(01-31-2022 10:10 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 10:05 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 09:54 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 09:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 09:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Condescending or nah? I thought you guys thought that was only for the lefties on this forum.

Quote:Definitely, and purposely, condescending, but he had his chance to respond and opted not to, so I returned his serve in like manner.

A different debate that would be interesting is whether the leftists or rightists are more condescending.




Biden's problem was announcing that he was going to pick a black female. Now it appears (rightly so) to be exclusionary of > 90% of the population. Nobody would have had a problem with it if he didn't mention his plan and ended up picking a black female justice.

Agree. Especially the part about about nobody having a problem with a black women being picked. (unless she is an ideologue like Lani Guinier)

Quote:Of course, he announced it in a namby-pamby attempt to generate votes. Just like Reagan did in 1980. Long list of politicians on both sides of the aisle making craven campaign promises that don't pass the sniff test.

Yes. One of the things I liked about Trump was that he went out of his way to keep his promises, even those I did not like. I respect Biden for trying to keep his promise, even though he never should have made that promise to begin with. Is the promise more to Jim Clyburn than to the American people, though? Reagan kept his promise, too.

Quote:Also... I always love when affirmative action (you know, trying to make sure POC get a chance to get into good schools) gets compared to 1930's Germany.

So if AA is FOR POCs, who is it AGAINST, and on what basis?

I am pretty sure Hitler and the other Nazis were against Aryans being discriminated against. In fact, that was the basis for their campaign against Jews. So it wasn't discrimination they didn't like, itself. It was discrimination against favored groups.

Is it AGAINST white people? So like, decades ago when you couldn't find many POC in executive positions or at elite schools what would you have done to change that? Nothing? Just tell everybody, "hey guys... we're being pretty racist... let's stop that, OK?" These programs were put in place to address a real problem.

Not that I want to rehash the whole AA debate by any means...

And in two words, you sum up one of my peeves with AA.

DECADES AGO

Like I said, the whole debate is about make up calls for things that happen decades, centuries, or even millennia ago.

maybe it is time to start sunsetting racist policies used to offset things that happened decades ago. How many make up calls are needed, and for how long. The answers seem to be infinite and forever.


A racist policy is a policy that favors one race over another. You seem to see that clearly when it is the white race being favored. Not so much the other way around.

Explain to me, if you will, how a policy based on race is not racist? How a candidate can get preference based on race, and it not be racist?

This is a conversation that has been had so many times on this board, it's just another rehash... Oof.

There are two issues here, and they are based on differences of opinion about the level/impact of historical and active racism today and how racist/racism is defined.

To the former, I would guess 93 and I believe there are more effects and active racism today than you do. To the latter, I would guess 93 and I believe something being based on race isn't inherently racist; that something is racist when it actively seeks to harm, disadvantage, etc. another based on their race.

So if a company says they are going to hire whites only, and solely because they want to help whites, that gives them a pass in your viewpoint. Sounds awesome. (slow clap).

This is almost as good as your defense of 'separate but equal'.