(01-31-2022 10:38 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 10:32 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(01-31-2022 10:12 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

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

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

For me, and this may not jibe with whatever dictionary definitions one might find for "racism", the important component for me is a hatred of other races when it comes to "racism".

Again, if I decide to solely hire white people, not because of any hate or hatred, but because I simply like white people better --- that is a predicate that allows the hiring of white people solely. Interesting viewpoint.

But glad to know that it is not racism, nor is that act of hiring white people exclusively racist in that regard. Again, interesting viewpoint.

And, that is a totally different argument than you made just a few minutes ago in this selection:

Quote: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?"

Do you realize that 'decades ago' (actually half a century or more) the reason POC didnt become a CEO wasnt because of 'animus' --- it was a lack of qualifications. So now you are talking out of both sides of your mouth in the same thread, apparently.

Your comment implies that you dislike POC relative to white people... I guess "hatred" is hard to define but what you describe is certainly at least in the grey zone of hatred. My point is that racism (to me, as I stated) involves feeling that are "less than" your own race. Perhaps hatred was too loaded a word...

My comment simply says I like white people. Period. And no, it is not in some bull**** 'zone of hatred'.

I like tacos, I will eat tacos every time over eating lasagna. I in no way dislike lasagna.

Now, we have gone from 'racism requires an act to exclude' to 'racism requires hatred' to 'racism means some bull**** level of "more preference", which, to you, is really "relative hatred of some sort".

Great, lets take your articulation --- Again, lets say I decide to hire a white person, not because of any hate or hatred, but because I simply wish to have have a white person in the position.

From your brand new dance step shuffle formulation we have to take 'like or like better' is really 'hate of some form'. By that same formulation any wish to have any race over another is 'like or like better'. Thus, merely wishing a white in the role is a racist act, in your brand new new stab at 'racism', correct?