The truth is, it's not at all difficult to find people who insist that black/Native/Hispanic people receive massive advantages, even in areas where they are still discriminated against, such as in hiring or housing. For that matter, a surprising number of younger white people will insist that black people get to attend college for free - even though black students tend to take on more student loan debt due to lack of family wealth. things like AA simply never touched on issues such as these in the first place, and these attitudes have often predated the Civil Rights Act in the US, so AA cannot be the reason or these attitudes.
-
Features
Attention: "alt right" is no longer politically correct
- Thread starter Underseer
- Start date
The truth is, it's not at all difficult to find people who insist that black/Native/Hispanic people receive massive advantages, even in areas where they are still discriminated against, such as in hiring or housing. For that matter, a surprising number of younger white people will insist that black people get to attend college for free - even though black students tend to take on more student loan debt due to lack of family wealth. things like AA simply never touched on issues such as these in the first place, and these attitudes have often predated the Civil Rights Act in the US, so AA cannot be the reason or these attitudes.
laughing dog
Contributor
Exactly. The remedies of just talking about it in the hopes of changing people's views or waiting for centuries until most people are multi-racial do not help any victims, but it does enable bigots and racists. Just like redefining "racism" to mean "taking race into account".
Hermit
Cantankerous grump
Taking the thread even further off-topic, a similar misapprehension can be observed in regard to women. Militant MRAs are not the only people who pluck some statistic out from somewhere or misuse another to claim that the female sex is significantly advantaged compared to males. Lying with statistics is so easy. Add confirmation bias, and you have malevolent attitudes and unjustified resentment solidly embedded in the mindset of the prejudiced. Most of them are very unlikely to ever change. The way to gradually remove the various prejudices is by educating new generations properly, and therein lies another obstacle; Conservative governments have this tendency to cut funding to education, and they focus particularly on any education that does not strictly belong to any of the STEM fields. STEM is the new version of the three Rs in the same Intelligent Design has replaced creationism - basically a rebadging of same old, same old.
I better clarify now: While I am opposed to teaching creationism/Intelligent Design, I am very much in favour of STEM/RRR, but not to the exclusion of non-STEM/RRR subjects.
\
Seeing how that is not what happened, or has ever happened, I feel that this applies:
"Safe Spaces" have been pretty thoroughly mangled both by college students and conservatives, much like "triggered" is meant to refer to setting off someone's PTSD, and not just irritating someone. The term "safe space" was coined to refer to places where oppressed people could be themselves without being immediately attacked - think of black churches or gay bars historically - and to some extent today, such as when black churches opened their doors to protesters back when the police decided to attack black residents of Ferguson en masse. The above cartoon is a goofy, conservative take, which ironically assumes that "liberals" somehow dictate to black people how they're supposed to behave. This is obviously racist, both by assuming that black people are controlled by "liberals" (or "regressive leftists", "SJWs", "Cultural Marxists", or whatever the insult term of the moment is"), but also, of course, assumes that black people cannot, themselves, be liberals.
laughing dog
Contributor
Thank you for providing a perfect example of Trumperian thinking - that "separate but equal" is social justice.It's the lefties who want to divide people.
That doesn't address my query. The end result is that somebody TODAY is poor because of something that happened to their ancestors. Why should it matter what it is that happened? The person we are talking about never had the wealth that was drained anymore than the person whose ancestors wasted the wealth had it. What entitlement do either of them have to the lost wealth as compared to a third person whose ancestors never had any wealth to begin with? Should we not all be treated equally and fairly as INDIVIDUALS?
Then they and only they should have a right of redress. Others should NOT be allowed to steal from the funds allotted for any such redress just because they happen to have the same skin pigmentation as those who were so affected. Nor should recent white immigrants have any white guilt for what happened to black slaves or first nations that were destroyed by colonist just because they share skin pigmentation with those slavers and colonists, but that is how the "social justice" of identity politics works.
Did you skip over the rest of my post? I wrote about universal basic income, inheritance being taxed more or done away with, and I add universal health care and tax funded education. I address the massive divisions by helping people based on need instead of by race proxy. If more individuals of one race than of another need help, then those individuals should get it, and you would just happen to have more of that race getting help, but not by racism.
Last edited:
It's the lefties who want to divide people.
Good cartoon. And it did indeed used to be considered racist by liberals to treat people differently based on race, yet the regressive left is pushing it.... hence why I call them regressive rather than progressive.
Mumbles said:
AA DOES exacerbate this. Why wouldn't it? AA is the principle of preferential treatment given based on race, for another group, and against their group. Of course they are going to exaggerate it and imagine it even where it is not. Just as feminists exaggerate the patriarchy and see it everywhere, even where it is not. That is how humans tend to function. Is it so surprising that people will be misinformed or half informed and project what they are trained to look for even where it isn't?
Exactly. The current approach seems to me to be more oriented towards perpetuating the issue so they keep having something to crusade about.
Legacy admissions actually have one thing going for them--they bring in donor dollars. If they bring in more donor dollars than it costs to educate the student (and remember, legacies are usually full tuition) then they don't take away any slots from the deserving students--the school can increase capacity to compensate. The colleges don't want the scrutiny it would take to resolve this if, though.
And the reality is that most people start out with little. The big factor is the attitudes one learns from one's parents, not the money that one gets from them.
UBI--a good idea whose time has not yet come. UBI would be too big a % of GNP at present. It's something that we should keep evaluating, though, it's time will come and probably not too long from now.
Inheritance--doing away with it would be a very bad thing. The problem is that it would convert that money into luxury consumption rather than distributing it to the people. Furthermore, it would seriously cut into the pool of investment in startups--bad for the economy.
Yup. We are individuals, look at individual status. Only those groups one chooses to be a member of have any importance.
You utterly missed his point.
Why only matters for fixing blame. It does nothing about solving it unless the issue is ongoing--and these days the government policies are designed to drain wealth from whites and give it to non-whites. What we should be looking at is what to do, not who to blame.
At least when I was going to college there was a lot more financial aid available for non-whites than whites.
As for discrimination: Housing? Is this really skin color or is it things like background checks?
Hiring? Plenty of places discriminate in favor of non-whites because that's what the government wants. Anti-white discrimination has to be pretty blatant for anything to happen, while even inadvertent "pro-white" "discrimination" tends to get stomped on. (You have 10 whites, 10 blacks and two businesses hiring 10 each. Basic probability says that 6-4 splits are more likely than 5-5 splits. The company that hired 4 blacks is treading on thin ice, though.)
- - - Updated - - -
That's the proper meaning, not a redefinition. It's your side that tries to pretend that racism you like isn't racism because racism is something evil.
laughing dog
Contributor
No it isn't. The rightwing portrayal of AA in your post is a perfect example of that phenomenon.
It betrays a certain inequality though and really is a symptom of a problem if not a problem in itself. My friend who is practicing the LSAT and hoping to go to law school applied around everywhere just to check things out. She instantly got into universities in the UK and Australia, with massive tuition costs, so if she could afford it she could just forget about grades and LSAT score and go. Turns out they do the same thing here in Canada for foreign students. Its kind of weird that they will let you buy into the programs as a foreigner but not as a citizen. But really buying in betrays the whole concept of selecting by merit just as admitting by racial quota does, likely with similar effects on the quality of the graduates (or drop outs).
Isn't converting the money to luxury consumption a form of putting it into the economy? Somebody needs to produce those luxury goods and services. It will probably mean some jobs, no? I see that as better than hording it through generations.
Indeed. And you are not responsible for the sins of your forefathers, nor are you morally entitled to anything from them or from anyone who wronged them and not you. This goes again right back to my wanting to restrict or dis-encourage inheritance.
Should the children of violent felons or terrorists be responsible for compensating their parents' victims' families? Only seems fair.
Arctish
Centimillionaire
People should be treated as individuals when that is the most efficient and effective way to improve social justice, fairness, and equality of opportunity. But if treating them as members of a group is more efficient and effective, then that is what should happen.
For example, a Missing Person or Suspicious Homicide report is usually investigated as a stand alone case. But when you've got 1,000 missing and murdered indigenous women in Canada and the cases have not been properly investigated, then it's high time to look at those women as a group to find out why they are especially vulnerable and why justice for them is less likely than it is for white Canadians.
The goal is fairness and justice for all. Treating people as individuals is only good when it serves that purpose; treating them as members of a group is only bad when it makes fairness and justice less likely.
What you are suggesting is the perfect way for whites to lock in their privilege. Generations of whites engaged in theft of land and resources from non-whites and built a political system that heavily favors them. Now you want to block any attempt at redress that relies on identifying the communities that have suffered and will only entertain compensation of individuals, as if it's possible to compensate someone for being taken from their families as a young child, or never given a decent chance at a promotion at work, or not being able to vote because racists kept them away from the polls, or having toxic waste dumped in their neighborhood because they had no way to prevent it, or not being able to feed their kids properly because every attempt to supplement their income was criminalized. And that doesn't even begin to address compensation for the kids who grew up hungry in a neighborhood tainted with toxic waste and ignored by local government unless it decided to take their parents' property through Eminent Domain to build a business park or something.
Last edited:
Good grief. "White Privilege" is our contemporary Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Create some myth that a whole racial group of people are schemers and liars and that their success and the success of their children is due to this scheming any lying. Never mind that there are many of members of that group who do not share in this success; what counts is that the myth gives license to racists and bigots to behave badly towards all members of this group. And this group deserves that ill treatment because the myth says they are all schemers and liars.
Treating them as a members of a group instead of as individuals is in itself injustice. The word for it is prejudice. And when regarding race, the word for it is racism. You are arguing in favour of racism.
No I'm not. You didn't read the rest of my post.
You speak of this as if a new immigrant from Hungary is somehow at fault, and that it has left rich black kids less privileged than poor white kids. It wasn't "Whites". It was particular white colonists who had racist policies and did damage through them to particular non-white people. And the way to fix it is to help all those in need, not just those who belong to your favoured races.
All of which can be addressed on an individual basis without resorting to racist policies excluding those who suffer the above who you put in groups not identified as suffering from above, and including those who have suffered none of the above who you put in groups who are identified as suffering one or more of the above.
Racism isn't good. Stop promoting it.