(12-17-2020, 12:46 PM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]I know I am splitting hairs here, but I think it's important when we use certain terms to get the definition correct. Some people who endorse discrimination do so because they are racists. Other people who endorse discrimination are not necessarily racists. The latter group endorses discrimination not because they think one group is inherently inferior or superior to another group (which is the definition of racism) but because they think it is the only way to bring justice to a group that has been discriminated against in the past.
That's the point I was making earlier. Discriminating based on race or sex is a bad idea no matter what the motive. But different people have different motives. One motive is racism. The other motive could be anti-racism, or curing the effects of past racism. Like I say, either way, it's a bad idea.
So, when you say, "Anyone who endorses discrimination is racist, no?" I disagree. Some people are, and some people are not. Racism and discrimination often overlap, but they are not the same thing.
This is true. Good point.
(12-17-2020, 01:43 PM)homebiscuit Wrote: [ -> ] (12-17-2020, 01:32 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]No doubt. Well stated.
I actually believe that most of the racists in the world don't even realize they are racists and don't use political beliefs to express such. This is very evident in the corporate world and in the sports arena (even if it is stereotyping racism).
Then that begs the question: Do you believe Republicans are people using political beliefs to express racism?
I know you weren't asking me, but I will answer anyway.
"Do you believe Republicans are people using political beliefs to express racism?"
Hell, no. Neither are Democrats.
People reach to the other extreme to smear the other side. The right uses the far left to smear the entire left, and the left uses the far right to smear the entire right.
I honestly believe that 90% of Americans are either not racist, or believe that racism is bad. There's no reason for anyone to say that either "the left" or "the right" are racist. It's the extremes that are racist.
And that's one of the main things I disliked about the article, although I agree with a lot of what he says. The author uses the term "the left" but that is unfair. It's the FAR left that he is actually talking about.
(12-17-2020, 01:08 PM)HURRICANE!!! Wrote: [ -> ]Racism is real, first and foremost. We can then categorize how it is used to undermine the reality of racism that exists worldwide.
Here is a pic from a Unite the Right Rally
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unite_the_Right_rally
![[Image: 325px-Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right...9_crop.jpg]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right%27_Rally_%2835780274914%29_crop.jpg/325px-Charlottesville_%27Unite_the_Right%27_Rally_%2835780274914%29_crop.jpg)
Of course it is, and this group is the same as BLM. Both are extremist groups whose core beliefs and values have exactly
nothing to do with the political parties they align themselves with. The KKK, BLM, alt-right, neo-marxists and any other group of their kind define racism and none should have a seat at the table when it comes to having any influence outside of their groups but especially in government and politics. Sadly, the media and politicians don't see it that way.
(12-17-2020, 01:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, plenty of black people have power, and in those cases the "prejudice + power" definition could implicate them.
So I agree with Americus and I don't think "prejudice + power" is the best definition for racism. It has a lesson to teach, though. I think the lesson is, when you look at an individual, evaluate that person according to how much power they have. If they have little power, their prejudices don't mean much, and they shouldn't get a finger pointed at them. But if they have a lot of power, expect them to be working on their own prejudices and expect them to lift up people who are historically underrepresented or disadvantaged.
I also think there is such a thing as white supremacy. It's a mindset lots of people have that they are unaware of. Simply thinking of white as "default" and black as a "variation" is an example of white supremacy. White people tend to not think about their own race at all, and they tend to think of whiteness as one of the least interesting things about their white friends. But when they consider a black person, suddenly they will think of that person's race as a really important characteristic - even if they don't think it's a bad characteristic, it comes to the forefront of their mind and conversation. The two need to meet in the middle. We should be more conscious of our own whiteness, and less conscious of the race of non white people. Have them equal in your mind.
I don't see the world AT ALL like this. I don't look at people and see power, or lack of. I don't see whiteness or blackness or brownness, I just see people who are living life. I don't even see people in power or of influence as anything other than someone who has a job to do. I do agree there is a white supremacy mindset; hello KKK and alt-right groups, and it's as despicable as BLM group which we all know is not about black people, it's about neo-marxism.
I see people according to how they conduct themselves and how they treat others. If you act like a douche and treat others with contempt, I have no use for you. It doesn't matter the color of your skin, the brand of clothing you wear, the car you drive, the political party you align with, the job you have. That's it. In a nutshell, if you're a dick I have no use for you at all. If you're a kind and decent person to yourself and others then I have no problems with you.
I think you may be describing culture vs color. While I see culture (the clothing, the hairstyles, the music, the food, etc.) rather than color, I still don't consider these things when I look at people. I see it as different than what I wear, listen to, eat, etc., if there are differences, but not in the way you describe it.
Do people really see the world and people the way you describe it? If so, no wonder society is so jacked up and people are miserable and full of hate and discontent.
Quote:"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Apparently the lesson of that quote is lost and not taught in today's government schools. It is more apparent on the left side of the political spectrum, not just the "far left". It really has little to do with race (in some cases) and everything to do with "identity politics".
A very good example of this is when
Joe Biden announced that his VP selection would be a woman. Here is his direct quote.
Quote:"If I'm elected president, my Cabinet, my administration will look like the country, and I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a, pick a woman to be vice president," Biden said at the CNN-Univision debate in Washington, DC.
So is that "racist"? Not really by definition, but he immediately disqualified possible candidates that might have been better suited for the job based on gender. However, he doubled down on that claim by saying it would be a "woman of color". Of course it was egged on by the left leaning press.
Is there "racism" on the right? Certainly. But it's not as open and "accepted" as it is on the left. The PC left crowd are the ones that put people into "groups" or "categories" and somehow make it "acceptable". Where did labels such as "african-american" instead of "black" come from when describing a black person. What about "hispanic-american" or "aisian-american" or any of the other hyphened categories that we have now?
I have more to say about this, but duty calls...
(12-17-2020, 06:33 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Apparently the lesson of that quote is lost and not taught in today's government schools. It is more apparent on the left side of the political spectrum, not just the "far left". It really has little to do with race (in some cases) and everything to do with "identity politics".
A very good example of this is when Joe Biden announced that his VP selection would be a woman. Here is his direct quote.
Quote:"If I'm elected president, my Cabinet, my administration will look like the country, and I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a, pick a woman to be vice president," Biden said at the CNN-Univision debate in Washington, DC.
So is that "racist"? Not really by definition, but he immediately disqualified possible candidates that might have been better suited for the job based on gender. However, he doubled down on that claim by saying it would be a "woman of color". Of course it was egged on by the left leaning press.
Is there "racism" on the right? Certainly. But it's not as open and "accepted" as it is on the left. The PC left crowd are the ones that put people into "groups" or "categories" and somehow make it "acceptable". Where did labels such as "african-american" instead of "black" come from when describing a black person. What about "hispanic-american" or "aisian-american" or any of the other hyphened categories that we have now?
I have more to say about this, but duty calls...
That stuff has been around forever, Teddy Roosevelt laid the basic statement to its opposition way back on Columbus Day of 1915. Here we are 100 hundred years later dealing with the same anti-American bull [BLEEP].
I told my husband Kamala Harris must have been promised some serious favors to agree to be Biden's VP. To be selected solely based on her gender and skin color and not for her experience should be considered an insult. You either want equality or you want preferential treatment and she got the latter.
How did White Supremacists get associated with conservatives? Just because they are both nationalistic? I get that they tied themselves to Trump, but that doesn't mean they are conservative. It's the same way that NAZI's got lumped in with the right. It's not true. Both NAZI's and the alt right advocate a national socialist platform in their political ideology. If you think conservatives favor national socialism, you don't understand anything about the party. So, not only are the white supremacists not connected to conservatives by ideology, you see an outright rejection of them BY conservatives. Name one white supremacist that is supported by the right, and don't say Donald Trump. That's nonsense. I can list several prominent politicians that are not only openly serving under the Democrat banner, but are increasingly becoming figureheads within the party. BLM, the organization, has tremendous influence with the left and corporate America. ANTIFA is ignored by the future President, even though they are an actual organization who despise everything about America. The 1619 Project, which is alternative history, is not only accepted by the left, it's celebrated. Trying to equivocate the extremes in the parties is a ridiculous notion.
That aside, there are still major misconceptions about what is happening culturally in the US with regards to race. Activists do not see race the way we do. Period. It is PRIMARILY about overthrowing capitalism, and race is a tool to do that. Barrack Obama and Oprah Winfrey do not have power, because we have not shed the tyranny of the capitalistic system. They won't ever have "power" until the old system has been abolished. They are just pawns trying to effectuate change in a broken system. Again, people tend to dismiss the activists because their position is so extreme, but they neglect everything I mentioned above. As the AOC's in the world rise to prominence (supported by mainstream politicians like Barry O), you will see this move from fringe ideology to mainstream. It already is, just some of you are burying your head in the sand, while "laughing" at conservatives for clinging to their God and guns.
Leftist politicians are a mixed bag. Some are activists, like AOC, and some are just your typical authoritarian narcissists, like Biden. I don't think Biden thinks like AOC, but he sees her as harmless. They give her a platform and lipservice, while continue to do business as usual, which, by the way, screws the people in the US. In the meantime, she's gaining power and influence, both politically and culturally. Especially with the youth.
Then you have the useful idiots who want to identify with this movement by finding offense in everything. These are the people that don't understand anything about the movement other than the opportunity it presents for them to take center stage. This is, in my opinion, the worst of the group, because they feign interest in the oppression of others to create a name for themselves. Add to this a bunch of well meaning idiots who actually want to fight against racism, but don't have the education or awareness to realize they are being used.
Interesting points L2L. THIS is why I appreciate meaningful discussion. I actually learn something. When folks devolve into name calling and insults it adds nothing to the conversation.
I see your point of separating black people with perceived power and influence (Obamas and Winfreys of the world) from those with actual power and influence (activists and the like) and that's what makes the difference. Thanks for that.
As for how white supremacists get lumped in with conservatives....it's because they're white. According to the Democrats and leftists. It's the same with those who think all of Hollywood is leftist; all minorities and low income people are democrats; all republicans are wealthy, religious, and white; and so on. None of these are true, of course, but people like to categorize and as the article pointed out, leftists live and breathe identity politics so as soon as they can use something like Unite The Right to "show" nazi's and white supremacists are "supportive" of Trump or the Right, they are going to beat that drum as loud as they can.
I can say I've never paid a whole lot of attention to any of this stuff before a year or so ago. I know we all have different points of view and opinions and I thought that's all it was. Well, I knew there was more, but I was too busy living and surviving my life to be that concerned about any of it. I was raised in a home where politics was not discussed so I grew up without really caring about it outside of doing my civic duty and voting. I mean, situations would grind my gears for sure, but I never put a great deal of thought into it. Activism wasn't discussed either. In fact, a lot of stuff wasn't discussed so I wasn't really prepared for the real world in any way, shape or form. Thank God for the Army.
I have definitely learned a lot about people this year and see things much differently than I did at the start of 2020. I used to carry a copy of The Art of War by Sun Tzu when I was in my 20's. I always wanted to understand it better. I think I understand it a great deal more than I ever thought I would. I also used to carry a copy of Khalil Gibran's The Prophet. I wanted to understand that, too. I don't ever think I will and that's okay.
(12-17-2020, 06:33 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Quote:"I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."
Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.
Apparently the lesson of that quote is lost and not taught in today's government schools. It is more apparent on the left side of the political spectrum, not just the "far left". It really has little to do with race (in some cases) and everything to do with "identity politics".
A very good example of this is when Joe Biden announced that his VP selection would be a woman. Here is his direct quote.
Quote:"If I'm elected president, my Cabinet, my administration will look like the country, and I commit that I will, in fact, appoint a, pick a woman to be vice president," Biden said at the CNN-Univision debate in Washington, DC.
So is that "racist"? Not really by definition, but he immediately disqualified possible candidates that might have been better suited for the job based on gender. However, he doubled down on that claim by saying it would be a "woman of color". Of course it was egged on by the left leaning press.
Is there "racism" on the right? Certainly. But it's not as open and "accepted" as it is on the left. The PC left crowd are the ones that put people into "groups" or "categories" and somehow make it "acceptable". Where did labels such as "african-american" instead of "black" come from when describing a black person. What about "hispanic-american" or "aisian-american" or any of the other hyphened categories that we have now?
I have more to say about this, but duty calls...
Whenever I hear a phase like 'the first woman' or 'the first person of color' or 'first native american' etc etc to do something or to hold some sort of position, I immediately think both, "this is an inspiring moment for people of similar gender or race", and also, "this is racist because we are emphasizing race/gender over/or along side of the accomplishment". I agree with an earlier poster, that I wouldn't want that sort of thing posted next to my accomplishment at all, I would I want my position or achievement to be because of my qualifications, not because I was born a particular sex or color. God bless Charley Pride, he had it right. He was just himself, and people loved him because of how he sounded and the quality of his work, not because of his skin color. Unfortunately, we are a long way from the character of that man as a society.
(12-18-2020, 04:04 PM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]Interesting points L2L. THIS is why I appreciate meaningful discussion. I actually learn something. When folks devolve into name calling and insults it adds nothing to the conversation.
I see your point of separating black people with perceived power and influence (Obamas and Winfreys of the world) from those with actual power and influence (activists and the like) and that's what makes the difference. Thanks for that.
As for how white supremacists get lumped in with conservatives....it's because they're white. According to the Democrats and leftists. It's the same with those who think all of Hollywood is leftist; all minorities and low income people are democrats; all republicans are wealthy, religious, and white; and so on. None of these are true, of course, but people like to categorize and as the article pointed out, leftists live and breathe identity politics so as soon as they can use something like Unite The Right to "show" nazi's and white supremacists are "supportive" of Trump or the Right, they are going to beat that drum as loud as they can.
I can say I've never paid a whole lot of attention to any of this stuff before a year or so ago. I know we all have different points of view and opinions and I thought that's all it was. Well, I knew there was more, but I was too busy living and surviving my life to be that concerned about any of it. I was raised in a home where politics was not discussed so I grew up without really caring about it outside of doing my civic duty and voting. I mean, situations would grind my gears for sure, but I never put a great deal of thought into it. Activism wasn't discussed either. In fact, a lot of stuff wasn't discussed so I wasn't really prepared for the real world in any way, shape or form. Thank God for the Army.
I have definitely learned a lot about people this year and see things much differently than I did at the start of 2020. I used to carry a copy of The Art of War by Sun Tzu when I was in my 20's. I always wanted to understand it better. I think I understand it a great deal more than I ever thought I would. I also used to carry a copy of Khalil Gibran's The Prophet. I wanted to understand that, too. I don't ever think I will and that's okay.
I don't think that's true. I think it's classic bait and switch. Dems are WAY more closely aligned with white supremacists, both in history AND ideology. The KKK and progressives believed in racial superiority and both of those groups were affiliated with Democrats. So, to distance themselves from it, they claim a party switch, even though there's no evidence of it. They only get away with it because of their ability to control information.
(12-18-2020, 04:07 PM)NewJagsCity Wrote: [ -> ] (12-17-2020, 06:33 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Apparently the lesson of that quote is lost and not taught in today's government schools. It is more apparent on the left side of the political spectrum, not just the "far left". It really has little to do with race (in some cases) and everything to do with "identity politics".
A very good example of this is when Joe Biden announced that his VP selection would be a woman. Here is his direct quote.
So is that "racist"? Not really by definition, but he immediately disqualified possible candidates that might have been better suited for the job based on gender. However, he doubled down on that claim by saying it would be a "woman of color". Of course it was egged on by the left leaning press.
Is there "racism" on the right? Certainly. But it's not as open and "accepted" as it is on the left. The PC left crowd are the ones that put people into "groups" or "categories" and somehow make it "acceptable". Where did labels such as "african-american" instead of "black" come from when describing a black person. What about "hispanic-american" or "aisian-american" or any of the other hyphened categories that we have now?
I have more to say about this, but duty calls...
Whenever I hear a phase like 'the first woman' or 'the first person of color' or 'first native american' etc etc to do something or to hold some sort of position, I immediately think both, "this is an inspiring moment for people of similar gender or race", and also, "this is racist because we are emphasizing race/gender over/or along side of the accomplishment". I agree with an earlier poster, that I wouldn't want that sort of thing posted next to my accomplishment at all, I would I want my position or achievement to be because of my qualifications, not because I was born a particular sex or color. God bless Charley Pride, he had it right. He was just himself, and people loved him because of how he sounded and the quality of his work, not because of his skin color. Unfortunately, we are a long way from the character of that man as a society.
I very much agree. There is a segment of society that doesn't see color or race (or gender for that matter), yet there is another segment that feels the need to point it out.
Interesting that you mentioned Charlie Pride. I met him when I was VERY young. I worked part-time at a country radio station when I was in high school. I was walking into the station one day and here he comes walking out. Now keep in mind, this is in Albuquerque, NM, not exactly a huge venue for a country star. He walked right up to me, held out his hand and introduced himself as if I was someone "important". We chatted for a brief moment then he left. I don't know if many people realize just how large of a man that he was (probably well over 6'). He had the same smile and warm personality that you saw on television at the time.
The point of that story is one, that was the first time that I had met any "star" of any kind. Two, it never occurred to me that he was black (keep in mind, black folks weren't very common around Albuquerque at that time). I simply saw a person that day who I admired his music and was happy to meet him. The only notable characteristic that I noticed was how tall he was (rare at the time in the SW).
The left sees people differently. They have to put everyone into a "category".
(12-18-2020, 12:39 AM)americus 2.0 Wrote: [ -> ]I told my husband Kamala Harris must have been promised some serious favors to agree to be Biden's VP. To be selected solely based on her gender and skin color and not for her experience should be considered an insult. You either want equality or you want preferential treatment and she got the latter.
VP is the favor. Yes, it should be an insult, but the power and prestige of the position are too great a prize. She'll be a heartbeat away from the presidency immediately and will Biden even remember his own name in a couple years?
Many clamor for "equality" when it fits their agenda, but yet are quick to accept preferential treatment when it is for their own benefit.
(12-17-2020, 01:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, plenty of black people have power, and in those cases the "prejudice + power" definition could implicate them.
So I agree with Americus and I don't think "prejudice + power" is the best definition for racism. It has a lesson to teach, though. I think the lesson is, when you look at an individual, evaluate that person according to how much power they have. If they have little power, their prejudices don't mean much, and they shouldn't get a finger pointed at them. But if they have a lot of power, expect them to be working on their own prejudices and expect them to lift up people who are historically underrepresented or disadvantaged.
I also think there is such a thing as white supremacy. It's a mindset lots of people have that they are unaware of. Simply thinking of white as "default" and black as a "variation" is an example of white supremacy. White people tend to not think about their own race at all, and they tend to think of whiteness as one of the least interesting things about their white friends. But when they consider a black person, suddenly they will think of that person's race as a really important characteristic - even if they don't think it's a bad characteristic, it comes to the forefront of their mind and conversation. The two need to meet in the middle. We should be more conscious of our own whiteness, and less conscious of the race of non white people. Have them equal in your mind.
Horse droppings.
(12-17-2020, 01:09 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, plenty of black people have power, and in those cases the "prejudice + power" definition could implicate them.
So I agree with Americus and I don't think "prejudice + power" is the best definition for racism. It has a lesson to teach, though. I think the lesson is, when you look at an individual, evaluate that person according to how much power they have. If they have little power, their prejudices don't mean much, and they shouldn't get a finger pointed at them. But if they have a lot of power, expect them to be working on their own prejudices and expect them to lift up people who are historically underrepresented or disadvantaged.
I also think there is such a thing as white supremacy. It's a mindset lots of people have that they are unaware of. Simply thinking of white as "default" and black as a "variation" is an example of white supremacy. White people tend to not think about their own race at all, and they tend to think of whiteness as one of the least interesting things about their white friends. But when they consider a black person, suddenly they will think of that person's race as a really important characteristic - even if they don't think it's a bad characteristic, it comes to the forefront of their mind and conversation. The two need to meet in the middle. We should be more conscious of our own whiteness, and less conscious of the race of non white people. Have them equal in your mind.
What you are saying about becoming more aware of our whiteness sounds like another form of racism, albeit from a different angle. I think white supremacists are pretty aware of their whiteness, they don't have any problem with that. Why advocate that for even more people?
Or....perhaps we could stop thinking about color altogether. And that goes for all races. There is racism in every country; every country has it's segment of the population it discriminates against. And i think many of us on this forum know the solution to this problem, but because of the supreme wisdom of the moderators and rules of this board, we are restricted from discussing it. I 'll leave it at that.
You guys are confusing racism and discrimination. Those are two different things. They are both bad, but they are two different things.
Racism is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
Discrimination may or may not be a result of racism. In the 1950s, separate water fountains for black people only was a form of discrimination that obviously came from racism.
On the other hand, affirmative action, quotas, identity politics as practiced by the left does not (generally) come from the belief in the superiority of any particular race or class. The left believes in such discrimination as a means of correcting past discrimination. So it's reverse discrimination. (And very bad policy in my opinion.) But it's not racism.
(12-19-2020, 08:59 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are confusing racism and discrimination. Those are two different things. They are both bad, but they are two different things.
Racism is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
Discrimination may or may not be a result of racism. In the 1950s, separate water fountains for black people only was a form of discrimination that obviously came from racism.
On the other hand, affirmative action, quotas, identity politics as practiced by the left does not (generally) come from the belief in the superiority of any particular race or class. The left believes in such discrimination as a means of correcting past discrimination. So it's reverse discrimination. (And very bad policy in my opinion.) But it's not racism.
You're right in your first sentence, but discrimination itself isn't always bad (nor prejudice or bias either) while racism probably is.
Your last statement though, way off. Democrat social programs come from a belief in the inferiority of minorities in general, blacks in particular. "Po' ol' darkies cain't take care of theyselves" and "Pass this and the Nwords will vote for us for 200 years" and such. Completely based in paternalism and self interest.
(12-19-2020, 09:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ] (12-19-2020, 08:59 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ]You guys are confusing racism and discrimination. Those are two different things. They are both bad, but they are two different things.
Racism is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race."
Discrimination may or may not be a result of racism. In the 1950s, separate water fountains for black people only was a form of discrimination that obviously came from racism.
On the other hand, affirmative action, quotas, identity politics as practiced by the left does not (generally) come from the belief in the superiority of any particular race or class. The left believes in such discrimination as a means of correcting past discrimination. So it's reverse discrimination. (And very bad policy in my opinion.) But it's not racism.
You're right in your first sentence, but discrimination itself isn't always bad (nor prejudice or bias either) while racism probably is.
Your last statement though, way off. Democrat social programs come from a belief in the inferiority of minorities in general, blacks in particular. "Po' ol' darkies cain't take care of theyselves" and "Pass this and the Nwords will vote for us for 200 years" and such. Completely based in paternalism and self interest.
No, your last paragraph is wrong. Democrats belief in social programs doesn't come from a belief that minorities or poor people are inferior and can't take care of themselves. Democrats believe that minorities or poor people are disadvantaged and and need government help in order to a) get out of poverty and b) enjoy more equal opportunity. I'm not endorsing such programs; I am only telling you what the Democrats say is the reason for those programs. And unless you are a mind reader, I think we should go with what they say is their motivation. They're not saying minorities are biologically disadvantaged; they are saying minorities are disadvantaged by their poverty and the environment in which they live.
No. It's racism. Many of the college educated whites in the democratic party believe it is their duty to solve the disparity between blacks and whites. Why? Because they think blacks can't do it on their own. That's racism. Virtually every policy that dems have created to solve this problem has only made it worse. Blacks were coming out of poverty at a solid clip until minimum wage laws. Then they were doing pretty well until welfare. I blame those two laws for a majority of modern day struggles in the black community. Both of them were rooted in traditional racism. The former to keep black companies from competing with established ones, and the latter, arguably, just to keep blacks dependent on Dems for the foreseeable future (you should go read about it).
Now we have a new definition of racism, which is being used to leverage blackness into a tool for change. Progressives are literally trying to demonize whiteness and encouraging blacks to reject "white" characteristics like punctuality, rationality, and the patriarchal family. Is that because those college educated whites are rejecting those values as well? Bet you money this ends in more disparity. Progressives have almost always, historically, treated blacks as inferior. Period. The new progressives are using blacks to bring about their utopia, and they will [BLEEP] on any of them that don't conform. They don't want to see independent blacks undermining their narrative. Those blacks are stepping out of line. The amount of discrimination conservative blacks face from progressives is more blatant than anything you'll ever see coming from the right.
(12-19-2020, 09:31 AM)The Real Marty Wrote: [ -> ] (12-19-2020, 09:15 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]You're right in your first sentence, but discrimination itself isn't always bad (nor prejudice or bias either) while racism probably is.
Your last statement though, way off. Democrat social programs come from a belief in the inferiority of minorities in general, blacks in particular. "Po' ol' darkies cain't take care of theyselves" and "Pass this and the Nwords will vote for us for 200 years" and such. Completely based in paternalism and self interest.
No, your last paragraph is wrong. Democrats belief in social programs doesn't come from a belief that minorities or poor people are inferior and can't take care of themselves. Democrats believe that minorities or poor people are disadvantaged and and need government help in order to a) get out of poverty and b) enjoy more equal opportunity. I'm not endorsing such programs; I am only telling you what the Democrats say is the reason for those programs. And unless you are a mind reader, I think we should go with what they say is their motivation. They're not saying minorities are biologically disadvantaged; they are saying minorities are disadvantaged by their poverty and the environment in which they live.
How can you post that with a straight face? The democratic party was dominated by white southerners in the 60's and 70's. If you think they got these laws passed out of the purity of their love for helping the impoverished, you're delusional. You think they didn't realize a majority of the welfare funds were going to help the black community? And they still got legitimately racists senators to vote for that? OK, dude.