This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
That's great and all, but I'll disagree when you say Trump's comments aren't hateful. At the very least he's shown to not understand that certain things a civilian not in office can say should not be said by the president. It's not just this, really this is far from the worst. It's just one example.
least polite POTUS since the racist LBJ
if you think racism is only a black thing - then you're racist IMO
I and many others have no problem with the NFL protests during the anthem. The players have that right. I & many others have a right to not watch NFL football or those teams with players who express their rights. I really don't see what all the hubbub is about.
There's a difference between a private citizen calling for a boycott, and the President of the United States calling for a boycott. A boycott, I might add, of perhaps the most quintessentially American business.
Yep, lost a lot of fans. you sometimes reap what you hoe & it isn't pretty. This should immediately be transferred to the political thread-IMO
I don't see taking money away from breast cancer charities and military families and giving it to "community relations" projects as a worthwhile cause. I think it's pretty damn outrageous actually.
They're all fine causes.
I never said anything close to that. What I said is that there are people who think that black people protesting racism is a bigger problem than black people experiencing racism. Thank you for proving my point.
I dunno, I'm pretty cynical about "pink-washing", so I'd say that money being diverted from breast-cancer research to just about anything else would be worthwhile.
The NFL is total BS, I agree with that. They profit of sales of pink items during October and they used to charge the military for their in game publicity. NFL is a pretty greedy disgusting organization. However, I have no issue shifting money from cancer to community outreach. We do charity fundraising at work. Some periods we donate to children's hospital then to humane society and then to a scholarship fund. Is potentially saving a kids life a bigger deal than saving a dog or saving a kid some money for college? Yeah ofcourse. That doesn't make it outrageous. There are many causes that need help.
how about this - stop focusing on one color skin? white skin suffer from racism, brown skin does, yellow skin does ........ its like saying female sexual assault is all that matters and forget about all the males that suffer through it toozftcg said:
I do not ever recall being followed around a store or harassed by police b/c I'm white, though. Hmm...
I don't even remember laws that hire white skin people over black skinned ones. I don't remember white helping students get college favoritism. I don't remember Mrs White USA, national white college coaches association, national white month, white quota's etc
Show me how whites were in the negative before those things came around.
So then you'd agree that it's racist that resumes with black-sounding name are significantly less likely to get call backs than identical resumes with white-sounding names? You'd agree it's racist if equally-qualified blacks earn less money and are less likely to be promoted than whites?
Dude, you already proved my point, you don't need to keep making it for me! You think that racism against black people is no longer a problem. I get it. I'm not going to engage with you on that topic because the arguments you're putting forward demonstrate that you are either a) the most cluelessly naive/historically ignorant person I have ever come across, or b) a liberal who is trolling conservatives by posting the dumbest possible arguments he can think of in order to discredit the opposing side. Either way, not worth wasting any time on you.
where did I say that ?
What is your definition of social justice? Does it involve blacks being more likely to be arrested and less likely to be hired, after controlling for criminality and experience? I notice you didn't respond to that point.
I have a radical idea - treat everyone the same. Don't judge people on skin color. Treat everyone the same.
In a perfect world where we start with the same benefits, yes.
Yes, that would be very nice. But it's not the way the U.S. is today. Again, there's plenty of scholarship on this, and it's repeatable; people with black faces or black names make less money and get fewer opportunities than people with white faces and white names.
And those studies proved that race was the single determining factor for the difference? There are numerous other reasons why this could be occurring. It’s intellectually lazy and deceptive to simply look at that one factor. The alleged gender gap in wages has been disproven - when all other factors are shown to be equal - yet despite that the social justice warriors continue to hammer out that false drum beat.
penalizing people because they have not black enough skin isn't the answer CalBear
Actually, academics spend entire careers drilling down into observed phenomena looking for causal factors. If you're interested in digging into the research, I can send you some papers.
Whites aren't penalized for their skin color in America. In fact, they're given enormous advantages in every aspect of their lives. My question is, how do you propose to address that inequity? "We shouldn't give advantage based on skin color" is a statement of values that many would agree with, so, given that we do give advantages based on skin color (to whites), what should we do to "move towards a world where all people are treated equally," as you say?
Yes, I agree. Now given that the existing research about disparity in hiring and promotion shows that whites with lower accolades and accomplishments are more likely to be hired, and more likely to be paid more, what do you propose to do about it?
Just curious, how often does this happen as you say? The much more qualified that is. I'm in favor of looking at the whole person and how they will likely impact the team - be that school, office, etc.
but you support it ..... so how is it different when you do it vs when people did it 40 years ago ?
most colleges have it - the SC upheld colleges using racism in admissions. didn't you know? skin color gives a weighted edge ..... its not about GPA or test scores so much as what color skin you have .....
Huh? I didn't realize I was engaged in any ruses. I must confess, I know next to nothing about Saul Alinsky, so I will defer to you on whether I'm using his tactics. I responded to another poster with what I thought was an uncontroversial statement, which is that there are people who believe that, in today's society, efforts by African Americans to oppose racism are a bigger problem then the racism itself. I wasn't even expressing an opinion on those people, just stating that they exist.
You haven't said anything about a solution. You've reasserted your position on the matter.
so you do not know about affirmative actions, quotas and using skin color against equally qualified white people ? the SC ruled colleges can discriminate against white people - you agree with this ?
When you look at the sum total of everything related to race in our society–including affirmative action, racial quotas (which are illegal), "using skin color against equally qualified white people," and racism against blacks–the net result is that whites are given substantial unearned advantages over blacks in employment, education, finance, and other aspects of their lives. We are not living in a post-racial society. My question, which you appear to lack an answer for, is how you would address today's reality of an unequal, racist society to achieve your stated desire for a post-racial society. Pretending that racism doesn't exist isn't a plan of action.Stealthycat said:
-OZ- said:
it seems to me the answers are to punish white people through racism - or that's strongly what ya'll are supporting.
Actually, no one in this thread has said anything about punishing white people through racism. I haven't talked about solutions at all.
using skin color against someone at its core, is racism
As I pointed out earlier in this thread, education actually makes the gap worse. Blacks who finish college, go on to a master's program, get a PhD, fall further and further behind their white colleagues. They fall still further behind the longer they are in the workforce. And after controlling for all other measurable factors, the bulk of the effect remains determined by skin color.
so the opposite is uneducated makes it better?
why gauge people on their skin colors ? There are so many variables to why people have positions they have or not its insane to use color of skin as a reasons ................. and that infers that its white skinned people's fault as well.
All of the evidence is that U.S. companies do hire based on skin color. Whites are more likely to get call-backs, more likely to get interviews, more likely to be hired, and more likely to be promoted than equally-qualified blacks. And blacks are more likely to be stopped by police, more likely to arrested when stopped, more likely to be charged when arrested, more likely to be convicted when charged, and more likely to be injured or die in custody, than equally-criminal whites.
