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

[Loren Pechtel]

Why should those who have always been back of the line not get a chance to be first of the line?

White male business owners are much more likely to have established credit and to have assets that help their loan applications compared with non-white and female business owners. They have always had easier access to loans and more favorable Liam rates and conditioned compared with matched Liam applicants who were poc or female.

This is one instance when being white and male does not automatically put you in the front of the line and you’re having a melt down.

Around here at least it was a matter of what house they were trying to buy, not what race they were. Buy a house in a bad area, it's harder to get a low-down loan. Nothing racial about that.

The problem is the discrimination warriors have no actual big targets to go after so they have to invent them to justify their jobs.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do you think you're being "punished"?

You agree it's wrong to disadvantage a black for being black. Why can't you see it's equally wrong to disadvantage a white because they're white?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you’re denied a government benefit solely because of your skin color, you’re being punished for your skin color.

Who said you are being denied?

So can we agree that government should never condition benefits on race? Surely you’ve got no problem with that?

Doesn't answer my question.

You're trying to avoid the issue.

Is it wrong to disadvantage someone because of their race?

Period.

You're trying to pretend it's ok when they're white but not when they're black.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No one is being denied a giver me t benefit because they are white. The program being discussed does not exclude white men.

It did until the courts slapped them down.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wow.

So that settles it. The only racism in this country is against white men.

The only government-orchestrated discrimination that is currently or recently proposed has been against white people and white men in particular, yes, like prioritising non-white non-men in the COVID small business relief.

Meanwhile, those of us not demented on using government resources to discriminate based on race and sex probably think a male 25 year old cafe owner whose business was devastated by COVID deserves equal consideration to the female 25 year old cafe owner whose business was devastated by COVID.

Your empathy obviously varies.

No longer being first in line for every and any benefit does not constitute being discriminated against. It’s not a punishment to stand shoulder to shoulder with brown people no matter how much you’ve been told you are better than they are.

We aren't asking to be first in line. We are asking to be equal in line, not sent to the back.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

People keep responding as though white men will not be able to apply. They will.

This program is attempting to compensate fir the absolutely data supported fact that persons of color and women receive fewer loans and loans with less favorable conditions compared with white men —matched fir similar circumstances.

All this program has done is to open applications earlier for those who belong to groups that are still hampered in other business loan processes because if the color of their skin/sex.

White men are losing their minds.

Imagine if for the past 300-400 years, white men had either not been allowed to apply fir business loans or own businesses land when they could, they still faced well documented discrimination in winning business loans that instead went to women and persons of color.

I’m sorry if I caused anyone to strike out by suggesting an alternate universe.

Look at one of the triggers of the civil rights movement--blacks to the back of the bus. The primary purpose of a bus is to get from A to B. The seats in back get from A to B just as fast as the seats in the front. Thus the actual discrimination is small.

However, in this case the applications submitted first get processed first and money gets delivered sooner. This is a much bigger case of discrimination than the back of the bus was.

You seem to see this as a form of getting even. Is your name Hatfield or is it McCoy? Because your approach will ensure the issue is eternal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

But to try to answer as I respect your time and consideration;

Thank you Gospel.

I'll keep reading and trying to understand your posts better.
I will post a reply to your latest points, but I get it if you prefer not to go on ; I get tired too in these threads.

None of what SB 148 as it is written unjustly bans anything.
I understand the purpose of SB 148 and agree with it (as it is written) however I'm not in a vacuum and I'm fully aware that SB 148 is also a response to CRT and in fact written under the influence of CRT. The issue is, that some aspects of SB 148 will mostly benefit white people as situations listed as unlawful that offer protections to non-whites are (for historical reasons) less likely to be used by non-whites.


For example:
An individual, by virtue of his or her race, color, sex, or national origin, should be discriminated against or receive adverse treatment to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion.

Name a single non-white group (I'm not talking about "honorary whites") that would find themselves on the ugly end of efforts to achieve diversity, equity, or inclusion? As you know the supreme court ruled that affirmative action is constitutional because it's an effort to remedy discrimination. Private corporations attempting to do something similar can now be sued under SB 148. So what non-whites do you think would use this section of SB 148 to protect themselves?

If you take a look at the bill https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2022/00148/ (I'm keeping only the relevant parts; the rest is on the link), what it bans is

I'm bothered by:

186 a. Mental and emotional health.

This isn't race-related but I don't like the deletion anyway.

And another troublesome deletion:

236 (s) Civic and character education on A character
237 development program in the elementary schools, similar to
238 Character First or Character Counts, which is secular in nature.
239 Beginning in school year 2004-2005, the character development
240 program shall be required in kindergarten through grade 12. Each
241 district school board shall develop or adopt a curriculum for
242 the character development program that shall be submitted to the
243 department for approval.

Why is this removed?

And the one that's causing the controversy:

297 (f) An individual should not be made to feel discomfort,
298 guilt, anguish, or any other form of psychological distress on
299 account of his or her race.

While it says "should" the problem is that this is one of those fuzzy things that will get fought over in court.

Do you think that the cases in which some white people (but no non-white people) would be in a position to sue in accordance with the above disposition of SB148, are cases in which they would also be able to sue in accordance to the CRA? If your answer is 'yes', then already the CRA contains cases in which only some white people will benefit. If your answer is 'no', how is it that SB148 only targets either behaviors already banned by the CRA or a boogieman that does not exist? I mean, if some white people will be able to sue in situations in which they could not before, then it seems that some of the behaviors it targets but which were not banned by the CRA are real (of course, I'm talking about situations in which the white people in question are able to sue and win, as being able to sue only to lose the court battle is not a benefit).

Just being able to sue will be painful for the teachers. They're going to quit teaching the controversial stuff.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Wonderful. So recent immigrants get to claim benefits over White people because of historical wrongs. This isn’t a sham at all.

Which people do you think are recent immigrants? White people are certainly recent immigrants compared with indigenous peoples and also compared with at least some Hispanic people.

Do you believe that recent immigrants are not discriminated against because of the color of their skin/ethnicity? Country of origin?

The reality is that the recent immigrants, and especially the second generation immigrants, fare a lot better than the minorities that have been here a long time. That says skin color is not the main factor.

If only people TODAY were not discriminated against because of the color of their skin, their sex, their ethnicity.

The pattern remains, as current data shows.

Current data shows disparate results in the opposite direction than current discrimination.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

MSN

Texas Democrats want Harris County GOP precinct chair Carla Richburg to be removed after she allegedly submitted resolutions to the county Republican party calling for bigoted actions like considering all Chinese nationals as "spies."

A Sunday, February 6, tweet from the Texas Democrats showed a document with Richburg's name at the bottom outlining multiple transphobic, anti-immigrant, and homophobic Republican party priorities submitted to the Harris County Republican Party (HCRP). Richburg is Precinct 602 Chair for the HCRP and identifies herself as such in the document.

In the document, Richburg allegedly calls for the removal of "sex education of any kind" and for the "manditory [sic]" death penalty for people found guilty of murder of police officers or "victoms [sic] of gang warfare."

Richburg allegedly wants all "Chinese nationals" to be considered spies and be forcibly removed from businesses, schools, universities, and the U.S. She also calls for their travel and work visas to be canceled.

Her last resolution says the state will "wage war against all invaders into the Texas borders by deadly force" with minimal warning.

Other actions Richburg calls for includes:

Prohibition of all medical mandates to fight pandemics.

A ban on all abortions.

Denial of transgender and other gender identities.

To remove "marriage" from same-sex marriages and only consider them as civil unions.

Yeah, there is some great evil in the GOP. Vote Democrat!

 

[Trausti]

Current data shows disparate results in the opposite direction than current discrimination.

Heh. If there was systemic racism favoring White people it wouldn’t look like this:

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Suppose you have a group of students, 30 percent of which have been selected for special training, diet supplements to enhance performance, a lighter duty schedule to devote more time to performance, better housing accommodations and better medical care for several years. They become an elite team and compete very well against competitors who have likewise received enhanced training, nutrition, etc. to enhance performance.

Rules change and now everybody can compete, not just the 30% who had previously been selected and given enhanced opportunities to improve their performance and enhance their talents.

Will those 70% who now have access to the same training, nutrition, etc. suddenly be on equal footing in terms of ability to compete as the 30% who have had special treatment for several years?

Or will they need extra time, perhaps extra training, extra help to be able to compete on the same level?

I’m pretty sure that among the 70% in the out group, there will be some who have enough natural talent that they will quickly catch up and a few might even surpass those in the favored 30%.

Does that mean that the rest of the 70% do not need or deserve extra help to catch up?

Once again, the fallacy of groups. We don't have a time machine, there is nothing we can do about the past.

Where you are going very wrong is not recognizing that we are dealing with a new group. Treat the set of students entering school equally. That is the only fair solution. Providing extra help to certain people because they show characteristics similar to others who were previously treated badly does nothing to improve the lot of those who actually were treated badly, it just perpetuates the problem because the new group sees them getting unfair advantages.

We used to look down on blacks because society was racist. You're replacing that with looking skeptically at blacks because they're suspected of being diversity admits/diversity hires.

What you do not recognize is:
1. We are not talking about affirmative action in education or employment
2.TODAY this very second, people are treated badly, are denied opportunities and are unfairly punished because of the color of their skin, their accent, their perceived ancestry.

Note that that includes white people.

We are calling for an end to all the discrimination, not merely the discrimination against non-whites.

I’m not replacing anything. Persons of color are looked at as being diversity hires/recipients NOW and that’s not stopping anytime soon. In fact, on this forum, that’s exactly what YOU do all the time.

Maybe when our generation dies out, things will change.

So long as non-whites get advantages in school their credentials will be considered suspect. This is simply a sensible reaction to the situation and not racism. It can only be solved by making school an equal competition.

 

[laughing dog]

Current data shows disparate results in the opposite direction than current discrimination.

Heh. If there was systemic racism favoring White people it wouldn’t look like this:

Actually, it could look like that. I am not saying that is evidence one way or the other, but it doesn't show what you think it does.

 

[Trausti]

Current data shows disparate results in the opposite direction than current discrimination.

Heh. If there was systemic racism favoring White people it wouldn’t look like this:

Actually, it could look like that. I am not saying that is evidence one way or the other, but it doesn't show what you think it does.

It doesn’t show that Asians are the top earners?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Suppose you have a group of students, 30 percent of which have been selected for special training, diet supplements to enhance performance, a lighter duty schedule to devote more time to performance, better housing accommodations and better medical care for several years. They become an elite team and compete very well against competitors who have likewise received enhanced training, nutrition, etc. to enhance performance.

Rules change and now everybody can compete, not just the 30% who had previously been selected and given enhanced opportunities to improve their performance and enhance their talents.

Will those 70% who now have access to the same training, nutrition, etc. suddenly be on equal footing in terms of ability to compete as the 30% who have had special treatment for several years?

Or will they need extra time, perhaps extra training, extra help to be able to compete on the same level?

I’m pretty sure that among the 70% in the out group, there will be some who have enough natural talent that they will quickly catch up and a few might even surpass those in the favored 30%.

Does that mean that the rest of the 70% do not need or deserve extra help to catch up?

Once again, the fallacy of groups. We don't have a time machine, there is nothing we can do about the past.

Where you are going very wrong is not recognizing that we are dealing with a new group. Treat the set of students entering school equally. That is the only fair solution. Providing extra help to certain people because they show characteristics similar to others who were previously treated badly does nothing to improve the lot of those who actually were treated badly, it just perpetuates the problem because the new group sees them getting unfair advantages.

We used to look down on blacks because society was racist. You're replacing that with looking skeptically at blacks because they're suspected of being diversity admits/diversity hires.

What you do not recognize is:
1. We are not talking about affirmative action in education or employment
2.TODAY this very second, people are treated badly, are denied opportunities and are unfairly punished because of the color of their skin, their accent, their perceived ancestry.

Note that that includes white people.

We are calling for an end to all the discrimination, not merely the discrimination against non-whites.

Except you are equating potential preference in race on an application with what was wealth seizure/prevention over several generations post slavery. We aren't simply talking about some black guy just had to go get a job somewhere else in 1911. Several generations of blacks, post slavery, endured intentional attempts to seize or restrict access to wealth, whether through actual theft of property/land, race riots destroying property, to laws/covenants/lining which impeded blacks from growing wealth through property and loans, that was intentionally aimed at ensuring blacks didn't get what they deserved, making it exponentially harder to develop family wealth with subsequent generations.

Equating the two is ignorant. AA, even after decades, hasn't even remotely scratched the surface in dealing with the wealth seizure/prevention.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Still no explanation of why no outcry about systemic racism that benefits white men.

Some of us are much more concerned with current racism than past racism.

How unsurprising.

Again, I’m thrilled that those who decried a program have, at last, acknowledged that the program doesn’t do what they claimed and bitched about. It would be great if they could offer some explanation for why they bitched about an issue that was resolved before it was ever discussed here.

Just because they were stopped doesn't make not wrong.

Is the keystone coup not an issue because it failed??

Racusm in this country is a continuous process. Just because we allow black and indigenous people to vote now ( where sufficient barriers are not put in place deliberately to prevent their voting) does not mean that racism is done. TODAY racism is happening! Right now black people, Asian people, Hispanic and indigenous people right this very second are being treated badly because of the color of their skin.

The fact that you or anyone looks at a person of color as the recipient of Affirmative Action and not as the beneficiary of their own hard work and talents tells me that racism is alive and well even in people who mean well and who honestly want things to just be fair.

1) You completely did not address my point.

2) You completely do not understand about affirmative action. You pretend that the beneficiaries are on an equal footing but people see the difference. The result taints all groups that benefit from diversity hires. This is not racism, this is a reality you want to deny. It's the same as the boss' nephew--might be ok but you're going to consider their qualifications suspect.

 

[Elixir]

It's true that in Trumpistan, being a high earner can free you from otherwise oppressive discrimination.
That doesn't make high-earning exceptions in the rule.

 

[Toni]

Still no explanation of why no outcry about systemic racism that benefits white men.

Some of us are much more concerned with current racism than past racism.

How unsurprising.

Again, I’m thrilled that those who decried a program have, at last, acknowledged that the program doesn’t do what they claimed and bitched about. It would be great if they could offer some explanation for why they bitched about an issue that was resolved before it was ever discussed here.

Just because they were stopped doesn't make not wrong.

Is the keystone coup not an issue because it failed??

Racusm in this country is a continuous process. Just because we allow black and indigenous people to vote now ( where sufficient barriers are not put in place deliberately to prevent their voting) does not mean that racism is done. TODAY racism is happening! Right now black people, Asian people, Hispanic and indigenous people right this very second are being treated badly because of the color of their skin.

The fact that you or anyone looks at a person of color as the recipient of Affirmative Action and not as the beneficiary of their own hard work and talents tells me that racism is alive and well even in people who mean well and who honestly want things to just be fair.

1) You completely did not address my point.

2) You completely do not understand about affirmative action. You pretend that the beneficiaries are on an equal footing but people see the difference. The result taints all groups that benefit from diversity hires. This is not racism, this is a reality you want to deny. It's the same as the boss' nephew--might be ok but you're going to consider their qualifications suspect.

Maybe you can explain the difference that ‘people’ see and why say, black people are not on equal footing with white people.

I know that I agree with the statement that black people are not on equal footing with regards to access to jobs, education, establishing economic security, treatment at the hands of the legal system, medical community, housing, or education to name a few.

I honestly don’t understand what you are getting at in your second paragraph. Please explain it to me as though I’m stupid. I promise not to be offended if you need to dumb it down for me.

 

[Trausti]

It's true that in Trumpistan, being a high earner can free you from otherwise oppressive discrimination.
That doesn't make high-earning exceptions in the rule.

What rule?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Yeah, these snowflakes (at least it is in Duluth, where there is real snow) are at it again:

White swim official wrongly demands 12 yr old swimmer take off BLM swimsuit

The 12-year-old Duluth girl, who is Black, was devastated by the news of the death of Amir Locke, who was killed by police Feb. 2 in Minneapolis. The bathing suit statement, said her mother, Sarah Lyons, was her show of support and her way of working through her sadness.
"She was really proud of it," Lyons said.
But at the Duluth YMCA-sponsored meet in Superior, Wis., on Sunday, Leidy was told by an official that she must change out of the suit or be disqualified......
The Superior High School event was officiated by USA Swimming. The volunteer head official told the girl her suit violated a USA Swimming political language policy, said Sara Cole, president of the Duluth YMCA.

Leaders from the nonprofit were notified and "swiftly disputed" the official's interpretation of policy, overruling the decision and removing the official from her post. Leidy, who had already dressed to go home, was reinstated. She returned to the pool to compete in her remaining events.

No, the official was in the right.

https://www.usaswimming.org/docs/default-source/rules-regulations/2021-rulebook.pdf

102.8 C: Advertising for the following shall not be allowed: (2) Political statements

Political speech is not allowed. "Black Lives Matter" is political speech.

It didn't even take me a minute to find that, the reporter obviously didn't look.

 

[Trausti]

Suppose you have a group of students, 30 percent of which have been selected for special training, diet supplements to enhance performance, a lighter duty schedule to devote more time to performance, better housing accommodations and better medical care for several years. They become an elite team and compete very well against competitors who have likewise received enhanced training, nutrition, etc. to enhance performance.

Rules change and now everybody can compete, not just the 30% who had previously been selected and given enhanced opportunities to improve their performance and enhance their talents.

Will those 70% who now have access to the same training, nutrition, etc. suddenly be on equal footing in terms of ability to compete as the 30% who have had special treatment for several years?

Or will they need extra time, perhaps extra training, extra help to be able to compete on the same level?

I’m pretty sure that among the 70% in the out group, there will be some who have enough natural talent that they will quickly catch up and a few might even surpass those in the favored 30%.

Does that mean that the rest of the 70% do not need or deserve extra help to catch up?

Once again, the fallacy of groups. We don't have a time machine, there is nothing we can do about the past.

Where you are going very wrong is not recognizing that we are dealing with a new group. Treat the set of students entering school equally. That is the only fair solution. Providing extra help to certain people because they show characteristics similar to others who were previously treated badly does nothing to improve the lot of those who actually were treated badly, it just perpetuates the problem because the new group sees them getting unfair advantages.

We used to look down on blacks because society was racist. You're replacing that with looking skeptically at blacks because they're suspected of being diversity admits/diversity hires.

What you do not recognize is:
1. We are not talking about affirmative action in education or employment
2.TODAY this very second, people are treated badly, are denied opportunities and are unfairly punished because of the color of their skin, their accent, their perceived ancestry.

Note that that includes white people.

We are calling for an end to all the discrimination, not merely the discrimination against non-whites.

Except you are equating potential preference in race on an application with what was wealth seizure/prevention over several generations post slavery. We aren't simply talking about some black guy just had to go get a job somewhere else in 1911. Several generations of blacks, post slavery, endured intentional attempts to seize or restrict access to wealth, whether through actual theft of property/land, race riots destroying property, to laws/covenants/lining which impeded blacks from growing wealth through property and loans, that was intentionally aimed at ensuring blacks didn't get what they deserved, making it exponentially harder to develop family wealth with subsequent generations.

Equating the two is ignorant. AA, even after decades, hasn't even remotely scratched the surface in dealing with the wealth seizure/prevention.

Inheritance of generational wealth is one of those canards that refuses to die. The vast majority of millionaires today received little to no inheritance.