chairman Anthony Miller, a Republican, announced that he would resign his position. In an email to the state’s GOP chair, Miller cited “constant verbal attacks” after his election last year “and Internet blog posts by some local members with Tea Party ties made him worry about his family’s safety.” Many of his Republican colleagues followed him out the door"

Quote :

" The newly-elected Dist. 20 Republican secretary, Sophia Johnson of Ahwatukee, first vice chairman Roger Dickinson of Tempe and Jeff Kolb, the former district spokesman from Ahwatukee, also quit."

Quote :

"Miller had been on the receiving end of attacks from the GOP’s right-wing activists, particularly because he had worked for Sen. John McCain’s Senate reelection campaign last year against Tea Party favorite J.D. Hayworth"

Quote :

"“I wasn’t going to resign but decided to quit after what happened Saturday,” Miller said. “I love the Republican Party but I don’t want to take a bullet for anyone.”"

It makes me recall from just a few months back:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/13/threat-against-delaware-republican-chair/

Quote :

"he Chairman of the Delaware Republican Party received a death threat recently over his support for Republican Congressman Mike Castle in Tuesday's Senate primary, according to an official in the Delaware GOP office. ... According to that posting, the e-mail reads: "It is one thing to have your country screwed over by socialists, it is far worse to be backstabbed by people pretending to be your friends. Political ass-kissing RINO's [Republicans In Name Only] like you deserve a bullet in the head. We will either rid the GOP of pieces of ____ like you, or we will start a new 'Common Sense Conservative' party and render you all useless." "It is just scary what is going on right now," the state GOP official said."

1/12/2011 6:43:50 PM

Quote :

"Asking the whole of society to take responsibility for something they didn't do, and quite possibly their ancestors didn't even do, is not how we should bring about permanent change, though."

Apparently (1) the present is causally unrelated to the past and (2) white privilege is a thing of the past.

1/12/2011 7:30:01 PM

Actually, it is.

You guys make it sound like Whites privately plot to keep White people on top. Actually, unless thy are Neo Nazis or Klu Klux Klan, they don't.

They get jobs, have families, get paid. If they want more, they get ambitious. Just like everyone else.

1/12/2011 8:09:58 PM

can you recognize how your own racism is effecting your judgment?

1/12/2011 8:32:36 PM

^^ Who is suggesting people are plotting to make things the way they are?

“White privilege” doesn’t necessarily refer to a conspiracy.

But just because there isnt a conspiracy doesn’t mean there aren’t problems, as the data and studies here demonstrate:
http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=598428&page=8#14517918

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 8:35 PM. Reason : nt]

1/12/2011 8:35:15 PM

Quote :

"Apparently (1) the present is causally unrelated to the past and (2) white privilege is a thing of the past."

I have specifically said that many black people are in the circumstances they are in today due to discrimination/racism/slavery. Statistically, black people are at a disadvantage and white people are at an advantage. I don't deny that some degree of white privilege exists, on the aggregate.

That says absolutely nothing about what public policy should aim to do, or what private institutions should aim to do. There's a huge leap to be made from "black people are at a disadvantage" to "there should be government intervention to level the playing field" or "colleges/businesses should give preference to non-whites." Mainly because no one is willing to say exactly what government intervention should consist of, or who specifically is eligible to have the playing field leveled for them. If anyone is willing to answer that, then we can continue.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 9:22 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2011 9:18:38 PM

^no. That's not going to satisfy you, and you know it. You're staunchly opposed to anything that even hints at government intervention, or even policy. You value individualism to the degree of stupidity.

Quote :

"Mainly because no one is willing to say exactly what government intervention should consist of, or who specifically is eligible to have the playing field leveled for them. If anyone is willing to answer that, then we can continue."

oh please. you oppose Affirmative Action, and the organizations like the NAACP, while others here agree with their stated goals. Don't pretend like your open to suggestions. You're not. You continue to vilify current attempts of "leveling the playing field" as being morally corrupt and heavy handed. So don't pretend that we can "continue the discussion" once we iron out the issue of "how much government intervention" we need. It's obvious to everyone that the only answer you will accept is "zero." Which is not enough, obviously, to reverse the huge mistakes that were made in the past.

We get it, you oppose racism and discrimination. You think it's awful. You're finally coming around to acknowledging the gap that still exists. But that doesn't matter, because your solution to closing the gap is to sit there and be a giant, wet, dripping pussy.

1/12/2011 10:01:43 PM

Quote :

"Oh please. you oppose Affirmative Action, and the organizations like the NAACP, while others here agree with their stated goals."

Yeah like their goal of 40 acres and a mule... no one has said shit about that except ST8Foolish and even then... that still doesn't make sense. When whites had the advantage of free land? ok so maybe the law did allow that... so what do we do about it today? Take it from people and give it to black people? all in the name of levelling the playing field?

I thought we observed Capitalism not Communism or Socialism here. You know, Capitalism? When you compete until you win or don't?

Or the goal of Ebonics. Even though there's 12 years of school that teach you how to speak proper English, it still isn't enough.

Yeah, you might call me a racist... or I'm just opposed to organizations like the NAACP.

JesusHChrist, quit hiding behind an alias man and quit being a coward.

1/13/2011 12:29:23 AM

Quote :

"Yeah, you might call me a racist"

You're a racist.

1/13/2011 1:00:25 AM

JesusHChrist, now that you've saved face. How do you feel about the NAACP's move to make Ebonics an accepted language?

1/13/2011 2:03:01 AM

It's pretty unfortunate that you are choosing to hang your debate hat on the subject of non-standard English, as every single post you make is poorly constructed, grammatically incorrect, riddled with inconsistencies and syntax errors, barely coherent, and indicative of someone who may in fact be 3/4 retarded.

1/13/2011 3:25:32 AM

That doesn't answer my question...

Usually attacks like the one you just pulled is a form of deflection because there can be no way to defend your argument.

Typical... I'm done with this guy. Who's next?

1/13/2011 3:29:04 AM

1/13/2011 3:32:48 AM

Quote :

"Or the goal of Ebonics. Even though there's 12 years of school that teach you how to speak proper English, it still isn't enough. "

Huh? The “goal” of Ebonics? What does that even mean?

AAVE is just one of probably hundreds of English dialects spoken in the US. It has no goals or intentions.

1/13/2011 9:15:34 AM

Quote :

"It's pretty unfortunate that you are choosing to hang your debate hat on the subject of non-standard English, as every single post you make is poorly constructed, grammatically incorrect, riddled with inconsistencies and syntax errors, barely coherent, and indicative of someone who may in fact be 3/4 retarded."

And if he spoke that way in public, I would think he was 3/4s retarded.

Quote :

"How do you feel about the NAACP's move to make Ebonics an accepted language?"

What are you talking about? When did they do that?

1/13/2011 10:33:14 AM

i'm interested to learn more about the NAACP voting on if swimming is a black man's sport (and deciding it is not)

Quote :

" Yeah, you might call me a racist... or I'm just opposed to organizations like the NAACP. "

You are pretty clearly racist, not simply because of your opposition to the NAACP but because of your reasoning behind it. There are plenty of coherent people here opposed to the NAACP and you make them all look bad with your stereotyping and blatant racism.

[Edited on January 13, 2011 at 11:23 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2011 11:20:42 AM

Quote :

" Here, you make the mistake that almost all proponents of affirmative action make – believing that anyone that has the same color skin as past oppressors and discriminators is partially responsible for current and past injustices. In fact, I had nothing to do with slavery or discrimination. It’s a logical extension of your faulty, collectivist beliefs, and until those are addressed, you will fail to come to any greater understanding of the problem. Your attempt to label me as the banker that stole money is offensive, but it’s what I knew you would eventually have to do to argue your point. Current white people, it’s said, have to be held responsible for past white people. My generation, you claim, has to be held responsible for past generations. I firmly reject that claim. I will promote equality, but I will not bear responsibility for what others have done before me. I’ll take responsibility for my own actions, but no one else’s, and with all due respect, you can fuck off for trying to shift the burden to those that have done no wrong. I do not participate in the racist power structure you’re referring to – my life goal is to help tear it down, along with all institutions that threaten individual rights."

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I never said you were responsible for it, only that you enjoy benefits of it while displacing the debts. If you think you incur no benefits from being white, then I can't argue with you. But if you admit you get benefits, you have to acknowledge the detriment that it means to others. We live in a competitive market, which means that any advantage for one person is necessarily a disadvantage for another.

Don't try to cast me as calling white people guilty or responsible. As a better-suited analogy, when you inherit a company, you take responsibility for the debts as well as the profits.

1/13/2011 12:11:37 PM

Here we go. This is "Affirmative Action is racist" in a nutshell.

1/13/2011 12:15:38 PM

I love how anti-rationalist, anti-scientific, anti-empirical our resident anti-religion crusader, Destroyer, is. If he had the self-awareness to notice it I think he'd cry himself to sleep.

1/13/2011 12:19:51 PM

Quote :

"^no. That's not going to satisfy you, and you know it. You're staunchly opposed to anything that even hints at government intervention, or even policy. You value individualism to the degree of stupidity."

Oh, it's got nothing to do with me. I think you're aware that any logically consistent answer to my question is going to open the door for a lot of things that are just plain silly, which is why you're not willing to come out and answer it. The real barrier we have in this discussion is that race is a far more ambiguous concept than most here would like to believe. You'd like to block people off like cattle, separating them into easily definable groups that receive set benefits based on what label you've applied to them. The fact is, you aren't willing to say what constitutes white and what continues black, and who should be eligible for a "leg up." The world we live in today is rapidly changing. People of vastly different backgrounds routinely have relationships together, and multi-racial children are no looked down upon by most of society.

If you're willing to accept the fact that all of us, regardless of skin color, are 99.9% the same, that blacks/whites/asians have no substantial genetic advantages in terms of intellect, and that anyone (given the right environment) can be successful, then you will come to understand why your approach to the problem is flawed.

Quote :

"Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. I never said you were responsible for it, only that you enjoy benefits of it while displacing the debts. If you think you incur no benefits from being white, then I can't argue with you. But if you admit you get benefits, you have to acknowledge the detriment that it means to others. We live in a competitive market, which means that any advantage for one person is necessarily a disadvantage for another. Don't try to cast me as calling white people guilty or responsible. As a better-suited analogy, when you inherit a company, you take responsibility for the debts as well as the profits."

No, I couldn't have hit the nail much harder on the head. You did say I was responsible for it. You said that I (being white) was effectively the banker that stole money and then refused to give it back. The comic you just posted says the exact same thing. The guy that attached the ball and chain is the same guy that is refusing to help him. You're saying I'm the guy that's refusing to help, and you're equating me to the one that enslaved someone.

How are you not seeing this?

1/13/2011 12:21:45 PM

Quote :

"I thought we observed Capitalism not Communism or Socialism here. You know, Capitalism? When you compete until you win or don't?"

Yeah let's hear it for these brave capitalists who sit on the couch and inherit property that their grandparents got for free because they were white! Competitive market forces in action, truly living off the sweat of their brow.

[Edited on January 13, 2011 at 12:25 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2011 12:24:52 PM

Quote :

" No, I couldn't have hit the nail much harder on the head. You did say I was responsible for it. You said that I (being white) was effectively the banker that stole money and then refused to give it back. The comic you just posted says the exact same thing. The guy that attached the ball and chain is the same guy that is refusing to help him. You're saying I'm the guy that's refusing to help, and you're equating me to the one that enslaved someone. How are you not seeing this?"

I see what you're saying but it's only because you're understanding my analogies in the most obtuse, literal terms.

Imagine an extra panel between 4 and 5 where both parties have children (which of course would be born on their respective levels as of panel 4), and imagine that panel 5 and 6 are a conversation between those children after the parents have died. Make more sense now?

Likewise, imagine the banker and other monopoly players all having children who inherit their parents position in the game.


[Edited on January 13, 2011 at 12:29 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2011 12:26:49 PM

Quote :

"Yeah let's hear it for these brave capitalists who sit on the couch and inherit property that their grandparents got for free because they were white! Competitive market forces in action, truly living off the sweat of their brow."

I hear what you're saying and completely agree that there are a number of people that are exactly as you described. However, public policy should not cater to the lowest common denominator at the expense of the much larger portion of the population who work their asses off for what they have, just to spite the relatively tiny population of old-money dickfors.

1/13/2011 12:32:25 PM

Quote :

"Likewise, imagine the banker and other monopoly players all having children who inherit their parents position in the game."

The flaw in this analogy, and really the previous one as well, shows when you assert that all white people have directly benefited from discrimination against blacks. In reality, there are white people born into poverty that will never benefit from "white privilege," at least not to any meaningful degree. Furthermore, there are black people that will directly benefit from what you call white privilege. Growing up, my family was friends with a family where the parents were white, and they had adopted three black brothers. Those kids went to Cary schools and had access to way more stuff than I ever did, because their parents were rich from real estate. My dad was a delivery driver for Pepsi and my mom was a part time administrative assistant. It should be no surprise that they ended up attending expensive out of state schools, not paying a cent out of their pocket to do so, and I ended up taking out student loans to attend a public in-state school.

Race is only part of the equation - one that is easily eclipsed by environment and upbringing. Black people today may experience discrimination in their life time, to varying degrees. That in no way justifies affirmative action. Seriously, I'm sounding like a broken record here, but tell me what a "leg up" should consist of and how we determine who gets that "leg up."

[Edited on January 13, 2011 at 1:02 PM. Reason : ]

1/13/2011 1:01:05 PM

Quote :

" The flaw in this analogy, and really the previous one as well, shows when you assert that all white people have directly benefited from discrimination against blacks. In reality, there are white people born into poverty that will never benefit from "white privilege," at least not to any meaningful degree."

You only have to look as far as the first link I provided. Have you ever received a call back from a potential employer? Assuming your name isn't Rakeem or Jamal, your white privilege has already afforded you a 50% greater chance at getting a job than many blacks. That's before interviews even occur, even if you were born into a dirt poor family of slovakian immigrants. Have you ever been paid for work? Chances are you've been paid more than if you were black with the same qualifications. None of this is meaningful? That's only the first link I provided, there's entire books written on the other ways white privilege manifests.

There are people still alive today who, in their youth, frequented business establishments that wouldn't even let blacks be customers, let alone employees. You have to be delusional to think the attitudes and prejudices that caused this disappeared when LBJ signed the act, or that the ability to act on those attitudes and prejudices was even close to being eliminated.

Have you ever applied for a loan or a mortgage? Check out my links and you'll see that, once again, you benefited both in terms of whether or not your loan was granted and how low your interest rate was.

Here's a list of privileges that are mostly unrelated to your family's well-offness. It is by no means exhaustive but it's a good introduction http://www.amptoons.com/blog/files/mcintosh.html This list is a little more about psychologically-volatile aspects that affect self-esteem, self-expectations, etc, which have been proven to have very real effects on a person's success at everything from Kindergarten to job performance to general health and life expectancy.

[Edited on January 13, 2011 at 1:32 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2011 1:06:55 PM

Another Tim Wise essay that directly responds to your "but but but poor whites" argument: http://www.timwise.org/2009/03/when-exceptions-prove-the-rule-poverty-whiteness-and-privilege/

excerpt:

Quote :

" The simple truth is, working people are not all in the same boat, and white working class folks have real advantages. Black and Latino workers are typically the first fired in an economic downturn, and remain twice as likely to be unemployed and 3-4 times as likely to be poor, in good times or bad; and white high school dropouts are twice as likely to find work as similarly uneducated African Americans. Furthermore, according to Thomas Shapiro’s groundbreaking work on the racial wealth divide, whites in the bottom fifth of all white households (in terms of income) have, on average seven times the net worth of similar blacks. In large part this is due to a major advantage in home ownership and thus equity, due to passed down property from parents. Indeed, whites with incomes below $13,000 are more likely to own their own homes than blacks with incomes that are three times higher, largely due to these intergenerational transfers of wealth. None of this takes away from the real economic struggles faced by millions of white families. But it does suggest that people of color face those struggles and then explicitly racial ones too. To acknowledge this truism does not mean that racism is more important than classism, or that issues of poverty should take a back seat. But to avoid the conversation about racism and white privilege is to evade a fundamental truth. What’s more, finessing the topic will likely make it hard for people of color to trust white liberals and leftists, the latter of whom seem to prefer a color-blind class unity, not realizing that the unity they claim to seek can never be built on a foundation of half-truths and convenient fictions. "

He wrote an entire book called "Colorblind" that confronts the "Helping everyone regardless of race is just as good as AA" idea that even many liberals subscribe to. I can guarantee that if you have any serious in interest in challenging and testing your beliefs it will do so brilliantly and teach you a lot.

http://www.amazon.com/Colorblind-Post-Racial-Politics-Retreat-Racial/dp/0872865088/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1294943375&sr=8-1

[Edited on January 13, 2011 at 1:30 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2011 1:27:12 PM

Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege
By JAMES WEBB

Quote :

"The NAACP believes the tea party is racist. The tea party believes the NAACP is racist. And Pat Buchanan got into trouble recently by pointing out that if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the Supreme Court, there will not be a single Protestant Justice, although Protestants make up half the U.S. population and dominated the court for generations. Forty years ago, as the United States experienced the civil rights movement, the supposed monolith of White Anglo-Saxon Protestant dominance served as the whipping post for almost every debate about power and status in America. After a full generation of such debate, WASP elites have fallen by the wayside and a plethora of government-enforced diversity policies have marginalized many white workers. The time has come to cease the false arguments and allow every American the benefit of a fair chance at the future. I have dedicated my political career to bringing fairness to America's economic system and to our work force, regardless of what people look like or where they may worship. Unfortunately, present-day diversity programs work against that notion, having expanded so far beyond their original purpose that they now favor anyone who does not happen to be white. In an odd historical twist that all Americans see but few can understand, many programs allow recently arrived immigrants to move ahead of similarly situated whites whose families have been in the country for generations. These programs have damaged racial harmony. And the more they have grown, the less they have actually helped African-Americans, the intended beneficiaries of affirmative action as it was originally conceived. Lyndon Johnson's initial program for affirmative action was based on the 13th Amendment and on the Civil Rights Act of 1866, which authorized the federal government to take actions in order to eliminate "the badges of slavery." Affirmative action was designed to recognize the uniquely difficult journey of African-Americans. This policy was justifiable and understandable, even to those who came from white cultural groups that had also suffered in socio-economic terms from the Civil War and its aftermath. The injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government have no parallel in our history, not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed. But the extrapolation of this logic to all "people of color"—especially since 1965, when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.—moved affirmative action away from remediation and toward discrimination, this time against whites. It has also lessened the focus on assisting African-Americans, who despite a veneer of successful people at the very top still experience high rates of poverty, drug abuse, incarceration and family breakup. Those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs. The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years. Contrary to assumptions in the law, white America is hardly a monolith. And the journey of white American cultures is so diverse (yes) that one strains to find the logic that could lump them together for the purpose of public policy. The clearest example of today's misguided policies comes from examining the history of the American South. The old South was a three-tiered society, with blacks and hard-put whites both dominated by white elites who manipulated racial tensions in order to retain power. At the height of slavery, in 1860, less than 5% of whites in the South owned slaves. The eminent black historian John Hope Franklin wrote that "fully three-fourths of the white people in the South had neither slaves nor an immediate economic interest in the maintenance of slavery." The Civil War devastated the South, in human and economic terms. And from post-Civil War Reconstruction to the beginning of World War II, the region was a ravaged place, affecting black and white alike. In 1938, President Franklin Roosevelt created a national commission to study what he termed "the long and ironic history of the despoiling of this truly American section." At that time, most industries in the South were owned by companies outside the region. Of the South's 1.8 million sharecroppers, 1.2 million were white (a mirror of the population, which was 71% white). The illiteracy rate was five times that of the North-Central states and more than twice that of New England and the Middle Atlantic (despite the waves of European immigrants then flowing to those regions). The total endowments of all the colleges and universities in the South were less than the endowments of Harvard and Yale alone. The average schoolchild in the South had $25 a year spent on his or her education, compared to $141 for children in New York. Generations of such deficiencies do not disappear overnight, and they affect the momentum of a culture. In 1974, a National Opinion Research Center (NORC) study of white ethnic groups showed that white Baptists nationwide averaged only 10.7 years of education, a level almost identical to blacks' average of 10.6 years, and well below that of most other white groups. A recent NORC Social Survey of white adults born after World War II showed that in the years 1980-2000, only 18.4% of white Baptists and 21.8% of Irish Protestants—the principal ethnic group that settled the South—had obtained college degrees, compared to a national average of 30.1%, a Jewish average of 73.3%, and an average among those of Chinese and Indian descent of 61.9%. Policy makers ignored such disparities within America's white cultures when, in advancing minority diversity programs, they treated whites as a fungible monolith. Also lost on these policy makers were the differences in economic and educational attainment among nonwhite cultures. Thus nonwhite groups received special consideration in a wide variety of areas including business startups, academic admissions, job promotions and lucrative government contracts. Where should we go from here? Beyond our continuing obligation to assist those African-Americans still in need, government-directed diversity programs should end. Nondiscrimination laws should be applied equally among all citizens, including those who happen to be white. The need for inclusiveness in our society is undeniable and irreversible, both in our markets and in our communities. Our government should be in the business of enabling opportunity for all, not in picking winners. It can do so by ensuring that artificial distinctions such as race do not determine outcomes. Memo to my fellow politicians: Drop the Procrustean policies and allow harmony to invade the public mindset. Fairness will happen, and bitterness will fade away. Mr. Webb, a Democrat, is a U.S. senator from Virginia. "

I think one major problem with the discussion here is referring to "whites" as any kind of single group

1/13/2011 3:20:16 PM

Quote :

"anyone (given the right environment) can be successful"

This is exactly why we shouldn't blindfold ourselves when figuring out how to fix our environment.

1/13/2011 3:42:48 PM

^^^Cool. Read a few reviews and summaries. Wise makes a pretty good case for the existence of racial discrimination, as have you. Wise calls himself an anti-racist essayist, and he easily dispels the notion that racism or racial discrimination is a thing of the past.

The problem, as I’ve stated in this thread too many times to count (only to be ignored the same number of times), is the proposed “fix” for racial discrimination. By labeling all opposition as racist or racism-denying, you and Wise can evade answering the hard questions about the logistics of “social justice.” You’ve made multiple posts in this thread preaching to the choir while skimming over our substantive disagreements.

Both you and Wise buy into a statist, collectivist ideology. If you don’t see any moral problems with a government that requires its citizens to pay up, then uses the money to fund killing on the other side of the globe, then I’m sure you aren’t getting hung up on requiring me to pay for a sin that I didn’t commit. Another drop in the bucket, right? It’s funny how things come full circle – the people that pride themselves on fighting injustice are themselves vanguards in the battle against individual rights and basic human decency.

^^That’s exactly right. Blocking entire groups of humans together based on superficial and ambiguous characteristics, then running the numbers for each group and figuring out which group is statistically the most or least likely to succeed, and finally, making the dubious attempt to quantify this disparity and “cover the gap” with policy (by requiring the whole of one group to compensate the whole of the other group), shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of statistics and what its limits are. This is a problem that these so-called “anti-racists” are unwilling and unable to deal with in a coherent manner, due to the sheer absurdity of their baseless conclusions.

Quote :

" This is exactly why we shouldn't blindfold ourselves when figuring out how to fix our environment."

If the environment is the issue, and we’re seeing problems due to culture, education, law enforcement, economics, or even discrimination, how does it make sense to then ignore environment and reward/punish the entire population based on their skin color? Does it not make sense to deal with the environment directly, rather than taking an “across the board” approach, at least from a policy perspective?

1/13/2011 4:42:27 PM

Quote :

" ^^^Cool. Read a few reviews and summaries. Wise makes a pretty good case for the existence of racial discrimination, as have you. Wise calls himself an anti-racist essayist, and he easily dispels the notion that racism or racial discrimination is a thing of the past. The problem, as I’ve stated in this thread too many times to count (only to be ignored the same number of times), is the proposed “fix” for racial discrimination. By labeling all opposition as racist or racism-denying, you and Wise can evade answering the hard questions about the logistics of “social justice.” You’ve made multiple posts in this thread preaching to the choir while skimming over our substantive disagreements. Both you and Wise buy into a statist, collectivist ideology. If you don’t see any moral problems with a government that requires its citizens to pay up, then uses the money to fund killing on the other side of the globe, then I’m sure you aren’t getting hung up on requiring me to pay for a sin that I didn’t commit. Another drop in the bucket, right? It’s funny how things come full circle – the people that pride themselves on fighting injustice are themselves vanguards in the battle against individual rights and basic human decency. ^^That’s exactly right. Blocking entire groups of humans together based on superficial and ambiguous characteristics, then running the numbers for each group and figuring out which group is statistically the most or least likely to succeed, and finally, making the dubious attempt to quantify this disparity and “cover the gap” with policy (by requiring the whole of one group to compensate the whole of the other group), shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of statistics and what its limits are. This is a problem that these so-called “anti-racists” are unwilling and unable to deal with in a coherent manner, due to the sheer absurdity of their baseless conclusions. Quote : " This is exactly why we shouldn't blindfold ourselves when figuring out how to fix our environment." If the environment is the issue, and we’re seeing problems due to culture, education, law enforcement, economics, or even discrimination, how does it make sense to then ignore environment and reward/punish the entire population based on their skin color? Does it not make sense to deal with the environment directly, rather than taking an “across the board” approach, at least from a policy perspective?"

I'll acknowledge that there are huge racial gaps. But I didn't personally start the disparity, so fuck 'em

1/13/2011 5:18:24 PM

Quote :

"You only have to look as far as the first link I provided. Have you ever received a call back from a potential employer? Assuming your name isn't Rakeem or Jamal, your white privilege has already afforded you a 50% greater chance at getting a job than many blacks."

Frankly, all other qualities being equal, I will always call the person with the familliar-sounding name for a job interview. Societal integration is a valid qualifier for any job.

1/14/2011 9:14:30 AM

Quote :

" Both you and Wise buy into a statist, collectivist ideology. If you don’t see any moral problems with a government that requires its citizens to pay up, then uses the money to fund killing on the other side of the globe, then I’m sure you aren’t getting hung up on requiring me to pay for a sin that I didn’t commit. Another drop in the bucket, right? It’s funny how things come full circle – the people that pride themselves on fighting injustice are themselves vanguards in the battle against individual rights and basic human decency. "

So it's your individual right to receive unfair advantages, and it would be a violation of basic human decency to take from you what was unjustly given? It seems you think it's wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul, but after Paul has been paid he's entitled to every penny. Your moral aptitude seems to have matured considerably since "Finders Keepers" was the rule in 2nd grade.

Quote :

" Frankly, all other qualities being equal, I will always call the person with the familliar-sounding name for a job interview. Societal integration is a valid qualifier for any job."

Societal Integration = Naming your children in accordance with the culture that enslaved your ancestors so they can't reject you based on you being different until they see you in person

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 1:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2011 1:30:27 PM

Quote :

"Societal Integration = Naming your children in accordance with the culture that enslaved your ancestors so they can't reject you based on you being different until they see you in person."

The truth is, for a productive workplace, you want to hire people who are fully familliar with American business practices, speak english natively, are full citizens with public records, and can relate easily with existing employees and customers. Recruiters don't just consider the content of the resume. They'll infer as much as they can. Foreign-sounding names will raise red flags, regardless of the person's skin color. It's not nice, but it is business.

Granted, cultural diversity can be benefitial in a high-competency, high-compensation environment, but that isn't most work places.

1/14/2011 2:19:52 PM

Quote :

" The truth is, for a productive workplace, you want to hire people who are fully familliar with American business practices, speak english natively, are full citizens with public records, and can relate easily with existing employees and customers. Recruiters don't just consider the content of the resume. They'll infer as much as they can. Foreign-sounding names will raise red flags, regardless of the person's skin color. It's not nice, but it is business. "

Blacks aren't foreign.

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 3:10 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2011 3:06:13 PM

"You seem qualified, but your non-Anglo Saxon name leads me to believe you're possibly a foreigner, and wont relate to my current employees and customers. Don't want too much diversity. I'm not a racist, just a shrewd businessman and thus restrict my hiring to keep this workplace ethnically homogeneous." -Lumex



[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 3:58 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2011 3:52:15 PM

Quote :

"So it's your individual right to receive unfair advantages, and it would be a violation of basic human decency to take from you what was unjustly given? It seems you think it's wrong to rob Peter to pay Paul, but after Paul has been paid he's entitled to every penny. Your moral aptitude seems to have matured considerably since "Finders Keepers" was the rule in 2nd grade."

The "unfair advantages" you're talking about are impossible to substantiate. You can't say to what degree I, personally, have benefited from slavery/discrimination. Again, you're crunching the numbers and coming up with statistics for entire populations, but there are enough outliers to render your reasoning faulty. The real issue here is still that you're unwilling to get into specifics. You're arguing from a purely collectivist, theoretical viewpoint (you have white skin, therefore you have to be held responsible for others that had white skin, as well as any statistical advantage you may have gained by virtue of having white skin), and you refuse to say what exactly affirmative action should consist of, and how we determine: 1) who has received enough of a benefit from white privilege to justify stealing their money and 2) who has suffered enough from black non-privilege to justify having money taken away from others and given to them. You're also unable to deal with the issue of blacks that have been greater beneficiaries of white privilege than actual white people, which has undeniably been the case in some circumstances.

As far as name discrimination goes, I'm sure it happens on a regular basis. I disagree with that practice, though it could very well be a rational decision if your consumer base is racist or exceptionally homogeneous. Again, the root problem is people's ignorance and intolerance. That will have to be dealt with on a cultural level, as no direct government intervention is capable of alleviating the problem. The fact is, people feel more comfortable around people that sound and look like them, and generally, have similar backgrounds. Go to any school cafeteria and you'll see some level of racial segregation. The teachers aren't going through the classes and making sure blacks are friends with blacks and whites are friends with whites - it's simply human nature. It's something that will fade as time goes on and race continues to become a more ambiguous (and ultimately, meaningless) category, but it is there, and it's not necessarily the result of malice on the part of any person or group.

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 5:22 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2011 5:22:15 PM

Quote :

"you refuse to say what exactly affirmative action should consist of"

It already exists. You can look up the details. Be a little precise with your complaints, at the very least.

Quote :

"1) who has received enough of a benefit from white privilege to justify stealing their money and 2) who has suffered enough from black non-privilege to justify having money taken away from others and given to them. You're also unable to deal with the issue of blacks that have been greater beneficiaries of white privilege than actual white people, which has undeniably been the case in some circumstances."

Affirmative Action isn't really about money changing hands, it's about balancing the racial makeup of universities and workplaces to reflect society. And, in many cases, a persons financial background is considered (so poor white folk don't get looked over).

Quote :

"Again, the root problem is people's ignorance and intolerance. That will have to be dealt with on a cultural level, as no direct government intervention is capable of alleviating the problem."

You keep going back to this. When has ignorance ever been eradicated without at least some political will? You wanna go back to your argument that as a culture, we've toned down our hate and bigotry in regards to homosexuality? Because that was a stupid claim to begin with, and there certainly was and will likely continue to be government intervention to address that issue.

1/14/2011 5:54:24 PM

Quote :

"It already exists. You can look up the details. Be a little precise with your complaints, at the very least."

I want you to hear it directly from you. There are many suggestions out there for affirmative action style policies. I don't want to wrongly assign some blogger/journalist's opinion to you, though.

Quote :

"You keep going back to this. When has ignorance ever been eradicated without at least some political will? You wanna go back to your argument that as a culture, we've toned down our hate and bigotry in regards to homosexuality? Because that was a stupid claim to begin with, and there certainly was and will likely continue to be government intervention to address that issue."

Really? So society hasn't toned down its hate and bigotry in regards to homosexuality at all? I just don't agree with that. You might think that trying to change minds and raise awareness is a fruitless endeavor, but I know for a fact that you're wrong.

With homosexuality, the government is doing the discriminating. The government is saying, in the majority of cases, that gay couples can't get married. Until recently, the government was saying gays couldn't openly serve in the military. Just like in the case of racial segregation, the goal should be to make the laws non-discriminatory. There's still work to be done in the area of homosexuality, but as far as I know, racially discriminatory laws have been amended or repealed.

If anything, the laws are now discriminatory against the middle and lower classes, due to the fact that the ultra rich control the strings of government, and in almost all cases, are the ones that guide the lawmaking process. Furthermore, the ultra rich are the ones that have a vested interest in maintaining the international banking cartel (consisting of Federal Reserve primary dealers) that routinely fleeces the public.

1/14/2011 6:31:05 PM

Quote :

"I want you to hear it directly from you. There are many suggestions out there for affirmative action style policies. I don't want to wrongly assign some blogger/journalist's opinion to you, though."

Why? Are you trying to catch me saying, "all honkies should pay little ghetto boys $20 a day?" I'm not going to get into the specifics of affirmative action because A) There are laws and policies already in place that you could easily research B) I'm not versed enough on the topic to speak with authority about the minute details, C) Socio-economic status is in many cases a factor, even though you seem to think it is not, and D) If you are so opposed to affirmative action, the burden should be put on you to highlight what exactly you have issue with instead of just making a blanket statement that amounts to you crying "reverse discrimination!"

I will say that the goal should be to have the diverse makeup of universities and the workforce accurately reflect the demographics of the cities that they occupy.

Quote :

"Really? So society hasn't toned down its hate and bigotry in regards to homosexuality at all? I just don't agree with that. You might think that trying to change minds and raise awareness is a fruitless endeavor, but I know for a fact that you're wrong."

Not by much, no. Have you not been paying attention? People STILL don't want gays in the military. States still want to amend the constitution to only allow "traditional marriages." The vitriol to the gay community is still very high. This is evidence of a culture that is still not readily accepting alternative lifestyles. We're not still burning faggots at the stake though, so I guess that's rapid progress in your world.

Laws such as the Matthew Shepard hate crime law, the recent repeal of Don't ask don't tell, and states such as California finally allowing gay marriage are all examples of government assisting the shift in the direction of tolerance. Government has been involved in every single civil rights struggle throughout the history of time. The solution isn't as airy and lofty as winning the hearts and minds of intolerant people. You might win over a few people, but never enough to reverse the huge machine that's already set in motion. You're fighting a forest fire with a garden hose.

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 7:23 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2011 7:05:02 PM

Quote :

"Why? Are you trying to catch me saying, "all honkies should pay little ghetto boys $20 a day?""

I think you know that you would have to say something to that effect, which is why you won't.

Quote :

"There are laws and policies already in place that you could easily research"

Quote :

"If you are so opposed to affirmative action, the burden should be put on you to highlight what exactly you have issue with instead of just making a blanket statement that amounts to you crying "reverse discrimination!""

There are a ton of different suggested and implemented affirmative action policies. I've outlined my basic objection in principle, but I'm not going to go through every one that exists and debunk it specifically.

Quote :

"I will say that the goal should be to have the diverse makeup of universities and the workforce accurately reflect the demographics of the cities that they occupy."

What you're saying with this is that there should be a quota system - each race should have to make up a certain percentage of the student body or workforce. My question to you is why race should come into the equation. It doesn't make sense, to me, to take a black person that was raised in a rich family over a poor white kid with better qualifications, simply because of the color of their skin. I mean, I'm just saying this as plain as I can possibly say it: how do we determine who gets to be "black" and who gets to be "white," now that interracial breeding is the norm?

Quote :

"Not by much, no. Have you not been paying attention? People STILL don't want gays in the military. States still want to amend the constitution to only allow "traditional marriages." The vitriol to the gay community is still very high. This is evidence of a culture that is still not readily accepting alternative lifestyles. We're not still burning faggots at the stake though, so I guess that's rapid progress in your world."

Not by much, huh. I get it: LBGT tolerance/awareness organizations, you're fucking worthless. Please stop trying, because it's not working, and no one is getting the message. We have to outlaw intolerance, that will surely work.

Quote :

"Laws such as the Matthew Shepard hate crime law, the recent repeal of Don't ask don't tell, and states such as California finally allowing gay marriage are all examples of government assisting the shift in the direction of tolerance. Government has been involved in every single civil rights struggle throughout the history of time. The solution isn't as airy and lofty as winning the hearts and minds of intolerant people. You might win over a few people, but never enough to reverse the huge machine that's already set in motion. You're fighting a forest fire with a garden hose."

It's probably no surprise to you that I oppose hate crime laws, but let's save that for another time. The other two examples are where the government was perpetrating intolerance. You're absolutely right - the government has been involved in every civil rights struggle, and in basically every case, the government is on the wrong side of things. The people have to struggle against the state to have basic freedoms returned to them. You're making the case for libertarianism, here. Unfortunately, dismantling the leviathan state is like fighting a forest fire with a garden hose, because the state controls the police and the military.

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 8:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2011 7:51:34 PM

Quote :

"I think you know that you would have to say something to that effect, which is why you won't."

Not really. In many cases, the law only requires that a minority be interviewed for a position. They don't have to be hired. It is on good faith that if the interviewee is qualified, he or she may get the job. I think you have a fear of "quotas" that simply don't exist. Many universities have abandoned the point system given to applicants simply due to race in order to appease the cries from conservatives concerned with reverse discrimination. I'm not going to go into great detail about the law, because obviously its detailed and lengthy. But I would at least expect you to put forth some due diligence before jumping to the conclusion that it is morally corrupt.

http://clinton2.nara.gov/WH/EOP/OP/html/aa/aa02.html

http://hr.blr.com/timesavers/HR-policies/Discrimination/Affirmative-Action/Affirmative-Action-Standard/?juris=131

You can click on those links if you really are intent on learning about the policies you strongly object to. And while I will agree that the laws/policies may not be perfect, some sort of action must be taken in order to prevent treading water. You're biggest grievance seems to be a "it's not 100% fair for everyone" attitude. While that may be correct, I'd argue that on the whole, it's much more fair than the laissez faire approach that would only serve to continue the huge disparities and possibly increase them

Quote :

"Not by much, huh. I get it: LBGT tolerance/awareness organizations, you're fucking worthless. Please stop trying, because it's not working, and no one is getting the message. We have to outlaw intolerance, that will surely work."

I'm not suggesting, and never have suggested that we outlaw intolerance. You keep assuming I'm this authoritarian juggernaut that wants to outlaw thought. I don't. Yes, LBGT awareness organizations have been vital to awareness, but it's silly to think they alone can "change the culture of intolerance."

Quote :

"The people have to struggle against the state to have basic freedoms returned to them. You're making the case for libertarianism, here. Unfortunately, dismantling the leviathan state is like fighting a forest fire with a garden hose, because the state controls the police and the military."

I'm not going to address this because it will just turn into a contest of who can twist logic to argue for or against government, and frankly, I don't have the time or the energy to argue that libertarianism cannot possibly be the one size fits all solution to all of the complex issues facing society. Honestly, I think it takes a collectivist attitude to shift the discourse of social issues, and that collectivism that you so abhor usually manifests itself into democracy. But having such a firm belief in individualism usually promotes a "fuck 'em" attitude that I simply consider, for lack of a better term, "selfish."

[Edited on January 14, 2011 at 8:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2011 8:31:17 PM

Quote :

"In many cases, the law only requires that a minority be interviewed for a position."

you might want to check your facts. The words "adverse impact" should be a clue.

1/15/2011 6:47:03 PM

http://thinkprogress.org/2011/02/09/tea-party-islamophobia/

Quote :

"Texas Tea Party Leader On Obama: He ‘Might Be Muslim’ On MSNBC this evening, Chris Matthews hosted two representatives of the Tea Party to analyze its influence in Washington: FreedomWorks President Matt Kibbe and Phillip Dennis of the Texas Tea Party. "

Quote :

"DENNIS: … Oh, I have a big problem with Islam. I think that it, uh, they call itself the religion of peace, when every day around the world it continues to show itself to be anything but. So I think those people have a right, certainly it’s understandable that they might have a problem that our President might be Muslim. Absolutely. "

Quote :

"Update During a segment on Hannity earlier this week, GOP strategist Frank Luntz interviewed a panel of Republican voters in Iowa, and half said they believe Obama is a Muslim."

Why do they keep pushing this lie?

2/9/2011 10:48:57 PM

Lack of critical thinking skills thanks to the idea that accepting bullshit on faith is a virtue.

2/10/2011 9:08:10 AM

d357r0y3r,

Honestly, I pity. I pity you because it is obvious that you aren't trolling and that you are not being intentionally obtuse; you're acting as you are.

I didn't take note on everything you said, but I do hope to address many of the issues you brought up and intend to point out the many fallacies in what you believe to be fully rational points.

I would like to start with something simple. Affirmative Action is not about race alone but extends to sex. Females are a large recipient of affirmative action program- a fact that gone largely unmentioned in this thread.

That aside, I do not believe that anyone intends to say that you are responsible for the mistakes of the past, but only that you benefit from them. A fact that is so simple that discussion of intrarace socioeconomic differences is irrelevant While your black cousins may have faired better off than you in their childhood and other blacks, no one sees their degree or childhood lifestyle when they look at them; people see the color of their skin. All else being equal, when they interview for a job- even if it is at a prestigious investment bank, perhaps more so- they are less likely to get the job than their white counterpart. As a man who values a meritocracy, I am certain you can acknowledge that this is unjust.

The intent of Affirmative Action is to level the playing field amongst races and between genders. I understand your argument that the system fails to do this and creates a disadvantage for whites; however, I respectfully disagree. I believe the misunderstanding originates from a perceived increase of difficulty in job attainment for whites. While affirmative action may make interview conversion less successful for some whites, it does not equate to a disadvantage. Imagine a 500M dash that takes place annually between two people. For the 350 years one person has been able to have a 10 second head start and has successfully won. However, now it has been regulated that the head start shall be reduced from 10seconds to 1 second. Understandably, this person may now be frustrated that he loses from time to time since he was otherwise accustomed to winning, but this does not mean he has been put at a disadvantage.

You've spoke a lot about the definition of race and the concept of mixed children. I've noticed that your diction has been very careful and, perhaps intentionally, paints an image that is not representative of current affairs. Appealing to the liberal ideal that we are equality and race doesn't matter, you discuss "what is race" and establish it is arbitrary. I would have to agree with this sentiment, from a biological standpoint, but this does not logically defend your position. Having similar genetic make-up does not prevent a perceived, social difference. Perhaps if everyone understood and shared your same point of view then we wouldn't need programs like affirmative action. Regrettably, when people see a broad nose, dark curly hair, and thick lips they see and think black. Mixed race children often fall under this same category, as evinced in the chit chat thread.

If you have any other questions, or, feel like there are issues you've brought up that haven't been addressed, then list them in a clear and concise manner and I will address them in their entirety.

2/10/2011 11:01:16 AM

A challenger emerges!

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/02/11/tea-party-activist-calls-sen-snowe-almost-as-bad-as-obama-announces-primary-challenge/

Quote :

"Tea Party activist calls Sen. Snowe 'almost as bad' as Obama, announces primary challenge Washington (CNN) – A Tea Party activist, well known in Maine, announced that he will try to oust his state's senior Republican senator. And now Andrew Ian Dodge is repeating a favorite line of conservatives: "I consider her almost as bad for the country as President Obama." On Friday, the Tea Party Patriots' Maine state coordinator announced he'd challenge Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe. And yet his words beg the question: Could the same kind of Republican political warfare that burst open in Alaska and Delaware also happen – in Maine? Dodge was attending the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, a gathering of some 11,000 activists, including many potential 2012 presidential candidates. He's a 43-year-old, married freelance writer who's never run for statewide office - but says he's worked as an activist around the world. After his announcement, Dodge spoke to CNN in a telephone interview. He joins Republican Scott D'Amboise, who previously announced a challenge against Snowe. Explaining his "almost as bad for the country as President Obama" comments, Dodge said, "Because (Snowe)] basically sells out the Republican party." John Richter, Snowe's chief of staff, reacted. "It seems ironic that a candidate who says Sen. Snowe is out of touch formally announces his own candidacy at a conference in Washington, D.C. - away from the people in the State of Maine he says he wants to represent," Richter said. "Looking forward, Sen. Snowe has never taken any race for granted and 2012 is no exception - and she is vigorously preparing in all facets." Snowe is a moderate Republican who's become the focus of conservative criticism for some of her votes."

2/11/2011 10:31:34 PM

Is this an offical Tea Party page? My relative constantly "shares" their status. It very sensational, sometimes racist, and just plain silly.

https://www.facebook.com/TheTeaParty.net

10/22/2014 2:02:28 PM

merge with the greens and become the tree party

10/22/2014 4:07:03 PM

Circling back to this is interesting given it turned out the members of the tea party as a unit are some of the most vociferous Trump backers. What exactly was their ideological focus? Obviously not small government and fiscal responsibility. What changes? Did they just realize that both Republicans and Democrats don’t give a fuck about deficits?

[Edited on May 20, 2018 at 2:19 PM. Reason : X]

5/20/2018 2:18:51 PM

that one black guy isn’t in office anymore

5/20/2018 2:39:40 PM