(05-22-2021 09:22 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 08:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 08:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 08:00 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 07:53 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Gabbard

I don't know where this stands under the varied definitions of of racism, but under mine, and apparently Tulsi Gabbards', the action by Lightfoot falls squarely under racism. My definition was formulated specifically to include antiwhite racism the same as antiblack.


“Mayor Lightfoot's blatant anti-white racism is abhorrent,” she[Gabbard] tweeted. “I call upon President Biden, Kamala Harris, and other leaders of our country—of all races—to join me in calling for Mayor Lightfoot's resignation. Our leaders must condemn all racism, including anti-white.”

I guess gabbard wants to cancel Lightfoot.

Lightfoot, to me, stepped over the line and veered clearly into what one could call racist. It went above and beyond trying to assist POC and went towards actively discriminating against white reporters. No issue with the call for her to resign - I think it is completely justifiable.

We are in general agreement then. I have only one question: How does one formulate a law/policy trying to assist POC without actively discriminating against whites? An example would be helpful.

I believe I gave an example when I first offered my thoughts.

I would have had no problem if she had reserved X spots for POC reporters and Y spots for white reporters. That provides opportunities for people with different backgrounds and does not completely shut out certain reporters because of their race.

I don’t subscribe to the thought that a leg up for one is inherently and explicitly a leg down for another. But sometimes that happens, like in this case.

I don't believe you have given an example of a policy/law meant to help people of X race that does not inherently penalize people of Y race. If you have, I've missed it. A reference to the example or the post would be helpful. I cannot see any way for racial preferences not to have an effect on the non-preferred people.

I would still have a problem is she reserved X spots for race X and Y spots for race Y. How is this different from reserving the back of the bus for blacks or reserving the alternate waiting room for Asians? I believe this type of system used to be called apartheid.

I believe your facetious definition of "white" points up some of the problems of defining people by race, and therefore problems with certain projects such as reparations. Am I white? According to the US Census Bureau, I am. Am I Hispanic? Am I Native American? Am I Swedish? Am I Jewish? According to many definitions and NatGeo's DNA project, the answer is yes, yes, yes, yes, and yes. So how would I be defined if I was a Chicago reporter? Do I have to submit my DNA tests to be defined as a POC? Isn't that much like what happened Germany all those years ago? Do I need to pass a racial purity test?

(05-22-2021 10:46 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 10:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 09:38 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  It’s very different from the back of the bud analogy - that distinctly denoted a difference between people.

Your solution distinctly notes a difference in people.

Sorry, wasn’t clear there. I was speaking about different outcomes (back vs front). It wasn’t like there were a portion of seats reserved for whites and blacks at the front and then everyone went to the back when they were filled.

Quote:

Quote:In the example I provide, there is equal access provided to all, besides the number of opportunities (which are inherently limited by time). My example is similar to AA, and we disagree on whether that is racist, so we won’t come to an agreement here.

How does giving limited spots to one race not affect other races?

It does affect other races, but I don’t believe it equates to an inherently negative outcome since opportunities exist (and in sufficient numbers) for everyone. There are pros and cons to completely ignoring race in some instances and accounting for it in others.

Quote:

Quote: But broad, race-based laws don’t have that issue (i.e. don’t discriminate based on race), and neither do other programs that take race into consideration.

By definition , race-based laws discriminate on race.

We have had this discussion and we’ll have to agree to disagree.

Quote:

Quote:The best way to handle this is to ask people to self-identify as we currently do. We don’t see significant problems with that, and we don’t get into the weird and troubling genetics issues like you mention at the end of the post.

When we legislate by race, people will have to identify by race to be eligible for the special treatments. Eventually they will have to show proof.

Will they? We already “legislate by race” per your definition. Have you ever been asked to “prove” what race you marked?

(05-22-2021 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 08:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 08:26 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  What is the definition of a 'white' reporter for you?

Someone who has at least 1.24789% Anglo-Saxon background or 2.5479% Scandinavian background or really likes mayonnaise.

Glad to know of your support for such types of racial definitions. That POV would have been right down the middle for governmental policies in South Africa pre- 1991.

Who knew South Africa was basing racial definitions on sandwich spreads.

At least they didnt sidestep it in a flippant bull**** manner when trying to draw a line "whites" and others. Like some here do.

Edited to add:

To expand, they approached a serious and disturbing issue of classification by race in a serious and deterministic manner.

You, on the other hand, approach to the same serious and disturbing issue of classification by race in a whimisical, flippant, and bull**** manner.

I dont know which approach I should be more concerned by.

(05-22-2021 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 08:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 08:39 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Someone who has at least 1.24789% Anglo-Saxon background or 2.5479% Scandinavian background or really likes mayonnaise.

Glad to know of your support for such types of racial definitions. That POV would have been right down the middle for governmental policies in South Africa pre- 1991.

Who knew South Africa was basing racial definitions on sandwich spreads.

At least they didnt sidestep it in a flippant bull**** manner when trying to draw a line "whites" and others. Like some here do.

Edited to add:

To expand, they approached a serious and disturbing issue of classification by race in a serious and deterministic manner.

You, on the other hand, approach to the same serious and disturbing issue of classification by race in a whimisical, flippant, and bull**** manner.

I dont know which approach I should be more concerned by.

You’re getting real piqued by this and are probably over extending what I’m saying to fight a scarecrow.

We currently have institutions and government agencies using race in determining actions. What are their current procedures? Since we don’t hear a lot about people thinking the current rules are unfair in terms classifying one’s race.

(05-22-2021 01:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But, lad doesnt like race neutral formulations that much, apparently.

(05-22-2021 02:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 08:54 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Glad to know of your support for such types of racial definitions. That POV would have been right down the middle for governmental policies in South Africa pre- 1991.

Who knew South Africa was basing racial definitions on sandwich spreads.

At least they didnt sidestep it in a flippant bull**** manner when trying to draw a line "whites" and others. Like some here do.

Edited to add:

To expand, they approached a serious and disturbing issue of classification by race in a serious and deterministic manner.

You, on the other hand, approach to the same serious and disturbing issue of classification by race in a whimisical, flippant, and bull**** manner.

I dont know which approach I should be more concerned by.

You’re getting real piqued by this and are probably over extending what I’m saying to fight a scarecrow.

We currently have institutions and government agencies using race in determining actions. What are their current procedures? Since we don’t hear a lot about people thinking the current rules are unfair in terms classifying one’s race.

I'm not the one drawing a line between whites and other races. Nor am I comfortable with promulgating race-determinative or race-based procedures.

You are the one gung-ho about jumping aboard that train.

If you want to do so, I suggest answering some pretty fing basic questions about the basic nature of it might be order. Not your hand waving previously or above, mind you.

(05-22-2021 02:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 01:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But, lad doesnt like race neutral formulations that much, apparently.

Nobody on the Democratic/leftist/liberal side of the discussions like anything to be race neutral. Being race neutral is racist.

(05-22-2021 03:05 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 02:36 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 01:41 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  But, lad doesnt like race neutral formulations that much, apparently.

Nobody on the Democratic/leftist/liberal side of the discussions like anything to be race neutral. Being race neutral is racist.

I’m absolutely fine with race neutral formulations. I’m also fine with using race-based formulations in some instances. Basically, not absolutely binary as I live in the real world where racism and impacts from historical racism exist.

(05-22-2021 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 02:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 09:04 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Who knew South Africa was basing racial definitions on sandwich spreads.

At least they didnt sidestep it in a flippant bull**** manner when trying to draw a line "whites" and others. Like some here do.

Edited to add:

To expand, they approached a serious and disturbing issue of classification by race in a serious and deterministic manner.

You, on the other hand, approach to the same serious and disturbing issue of classification by race in a whimisical, flippant, and bull**** manner.

I dont know which approach I should be more concerned by.

You’re getting real piqued by this and are probably over extending what I’m saying to fight a scarecrow.

We currently have institutions and government agencies using race in determining actions. What are their current procedures? Since we don’t hear a lot about people thinking the current rules are unfair in terms classifying one’s race.

I'm not the one drawing a line between whites and other races. Nor am I comfortable with promulgating race-determinative or race-based procedures.

You are the one gung-ho about jumping aboard that train.

If you want to do so, I suggest answering some pretty fing basic questions about the basic nature of it might be order. Not your hand waving previously or above, mind you.

Ah yea, really gung and going high energy here.

I just provided a pretty Fing basic answer - do what we’re currently doing. It’s not like I’ve been advocating for new laws or regulations. This conversation started with a hypothetical, after all.

(05-22-2021 04:13 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 03:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 02:28 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 01:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 01:27 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  At least they didnt sidestep it in a flippant bull**** manner when trying to draw a line "whites" and others. Like some here do.

Edited to add:

To expand, they approached a serious and disturbing issue of classification by race in a serious and deterministic manner.

You, on the other hand, approach to the same serious and disturbing issue of classification by race in a whimisical, flippant, and bull**** manner.

I dont know which approach I should be more concerned by.

You’re getting real piqued by this and are probably over extending what I’m saying to fight a scarecrow.

We currently have institutions and government agencies using race in determining actions. What are their current procedures? Since we don’t hear a lot about people thinking the current rules are unfair in terms classifying one’s race.

I'm not the one drawing a line between whites and other races. Nor am I comfortable with promulgating race-determinative or race-based procedures.

You are the one gung-ho about jumping aboard that train.

If you want to do so, I suggest answering some pretty fing basic questions about the basic nature of it might be order. Not your hand waving previously or above, mind you.

Ah yea, really gung and going high energy here.

I just provided a pretty Fing basic answer - do what we’re currently doing. It’s not like I’ve been advocating for new laws or regulations. This conversation started with a hypothetical, after all.

Lightfoot's restriction to 'no whites' is far from hypothetical. Perhaps read the news.

'do what we are currently doing' == please do tell, what is that my deeply insightful friend?

I am saying, if you advocate for race based laws, be prepared to define races. You get pretty friggin' evasive when pressed on that. Amazing (no, not amazing at all, just saracastic with that last comment).

So, lets reiterate. You are *for* race based laws, rules, and regulations. based primarily on the 'direction' of the restriction or benefit.

Just like I mentioned the progressives are for them several weeks ago.

But...... you are *against* other race-based laws, rules, and regulations. Primarily based on the 'direction' of the racial component.

And when pressed on the most important aspect of any of the particular law, rule, or regulation, that is *what* constitutes a particular race, you simply wave your magic lad wand and tell us to ignore that.

Further, when the history of legal race-based laws is mentioned, especially with the composition of those governments who approached the subject of division by race rather seriously, you get all bent out of shape when that history is invoked.

Have I left anything out of this particular thread of tears?

Quote:It was said to me, ‘Well, you’re really not a minority. I was like, ‘Wait a minute. The last time I checked, when I looked in the mirror and brushed my teeth, I was a minority. So I was like, ‘What do you mean I’m not a minority?’ ”

Quote:“You are not the right minority we’re looking for.”

(05-22-2021 10:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hey lad, this should fit exactly into your wheelhouse on 'defining discrimination as a race based test' thingy that you are so galvanized on.

Football Coach Eugene Chung Says NFL Told Him He Was 'Not the Right Minority' to be considered for an NFL Head Coach Position

NFL assistant coach Eugene Chung revealed that he had interviewed for a coaching position in the off season.

Quote:It was said to me, ‘Well, you’re really not a minority. I was like, ‘Wait a minute. The last time I checked, when I looked in the mirror and brushed my teeth, I was a minority. So I was like, ‘What do you mean I’m not a minority?’ ”

The response was, according to Chung.

Quote:“You are not the right minority we’re looking for.”

(05-22-2021 10:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hey lad, this should fit exactly into your wheelhouse on 'defining discrimination as a race based test' thingy that you are so galvanized on.

Football Coach Eugene Chung Says NFL Told Him He Was 'Not the Right Minority' to be considered for an NFL Head Coach Position

NFL assistant coach Eugene Chung revealed that he had interviewed for a coaching position in the off season.

Quote:It was said to me, ‘Well, you’re really not a minority. I was like, ‘Wait a minute. The last time I checked, when I looked in the mirror and brushed my teeth, I was a minority. So I was like, ‘What do you mean I’m not a minority?’ ”

The response was, according to Chung:

Quote:“You are not the right minority we’re looking for.”

(05-23-2021 07:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 10:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hey lad, this should fit exactly into your wheelhouse on 'defining discrimination as a race based test' thingy that you are so galvanized on.

Football Coach Eugene Chung Says NFL Told Him He Was 'Not the Right Minority' to be considered for an NFL Head Coach Position

NFL assistant coach Eugene Chung revealed that he had interviewed for a coaching position in the off season.

Quote:It was said to me, ‘Well, you’re really not a minority. I was like, ‘Wait a minute. The last time I checked, when I looked in the mirror and brushed my teeth, I was a minority. So I was like, ‘What do you mean I’m not a minority?’ ”

The response was, according to Chung:

Quote:“You are not the right minority we’re looking for.”

What are you even talking about when you say I am so galvanized on defining discrimination as a race based test?

I literally don’t know what that means, or what post of mine you are referring to when you say that.

(05-23-2021 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 07:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 10:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hey lad, this should fit exactly into your wheelhouse on 'defining discrimination as a race based test' thingy that you are so galvanized on.

Football Coach Eugene Chung Says NFL Told Him He Was 'Not the Right Minority' to be considered for an NFL Head Coach Position

NFL assistant coach Eugene Chung revealed that he had interviewed for a coaching position in the off season.

Quote:It was said to me, ‘Well, you’re really not a minority. I was like, ‘Wait a minute. The last time I checked, when I looked in the mirror and brushed my teeth, I was a minority. So I was like, ‘What do you mean I’m not a minority?’ ”

The response was, according to Chung:

Quote:“You are not the right minority we’re looking for.”

What are you even talking about when you say I am so galvanized on defining discrimination as a race based test?

I literally don’t know what that means, or what post of mine you are referring to when you say that.

That is why posting your definition would be so valuable. I have asked, you have declined.

But I agree with Tanq - not just you, but your entire side of the aisle think and act as if discrimination is a race-based test.

Assign seats on a bus according to race, bad.
Assign seats at a press conference according to race, fine.

The difference is race-based.

(05-23-2021 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 07:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 10:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hey lad, this should fit exactly into your wheelhouse on 'defining discrimination as a race based test' thingy that you are so galvanized on.

Football Coach Eugene Chung Says NFL Told Him He Was 'Not the Right Minority' to be considered for an NFL Head Coach Position

NFL assistant coach Eugene Chung revealed that he had interviewed for a coaching position in the off season.

Quote:It was said to me, ‘Well, you’re really not a minority. I was like, ‘Wait a minute. The last time I checked, when I looked in the mirror and brushed my teeth, I was a minority. So I was like, ‘What do you mean I’m not a minority?’ ”

The response was, according to Chung:

Quote:“You are not the right minority we’re looking for.”

What are you even talking about when you say I am so galvanized on defining discrimination as a race based test?

I literally don’t know what that means, or what post of mine you are referring to when you say that.

That is why posting your definition would be so valuable. I have asked, you have declined.

But I agree with Tanq - not just you, but your entire side of the aisle think and act as if discrimination is a race-based test.

Assign seats on a bus according to race, bad.
Assign seats at a press conference according to race, fine.

The difference is race-based.

I already explained why the bus analogy you used was bad and didn’t actually represent what I said.

I also explained that our current methods of using race as a deciding factor seem to be fine, so keep on doing that for things like AA. I assume it’s mostly about self-reporting your race, but as I’ve said multiple times, we don’t seem to have significant issues in how we currently handle race-based laws/rules, so keep on keeping on.

What do y’all even think I’m advocating for? It’s like you’re arguing against a 10-point plan I’ve laid out or something.

(05-23-2021 01:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 07:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-22-2021 10:15 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Hey lad, this should fit exactly into your wheelhouse on 'defining discrimination as a race based test' thingy that you are so galvanized on.

Football Coach Eugene Chung Says NFL Told Him He Was 'Not the Right Minority' to be considered for an NFL Head Coach Position

NFL assistant coach Eugene Chung revealed that he had interviewed for a coaching position in the off season.


The response was, according to Chung:

What are you even talking about when you say I am so galvanized on defining discrimination as a race based test?

I literally don’t know what that means, or what post of mine you are referring to when you say that.

That is why posting your definition would be so valuable. I have asked, you have declined.

But I agree with Tanq - not just you, but your entire side of the aisle think and act as if discrimination is a race-based test.

Assign seats on a bus according to race, bad.
Assign seats at a press conference according to race, fine.

The difference is race-based.

I already explained why the bus analogy you used was bad and didn’t actually represent what I said.

I also explained that our current methods of using race as a deciding factor seem to be fine, so keep on doing that for things like AA. I assume it’s mostly about self-reporting your race, but as I’ve said multiple times, we don’t seem to have significant issues in how we currently handle race-based laws/rules, so keep on keeping on.

What do y’all even think I’m advocating for? It’s like you’re arguing against a 10-point plan I’ve laid out or something.

I've heard you say the bus analogy was bad. I don't agree. It is dead solid perfectly on point. Choices based on race are the same as choices based on race. Only the races are different.

I don't think our current methods of using race as a deciding factor are fine, any more than any other racist policy. I also would point out that "deciding factor" implies that all things were equal and no decision made until the ultimate step - not so. It is written into the very fabric of the laws or policies.

I don't see the relevance to self-reporting.

You are advocating for continued racist laws and policies. Keep on keepin' on could have been the war cry of a 1957 segregationist. Segregated schools working just fine...

(05-23-2021 03:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 01:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 07:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  What are you even talking about when you say I am so galvanized on defining discrimination as a race based test?

I literally don’t know what that means, or what post of mine you are referring to when you say that.

That is why posting your definition would be so valuable. I have asked, you have declined.

But I agree with Tanq - not just you, but your entire side of the aisle think and act as if discrimination is a race-based test.

Assign seats on a bus according to race, bad.
Assign seats at a press conference according to race, fine.

The difference is race-based.

I already explained why the bus analogy you used was bad and didn’t actually represent what I said.

I also explained that our current methods of using race as a deciding factor seem to be fine, so keep on doing that for things like AA. I assume it’s mostly about self-reporting your race, but as I’ve said multiple times, we don’t seem to have significant issues in how we currently handle race-based laws/rules, so keep on keeping on.

What do y’all even think I’m advocating for? It’s like you’re arguing against a 10-point plan I’ve laid out or something.

I've heard you say the bus analogy was bad. I don't agree. It is dead solid perfectly on point. Choices based on race are the same as choices based on race. Only the races are different.

I don't think our current methods of using race as a deciding factor are fine, any more than any other racist policy. I also would point out that "deciding factor" implies that all things were equal and no decision made until the ultimate step - not so. It is written into the very fabric of the laws or policies.

I don't see the relevance to self-reporting.

You are advocating for continued racist laws and policies. Keep on keepin' on could have been the war cry of a 1957 segregationist. Segregated schools working just fine...

Yeah, affirmative action is equivalent to Jim Crow laws. Hilarious.

(05-23-2021 03:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 03:06 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 01:09 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 01:00 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-23-2021 09:08 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  That is why posting your definition would be so valuable. I have asked, you have declined.

But I agree with Tanq - not just you, but your entire side of the aisle think and act as if discrimination is a race-based test.

Assign seats on a bus according to race, bad.
Assign seats at a press conference according to race, fine.

The difference is race-based.

I already explained why the bus analogy you used was bad and didn’t actually represent what I said.

I also explained that our current methods of using race as a deciding factor seem to be fine, so keep on doing that for things like AA. I assume it’s mostly about self-reporting your race, but as I’ve said multiple times, we don’t seem to have significant issues in how we currently handle race-based laws/rules, so keep on keeping on.

What do y’all even think I’m advocating for? It’s like you’re arguing against a 10-point plan I’ve laid out or something.

I've heard you say the bus analogy was bad. I don't agree. It is dead solid perfectly on point. Choices based on race are the same as choices based on race. Only the races are different.

I don't think our current methods of using race as a deciding factor are fine, any more than any other racist policy. I also would point out that "deciding factor" implies that all things were equal and no decision made until the ultimate step - not so. It is written into the very fabric of the laws or policies.

I don't see the relevance to self-reporting.

You are advocating for continued racist laws and policies. Keep on keepin' on could have been the war cry of a 1957 segregationist. Segregated schools working just fine...

Yeah, affirmative action is equivalent to Jim Crow laws. Hilarious.

I didn't say that. Don't blame me for your inability to follow what I say.

Equivalent is a word out of your mind, not my mouth. A dented fender is not equivalent to a rollover. But they are both still accidents.

When you say no whites allowed, it is the same as "no blacks allowed" in essence, though maybe not in impact. And it certainly is NOT as a "deciding factor", the excuse you added to make it all good.

You lefties just don't want to admit your brand of racism is racism, so you keep adding and creating these "nuances" to make it OK.

You are the only ones who reply "depends" to questions of racism.