(06-16-2021 09:55 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 08:22 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 08:11 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 08:06 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-16-2021 07:54 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  disabled dairy farmer sues Biden Administration

“Plaintiff Adam P. Faust owns a dairy farm in Calumet County, near Chilton, in the Northern Division of the Eastern District of Wisconsin. Mr. Faust is a double-amputee. In addition to milking about 70 Holstein cows, Mr. Faust farms 200 acres for feed for his cows. Mr. Faust would be eligible for the loan forgiveness program in Section 1005 of ARPA, except he is white,” a lawsuit filed on his behalf states.

The law firm noted on its website that the Supreme Court has “rejected the interest in remedying societal discrimination because it had no logical stopping point.”

The race-obsessed Biden administration, in its larger mission to root out perceived systemic racism, branded Faust — a man who is by definition disabled — as privileged. As a result, he and other farmers are having to sue, because as his law firm rightly pointed out, the high court of the land has already ruled that reparations for perceived inequality have no stopping point.

I suspect that even Lad93 would agree that this provision of Biden's is racist. But I am not so sure that they would say it was wrong. After all, it follows in the general path of making up for past discrimination that they hold dear.

I have no problem saying it is wrong, and definitely racist.

I dont think he would. Without offense, both he and lad seem to be completely unable to fathom the very real secondary definition of 'racist'.

I guess is that if your belief system precludes it, one should just ignore those little points. Just use that 'magic marker' on it so to speak.

I wonder what they will decided is the now-proper term for making a decision based wholly or partly on race (whatever 'race' is, mind you). Or if that magic-marker simply crosses that issue out as well as the word describing it.

I'd call this a race-based program and not racist. That is much clearer in describing this program (it is based on race) and it doesn't add the additional baggage that using the term "racist" clearly does if someone doesn't believe the program is prejudice against those who do not have access to it.

And is completely race dependent itself, funny that.

If the farmers given an edge are black, it should be 'a race based program'. If the farmers given an edge agree white, it is racist (apparently).

Funny how your own definition fits your conundrum. Is your own attempt to redefine English a 'race based program' or 'racist'?

Godel would be impressed with your logic in this I would surmise. (literally a self-referential (pun intended) joke unto itself, for those unaware of the work of Godel)

If there was historical information indicating that white farmers had been discriminated against unfairly, then it would be an appropriate program.

You're gonna complain that I'm asking you to look at the context of the situation, but the real world rarely binary in the way you often make it out to be.

I do appreciate that you recognize that the program is about giving someone a leg up and not punishing someone else. It's not as if every single farmer has expected this program to support them and then the rug was pulled out like the GI Bill and black veterans.

I can understand why you may disagree with said program, and that you think it isn't equitable.

For all your 'equity and justice' there, the explicit terms of the (race based)(racist) program dodges those.

Seriously, the terms of the program would allow a very middle class (perhaps multi-millionaire) person whom is black/chicano/oppressed de jure relief over a quadraplegic cracker dirt farmer.

How in the hell can you not blanch when you type the above in light of that?

Quote:[quote]
But I don't think it is racist because it is not negatively affecting someone who is ineligible for it - it just isn't providing "an edge" as you say.

Fine, lets switch the terms 'socially disadvantaged people' in the program out for 'whites only'.

Per your own definition, it is not negatively affecting someone who isnt eligible for it. I guess you should be, at worst, agnostic on that change.

Using that line of reasoning above, one can morally (and legally) validate almost any Jim Crow era law out there if you give it a half-second (or less). Please stop with the thin veneer explanations.

And I find it rather hilarious when you complain about a 'binary' world view when, perhaps you arent self aware of it, your explanations are nothing but that. racial discrimination for blacks -- all good, not racist. Racial discrimination for whites -- all bad and racist. Now you add a stupid dimension of 'edge up'.

In that 'nuanced ' point of view where does 'racial discrimination against whites' fall? And yes, perhaps you arent self-aware, that 'giving an edge up' to any one subclass *is* 'providing an edge against' *from* any other subclass aside from that one you promote'.

But yet, it is the racial agnostic mind and proponent that is 'binary'. Rich. Actually, really and seriously gd rich.