Snowflakes in action: the actual reality of "snowflakes" in the world and the consequences

[Gospel]

Your observation from 2052 seems compatible with, say, only judgments against white defendants with non-black but also non-white plaintiffs.
But alright, I take it in 2052 there have been only rulings in favor of white plaintiffs, against defendants of any color.

Then a question is: Were those rulings favoring white plaintiffs in accordance to SB148?
I mean, where those white plaintiffs treated in a way SB148 banned?
If the rulings were in accordance to SB148, do you think it was unjust for the courts (even if legal) to rule in favor of those white plaintiffs? If so, why?
If they were not in accordance to SB148, the problem in those cases does not seem to be SB148, but the courts.

First thing, I appreciate you humoring me with my time traveling lore (seriously ). Now, Desantis said the law was written to prevent CRT from being used in Florida and after reading it this was confirmed to me. Looking at black & white history in America you only have to ask yourself three questions,

Who is worried about CRT?

What have black people as a race done in (or to) America where said History can be used to make black people feel guilty (crime wise not remorse wise), or credibly found responsible (like some white people who are reaping benefits from an industry built on slavery) for some national wrongdoings in the past?

Ya feel me?

 

[Gospel]

Then a question is: Were those rulings favoring white plaintiffs in accordance to SB148?

No, because the civil rights act already prohibits what SB148 attempts to prohibit, and the silly parts of SB 148 (which is ultimately Critical Race Theory for white people) will be used solely to bring cases before judges. Any rulings in favor of white plaintiffs would be on account of the Civil Rights Act as the rest of SB 148 is useless beyond the purpose of filing suits.

I mean, where those white plaintiffs treated in a way SB148 banned?

No, however, they may have been treated in a way that the Civil Rights Act banned.

If the rulings were in accordance to SB148, do you think it was unjust for the courts (even if legal) to rule in favor of those white plaintiffs? If so, why?

Being that CRT for which SB 148 is written to prevent doesn't exist outside of white people's heads, evidence of it will be difficult to present. As such The rulings won't be in accordance with SB 148 as SB 148 will only be used for filing suits. The Civil Rights Act will pick up where it fails.

If they were not in accordance to SB148, the problem in those cases does not seem to be SB148, but the courts.

They won't be in accordance with SB 148 because the issues SB 148 seeks to ban only exist in white people's heads.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

It looks fair and balanced to me.

 

[Gospel]

Okay, let's say it's 2052 and you're right, there haven't been. So apparently in thirty years nobody in the Florida education system ever told black students they ought to accept being racially profiled by police because aggressive racially biased policing actually makes them safer due to the level of black-on-black violence. (If a teacher had been telling that to black students, they could have gotten a judgment against the school district under SB 148.) If nobody in the Florida education system has been saying stuff like that to students, that would appear to mean Florida schools had already rooted out all the anti-black racists from their personnel, just by applying their own institutional culture and employment practices. I.e., assuming you're right that SB 148 really does provide protection for only white people, that's because people of other races have already gotten the same protection by some other mechanism.

When the 14th Amendment guaranteeing equal protection of the law to people of all races was enacted, there was already a cultural mechanism in place protecting white people from being denied equal protection of the law, so a lot of people no doubt objected to the amendment on the grounds that it only protected black people and wouldn't provide any protection to white people. I'm not convinced that was a good argument against it.

Bomb#20, you make me feel like a 5th grader debating a college professor. Anyway, in the thirty years prior to SB 148, nobody in the Florida education system ever told white students they ought to accept responsibility for their slave-owning ancestors. It takes little imagination to predict that nobody would do so in thirty years post-SB 148. There is a reason this hasn't happened and that reason is the Civil Rights Act. SB 148 was a law written for an imaginary threat to the civil liberties of white people.

As far as I know, existing public accommodation law says a school can't refuse to hire black teachers and can't refuse to teach black students, and it can't make all the black teachers attend training sessions unless the white teachers have to attend them too. But if the training sessions all the new teachers attend tell them to expect white children will be racist and black children will be troublemakers and Chinese children will need no help with math, I don't see where previously existing law classifies that training as discrimination. SB 148 addresses the content of the training rather than the rules for who has to attend it.

The keyword is discrimination. So how does the law (not Bomb#20) define discrimination? To my knowledge its unfair or unequal treatment of an individual (or group) based on certain characteristics, including:

• Age
• Disability
• Ethnicity
• Gender
• Marital status
• National origin
• Race,
• Religion, and
• Sexual orientation.

Everything SB 148 aims to protect individuals against is already covered by the Civil rights act however the additional language dictated by Critical Race Theory with the aim to be Anti CRT ultimately makes it Critical Race Theory to the benefit of white people made law.

 

[ZiprHead]

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

USDA discrimination against African-American farmers[edit]​

With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both white and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies since the turn of the century and excluded from the political system, a condition that was maintained for much of the 20th century. By the early 20th century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.

White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%,[3] compared to a 94% decline among all groups.[4]

Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.[5][page needed] A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."[6] But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.[6]

USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.

• In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American.
• In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American.
• In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American.
• Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members.

On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.[7][page needed]

The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing more, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied, making his investment in livestock useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.[7][page needed]

While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office did not operate functionally for more than a decade.[7][page needed]

During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.[8]

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[laughing dog]

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

USDA discrimination against African-American farmers[edit]​

With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both white and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies since the turn of the century and excluded from the political system, a condition that was maintained for much of the 20th century. By the early 20th century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.

White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%,[3] compared to a 94% decline among all groups.[4]

Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.[5][page needed] A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."[6] But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.[6]

USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.

• In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American.
• In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American.
• In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American.
• Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members.

On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.[7][page needed]

The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing more, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied, making his investment in livestock useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.[7][page needed]

While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office did not operate functionally for more than a decade.[7][page needed]

During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.[8]

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

None of this should be surprising to anyone who is even remotely familiar with US racial history. Nor should this be news to anyone familiar with the US record on race relations.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Now, Desantis said the law was written to prevent CRT from being used in Florida and after reading it this was confirmed to me. Looking at black & white history in America you only have to ask yourself three questions,

Who is worried about CRT?

As usual, the people who worry the most about injustices tend to be the victims of those injustices, actual or more likely, and those targeted by CRT are far more likely to be white than any other color, and least likely of all to be black. Now, that is not to say that CRT will not overall hurt most; as B20 points out, unjust discrimination does not only hurts its targets, even if it generally hurts its targers more than the rest of the population. But I would expect white people who are not Woke to be far more worried about CRT than anyone else.

Of course, CRTists deny that CRT does any injustices. In my assessments, CRTists were soundly defeated in this thread, with different CRTists making mutually incompatible claims about CRT (what it is, etc.), and generally getting defeated even by their own definitions.

However, even if I grant for the sake of the argument that the unjust behaviors SB148 targets have nothing to do with CRT, then that does not make them less problematic. It would just mean DeSantis and other conservatives got the labeling of the unjust behaviors that worry them wrong; it does not make the behaviors any less of a problem.

On that note, I'm no expert on the subject, but when I read the claims from both sides, I see many conservatives making many claims of CRT being taught in public schools; some are true, some are false (or all false if we grant for the sake of the argument that all of those bad behaviors are not CRT, but still what is true is the bad behaviors do happen), and then Wokeists denying that any of that is happening.

What have black people as a race done in (or to) America where said History can be used to make black people feel guilty (crime wise not remorse wise), or credibly found responsible (like some white people who are reaping benefits from an industry built on slavery) for some national wrongdoings in the past?

In the current political climate in America, I think probably nothing. But it is probable that some things that some white people did in the past almost certainly can be used to feel some white kids guilty for things they should not feel guilty for, as they did not do it.

Ya feel me?

I understand what you're saying. But I disagree with your assessment of it.

I mean, by 2052 black people have never been the victims of CRTists (or let us assume targeted by people who have nothing to do with CRT because CRT is all good, but regardless, targeted anyway by someone else); they were never subject to the behaviors banned by SB148. Moreover, only white people have been the victims. Well, then, it seems to me it is not unjust that only white people won as plaintiffs. In fact, it would have been unjust otherwise, because only white people have been the victims! (or maybe someone else, but not black people? That part is not entirely clear in your account after you came back in time; what happened with people who are neither black nor white?).

Now, maybe there were unjust rulings in favor of white plaintiffs too, because they had not actually been the targets of unjust behavior banned by SB148. But then the problem wasn't SB148, but the courts.

Let me put it in a different way: suppose some white people are in fact the targets of the behavior banned by SB148. Do you think it would be unjust for them to win as plaintiffs? If not, then what is the problem?

But later you say there haven't been any rulings in favor of white people based on SB 148, either. So, I'm not sure what's going on here.

No, because the civil rights act already prohibits what SB148 attempts to prohibit, and the silly parts of SB 148 (which is ultimately Critical Race Theory for white people) will be used solely to bring cases before judges. Any rulings in favor of white plaintiffs would be on account of the Civil Rights Act as the rest of SB 148 is useless beyond the purpose of filing suits.

First, I do not see why you say "no". Your description of the answer seems to be 'yes', they are in accordance to SB148, but also in accordance to the Civil Rights Act.
Second, in any case, the rulings seem to be good: backed by the Civil Rights Act, in addition to SB148. Where is the injustice?

No, however, they may have been treated in a way that the Civil Rights Act banned.

Hmm...so, it was something banned by the CRA but not by SB148?
In any case, I do not see the injustice here: by 2052, some white plaintiffs were treated in a way that the CRA banned, and won their cases. Sounds okay to me.

Being that CRT for which SB 148 is written to prevent doesn't exist outside of white people's heads, evidence of it will be difficult to present. As such The rulings won't be in accordance with SB 148 as SB 148 will only be used for filing suits. The Civil Rights Act will pick up where it fails.

Why would you think it's only in people's heads? I mean, it is easy to find and read the claims from both sides and the evidence they offer to back them up. And those worried about CRT seem to have plenty of claims right, even if they have others wrong. Still, that is another matter, so I will grant for the sake of the argument that CRT for which SB 148 is written to prevent doesn't exist outside of white people's heads, and the rulings were based on the CRA (though I would say also in accordance to SB148 if they both ban the same behaviors in those cases). So, by 2052 some white people were the victims of behaviors banned by the CRA, and got rulings in their favor. Then I do not see the problem.

They won't be in accordance with SB 148 because the issues SB 148 seeks to ban only exist in white people's heads.

Well, even if that were true, they would be in accordance with SB148 - and also by the CRA - if they are behaviors banned by both the CRA and SB148. But in any event, I do not see the problem here. You said earlier that by 2052, there haven't been any judgments in favor of a black defendant and plaintiff as a result of SB 148. But now as far as I can tell, you are saying that by 2052, there have not been any judgments in favor of white plaintiffs as a result of SB148, either, or in fact in favor of anyone else. So, if SB148 only bans things that exist only in people's heads, how is the lack of rulings based on it in favor of black people a problem? After all, there are no rulings based on it in favor of white people, either, or brown, or any other color, and the reason is that it only bans things that only exist in people's heads.

By your description, it looks to me more of a law for the sake of getting votes, but which does not result in unjust rulings against black people, or indeed against anyone.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

Everything SB 148 aims to protect individuals against is already covered by the Civil rights act however the additional language dictated by Critical Race Theory with the aim to be Anti CRT ultimately makes it Critical Race Theory to the benefit of white people made law.

I have two questions:

1. How do white people benefit from SB148? Or is it a failed attempt at benefiting white people?
2. Do non-white people get harmed by it? If so, how?

 

[Gospel]

Of course, CRTists deny that CRT does any injustices. In my assessments, CRTists were soundly defeated in this thread, with different CRTists making mutually incompatible claims about CRT (what it is, etc.), and generally getting defeated even by their own definitions.

A discussion of CRT on IIDB =/= federal or state exercised CRT. SB 148 is an attempt by Desantis (and others) to make a response to CRT (which is not the law in any state nor any part of the federal government) an actual law (however a reversal of it) in the state of Florida.

However, even if I grant for the sake of the argument that the unjust behaviors SB148 targets have nothing to do with CRT

You don't need to grant for the sake of an argument I didn't make. I as well as Desantis already agree that SB 148 is everything to do with CRT.

n the current political climate in America, I think probably nothing. But it is probable that some things that some white people did in the past almost certainly can be used to feel some white kids guilty for things they should not feel guilty for, as they did not do it.

And the Civil Rights Act protects white people from being discriminated against on account of their race. What the Civil Rights Act does not do and SB 148's designed to do is protect white people from their own feelings.

1. How do white people benefit from SB148? Or is it a failed attempt at benefiting white people?

SB 148 benefits white people because they can use it to file suits for any perceived violations of SB 148.

2. Do non-white people get harmed by it? If so, how?

There is no scenario in which non-whites (this does not include "honorary white" people) can use SB 148 to their benefit as there are no historical events that can be used to make all non-whites arguably guilty/responsible for a national wrongdoing in the past on account of their race as Desantis (and many others) perceive is the purpose of CRT.

 

[Trausti]

I can't with this. You might as well go the full cringe and post that baton relay race graphic.

Explain the plausible circumstances where the US government discriminated against these business owners as a race or sex class. Explain the programs or laws that discriminated against these business owners. Name one or some of the programs and laws. Name anything. Explain to me why they should not be compensated on that basis, if they were so discriminated against.

USDA discrimination against African-American farmers[edit]​

With pressure on small family farms through the 20th century, both white and African American farmers were struggling to survive in the South. The USDA made its loans dependent on applicants' credit, but African Americans were discriminated against and had difficulty gaining credit. They had been disenfranchised by southern laws and policies since the turn of the century and excluded from the political system, a condition that was maintained for much of the 20th century. By the early 20th century, southern states had established one-party political rule by whites under the Democratic Party. In Mississippi, where black farmers made up 2/3 of the total of farmers in the Delta in the late 19th century, most lost their land by 1910 and had to go to sharecropping or tenant farming. Divested of political power, African Americans were even less able to gain credit. White planters used their wider political connections and power, and credit to gain monopolistic control of agricultural production.

White dominance of the Democratic Party in the South and their power on important Congressional committees meant that, during the Great Depression, African Americans were overlooked in many programs established to help struggling Americans. The New Deal programs effectively protected white farmers by shifting the risk to black tenants. Many black farmers lost their land by tax sales, eminent domain, and voluntary sales. The USDA has admitted to having discriminated against black farmers. By 1992 the number of black farmers had declined by 98%,[3] compared to a 94% decline among all groups.[4]

Studies in the late 20th century found that county and state USDA authorities, who were typically white in the South, had historically and routinely discriminated against African-American farmers on the basis of race.[5][page needed] A USDA official might overtly deny an equipment loan, telling the black farmer that "all you need is a mule and a plow", or telling the black farmer that the disaster relief is "too much money for a nigger to receive."[6] But more often, the USDA used paper-shuffling, delaying loans for black farmers until the end of planting season, approving only a fraction of black farmers' loan requests, and denying crop-disaster payments for black farmers, which white farmers were routinely granted.[6]

USDA carried out its operations through county organizations. Under such agencies as the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service (ASCS) for instance, decisions to grant credit and benefits, and to approve or deny farm loan applications were decided by 3 to 5 committee members who were elected at the county level. Even after African Americans regained the ability to vote in the late 1960s, the committee members elected were overwhelmingly white in many jurisdictions.

• In the Southeast, where African Americans had constituted a majority of population in many counties through the 1930s, and continued to do so in many agricultural areas, 1% of the committee members were African American.
• In the Southwest, 0.3% of the committee members were African American.
• In the remaining regions, not one county committee member was African American.
• Nationwide, there were only 0.45% African American committee members.

On average it took three times longer for the USDA to process a black farmer's application than a white farmer's application.[7][page needed]

The black farmers who filed suit in the Pigford case had all been subjected to racial discrimination and humiliation by USDA officials; for instance, Mr. Steppes applied for a farm loan and it was denied. As a result, he had insufficient resources to plant crops, he could not buy fertilizer and treatment for the crops he did plant, and he ended up losing his farm. Mr. Brown applied for a farm loan. After not hearing back, he followed up and was told his loan was being processed. After not hearing more, he followed up and was told that there was no record of his application. He reapplied, but did not receive the loan until planting season was over. Additionally, his loan was "supervised", so he had to get a signature by a USDA official to take money out. It was routine for the USDA to make this a provision for black farmers, but not for white farmers. Mr. Hall lost his crops and was eligible for disaster relief payments. Every single application in his county for relief was approved by the committee except his. Mr. Beverly applied for a loan to build a farrowing house for his swine. He was told that his loan was approved, and he bought livestock in anticipation. Later, he was told the loan was denied, making his investment in livestock useless. He ended up having to sell his property to settle his debt.[7][page needed]

While the law and regulations implementing them were colorblind, the people carrying them out were not. The denial of credit and benefits to black farmers and the preferential treatment of white farmers essentially forced black farmers out of agriculture through the 20th century. African-American farms were foreclosed on more frequently. African-American farmers were subject to humiliation and degradation by USDA county officials. The USDA's Civil Rights office was supposed to investigate complaints about treatment made by farmers, but the USDA's records show this office did not operate functionally for more than a decade.[7][page needed]

During investigations of USDA policies and operations, the USDA's Secretary of Agriculture reported that the process for resolving discrimination complaints had failed. He testified that the USDA has not acted in good faith on the complaints: appeals were too often delayed and for too long; favorable decisions were too often reversed. The USDA Inspector General reported that the discrimination complaint process lacked integrity, direction, and accountability. There were staffing problems, obsolete procedures, and little direction from management, which resulted in a climate of disorder. In response, in 1998, Congress tolled the statute of limitations for USDA discrimination complaints, which allowed the Pigford class to bring this suit.[8]

Pigford v. Glickman - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

None of this should be surprising to anyone who is even remotely familiar with US racial history. Nor should this be news to anyone familiar with the US record on race relations.

Are you suggesting that it is wrong for the government to discriminate based on race?

 

[Gospel]

Are you suggesting that it is wrong for the government to discriminate based on race?

DAMN SKIPPY!!!


Oh, that question wasn't for me. But yes, it is wrong for a government to discriminate based on race unless that government is trying to remedy discrimination. It is just like slavery is banned except in prison for punishment. Ya feel me?

 

[Trausti]

Are you suggesting that it is wrong for the government to discriminate based on race?

DAMN SKIPPY!!!


Oh, that question wasn't for me. But yes, it is wrong for a government to discriminate based on race unless that government is trying to remedy discrimination. It is just like slavery is banned except in prison for punishment. Ya feel me?

So people who were never discriminated against ought to get preferential treatment due to the color of their skin?

 

[Gospel]

So people who were never discriminated against ought to get preferential treatment due to the color of their skin?

If this is about Affirmative action I'm biased. I feel that there will come a time (if it hasn't already) that Affirmative action is no longer the remedy for discrimination. But that is something that will take more than just my observation to determine. But if you ask me? Fuck yeah, it needs to go!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you suggesting that it is wrong for the government to discriminate based on race?

DAMN SKIPPY!!!


Oh, that question wasn't for me. But yes, it is wrong for a government to discriminate based on race unless that government is trying to remedy discrimination. It is just like slavery is banned except in prison for punishment. Ya feel me?

So people who were never discriminated against ought to get preferential treatment due to the color of their skin? systemic racially based interference on progress for the race as a whole during both slavery as well as post slavery from the white race riots, property seizure, segregation, and covenants impacting the ability for said race to be able to generate wealth as could the average American which created a self perpetuating wealth gap for said race.

FIFY.

 

[Trausti]

Are you suggesting that it is wrong for the government to discriminate based on race?

DAMN SKIPPY!!!


Oh, that question wasn't for me. But yes, it is wrong for a government to discriminate based on race unless that government is trying to remedy discrimination. It is just like slavery is banned except in prison for punishment. Ya feel me?

So people who were never discriminated against ought to get preferential treatment due to the color of their skin? systemic racially based interference on progress for the race as a whole during both slavery as well as post slavery from the white race riots, property seizure, segregation, and covenants impacting the ability for said race to be able to generate wealth as could the average American which created a self perpetuating wealth gap for said race.

FIFY.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

A discussion of CRT on IIDB =/= federal or state exercised CRT. SB 148 is an attempt by Desantis (and others) to make a response to CRT (which is not the law in any state nor any part of the federal government) an actual law (however a reversal of it) in the state of Florida.

A discussion of CRT is relevant as it addresses the questions of what CRT is, whether it is mistaken, unjust, etc., and how it does that.

But if you want to leave that discussion of CRT aside, okay, let's leave it aside. Even then, DeSantis and others seem to be trying to address some unjust discriminatory behavior which they associate with CRT, but whether the labeling is correct is not a central matter. Still, what he's trying to do isn't the issue, but what the law actually does.

You don't need to grant for the sake of an argument I didn't make. I as well as Desantis already agree that SB 148 is everything to do with CRT.

I think there is a misunderstanding here. I'm saying I grant for the sake of the argument that the unjust discriminatory behavior that SB148 targets is not promoted by CRT.

And the Civil Rights Act protects white people from being discriminated against on account of their race. What the Civil Rights Act does not do and SB 148's designed to do is protect white people from their own feelings.

We seem to be going in circles. Could you point me to the actual articles of SB 148 that ban something that is unjust to ban?

SB 148 benefits white people because they can use it to file suits for any perceived violations of SB 148.

In that case, it benefits Han Chinese people as well, since they can also file suits for any perceived violations of SB 148. And black people. And so on.

Now, you said earlier that black people and other non-white people do not get benefits because they never win such cases as a result of SB148. But then you tell me that neither do white people - the CRA does the job instead.

Going by the above, SB148 benefits all people equally.

There is no scenario in which non-whites (this does not include "honorary white" people) can use SB 148 to their benefit as there are no historical events that can be used to make all non-whites arguably guilty/responsible for a national wrongdoing in the past on account of their race as Desantis (and many others) perceive is the purpose of CRT.

1. Even if that were true, how does that harm non-white people?
2. Are there historical events that can be used to make all whites arguably guilty/responsible for a national wrongdoing in the past?
Well, in a sense, yes, but it would be an improper use of the events. And you keep telling me it's not happening, it's a boogieman. And for that reason, there have been no rulings based on SB148 favoring white plaintiffs by 2052. They won due to the CRA. Great! But then, how do white people benefit? Clearly not by filing lawsuits that they lose in court. So, again, I do not see anything in your reply that tells me that SB148 benefits white people any more than everyone else (which would not be a problem if some white people are the only victims here, by the way, but you're saying there are no actual victims), or that it harms non-white people.

 

[Toni]

Are you suggesting that it is wrong for the government to discriminate based on race?

DAMN SKIPPY!!!


Oh, that question wasn't for me. But yes, it is wrong for a government to discriminate based on race unless that government is trying to remedy discrimination. It is just like slavery is banned except in prison for punishment. Ya feel me?

So people who were never discriminated against ought to get preferential treatment due to the color of their skin?

People who were never discriminated against DO get preferential treatment due to the color of their skin. Those would be white people.

Do you think that persons of color are no longer discriminated against because of Civil Rights legislation? Because let me tell you, that's not the case.

 

[Trausti]

Are you suggesting that it is wrong for the government to discriminate based on race?

DAMN SKIPPY!!!


Oh, that question wasn't for me. But yes, it is wrong for a government to discriminate based on race unless that government is trying to remedy discrimination. It is just like slavery is banned except in prison for punishment. Ya feel me?

So people who were never discriminated against ought to get preferential treatment due to the color of their skin?

People who were never discriminated against DO get preferential treatment due to the color of their skin. Those would be white people.

Do you think that persons of color are no longer discriminated against because of Civil Rights legislation? Because let me tell you, that's not the case.

What government policy, Toni? If you find a law that says only Whites then I join you in getting it repealed.

 

[Politesse]

If racial discrimination and abuse are happening in classrooms under the false guise of CRT, that might be a good reason to legislate racial discrimination and abuse. It's not a good reason to rail against CRT itself and try to curtail any honest discussion of race issues in the United States. It's already illegal to abuse a child. Use the law. Don't warp the law, to suit your political agenda.

 

[Angra Mainyu]

If racial discrimination and abuse are happening in classrooms under the false guise of CRT, that might be a good reason to legislate racial discrimination and abuse. It's not a good reason to rail against CRT itself and try to curtail any honest discussion of race issues in the United States. It's already illegal to abuse a child. Use the law. Don't warp the law, to suit your political agenda.

Two questions:

1. Have you found a part of SB148 bans something that it is unjust to ban?

2. If so, does it ban it in a way that harms non-white people any more than it harms white people ?