Attention: "alt right" is no longer politically correct

[Arctish]

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.

That is the strangest definition of White Privilege I've ever seen. I suspect it's one you made up yourself.

The definition I use is the standard one of societal privileges given to whites and withheld from non-whites in Western societies. I am a beneficiary of white privilege, and so are most people I know.

My father went to a better school than the black kids in his town. When he went into the Navy during WWII he was given training denied to black sailors right up until the end of the war when the Roosevelt Administration started the desegregation of the Armed Forces. When my dad went to college on the GI Bill he was admitted to a highly regarded college that did not accept black students. When he graduated with a degree in Electrical Engineering he got a job at GE and was put on the managerial career path - something else denied blacks at that time. By the time I came along my family lived in a nice neighborhood with a good school system and I benefitted hugely from that.

Black kids in families from my dad's hometown didn't get the same chances, not because their fathers were less competent than my dad, but because they didn't get the same opportunities to succeed. Doors to advancement that were open to my father, an immigrant's son, were closed to them despite their American heritage. That's how white privilege works.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

My father went to a better school than the black kids in his town. When he went into the Navy during WWII he was given training denied to black sailors right up until the end of the war when the Roosevelt Administration started the desegregation of the Armed Forces. When my dad went to college on the GI Bill he was admitted to a highly regarded college that did not accept black students. When he graduated with a degree in Electrical Engineering he got a job at GE and was put on the managerial career path - something else denied blacks at that time.

I know this must get confusing, with all this confusing groups for individuals, but you are not your father.

By the time I came along my family lived in a nice neighborhood with a good school system and I benefitted hugely from that.

You had a privileged head start in life. So do black kids who grow up in a nice neighbourhood with a good school system. And meanwhile, kids who grow up in the trailer park or the ghetto, regardless of race, don't. The answer to that isn't racism. The answer to that is lifting those kids in the ghetto and trailer park up with universal basic income for their parents, free education, universal health care, etc.

Pushing for racism and racial friction isn't going to create more fairness. It is going to create less. And push this race identity politics thing hard enough and you'll get Trump and worse, leading to a totally avoidable race war.

 

[Hermit]

No individual is responsible for the deeds of their ancestor, but it cannot be denied that past a social strata had effects on other social strata that reverberate to this day. Forget about guilt, just deserts and whatever else occurs to your individualist mindset. Focus on social iniquities that need to be addressed. It cannot be done by leaving each and every individual to their own devices. That way serves only to preserve the status quo.

 

[J842P]

No individual is responsible for the deeds of their ancestor, but it cannot be denied that past a social strata had effects on other social strata that reverberate to this day. Forget about guilt, just deserts and whatever else occurs to your individualist mindset. Focus on social iniquities that need to be addressed. It cannot be done by leaving each and every individual to their own devices. That way serves only to preserve the status quo.

It's not really fair to characterize a position advocating for "universal basic income ... free education, universal health care, etc." as "individualist".

 

[Hermit]

"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.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are elites within the white population, white privilege is not a myth. The statistics prove it. Check income rates, arrest rates, incarceration rates, home owner rates and so on.

 

[Hermit]

No individual is responsible for the deeds of their ancestor, but it cannot be denied that past a social strata had effects on other social strata that reverberate to this day. Forget about guilt, just deserts and whatever else occurs to your individualist mindset. Focus on social iniquities that need to be addressed. It cannot be done by leaving each and every individual to their own devices. That way serves only to preserve the status quo.

It's not really fair to characterize a position advocating for "universal basic income ... free education, universal health care, etc." as "individualist".

I was addressing the "You are not responsible for the sins of your forefathers" whine in particular and Trausti, Jolly_Penguin and Loren Pechtel in general.

 

[Arctish]

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.

I am arguing in favor of fairness and social justice. I am arguing in favor of addressing deficiencies and obstacles to fairness and social justice efficiently and effectively. If you can't address injustice to a group because someone will cry "Racism!"' or "Sexism!" then you can't actually address racism and sexism. That would actually be a pretty effective ploy by racists and sexists to shut down efforts to thwart their racist and sexist agenda, which is probably why KKK racists are usually the first to cry about 'reverse-discrimination' when their exclusive whites-only privileges are threatened.

What you are suggesting is the perfect way for whites to lock in their privilege.

No I'm not. You didn't read the rest of my post.

I read all of it. Then I re-read it as I was quoting you.

Your suggestion is the perfect way for whites to lock in their privilege. It doesn't allow people to even consider how groups have been or are currently being harmed. Nope, can't talk about native women being kidnapped and murdered at shockingly high rates, or pregnant black women receiving inferior health care compared to pregnant white women of the same socio-economic class, or predominantly Vietnamese neighborhoods being forced to accept hazardous waste dumps even though there are white communities closer to the source that have room for a dump, because talking about it would be racist. Uh huh

Generations of whites engaged in theft of land and resources from non-whites and built a political system that heavily favors them.

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.

No, I speak as if the new immigrant benefits from the existing system, because if he or she is white, then he or she does.

And yes, the way to fix it is to help all those in need. But first you have to identify the need. And if the need is due to a group being discriminated against, you're going to have to *gasp* talk about the group, and how the group can be helped.

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.

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.

They cannot be addressed efficiently or effectively by making each case a separate legal action. Which is rather the point for some folks who don't want social injustice addressed at all. They suppose, rightly IMO, that if the courts are overwhelmed by cases then the whole process will grind to a halt and nothing will change.

Racism isn't good. Stop promoting it.

I don't promote it. I recognize it. I see what it does. And I'm willing to combat it's effects in the most efficient and effective ways available, not just ignore it and hope it goes away.

 

[Mumbles]

At least when I was going to college there was a lot more financial aid available for non-whites than whites.

Since the overwhelming majority of financial aid is not restricted by race or ethnicity, this is necessarily false.

As for discrimination: Housing? Is this really skin color or is it things like background checks?

Since every study controls for background checks, credit scores, income and the like (although you tend to deny this even when shown the exact paragraphs from the studies stating as much), it's skin color.

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.)

Again, since the government does not want any such thing, this is false.

- - - 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.

Actually, this is *not* the definition of "racism, but putting that aside, you have failed to respond to the most basic problem here - again, the US is divided by race already, physically and in terms of wealth. And this is do to deliberate action by local, state, and federal governments. It's fully appropriate for these same governments to repair these divisions, and simply ignoring them is obviously not working.

 

[Mumbles]

...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.

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.

To be honest, this doesn't surprise me in the slightest - particularly since racist people tend to be misogynist as well, often using the same poor lines of reasoning to justify their feelings.

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?

Well, no, it's quite often the case that, in the case of racism, many people today are poor because of things that happened to them, not to some long-ago ancestor. And what happened to them was intentional, and malicious, and the groups that acted against them are known. In other words, your analogy is false.

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.

You're acting as though only white people pay taxes.

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.

And what makes you think that this will actually fix the issue at hand?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

And what makes you think that this will actually fix the issue at hand?

What do you see as the issue at hand? Fair treatment towards individuals or an immediacy of equal numbers between groups on measures of wealth and status?

Well, no, it's quite often the case that, in the case of racism, many people today are poor because of things that happened to them, not to some long-ago ancestor. And what happened to them was intentional, and malicious, and the groups that acted against them are known.

Sure. And those individuals should get justice. And I'm not sure if you realize it, but you are making that point not just for members of minority groups but also for members of majority groups who are discriminated against for being members of majority groups. You're making my point for me.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

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).

If they allow buy-in as a citizen they open themselves up to complaints about unequal treatment.

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.

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.

It's in the economy already--just as investment rather than as consumer spending.

And note that luxury consumption tends to involve a lot of foreign purchases.

- - - Updated - - -

You utterly missed his point.

Why only matters for fixing blame.

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.

I don't exactly like inheritance myself (other than in the context of actively used assets--homes, businesses and like), it's just I consider it a case where the cure is worse than the disease.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

My understanding is that most were sex workers in sparsely populated areas. In such a situation it basically comes down to did the killer make a mistake. You look at the scene for any forensic evidence that points to the killer, if you don't find anything all you can do is hope you get lucky next time. The bodies are dumped far from civilization, by the time they are found (if they're found at all) there's no useful evidence.

You can bemoan the state of affairs but there's not really much that can be done. Streetwalking is inherently risky.

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.

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.

You're missing the point--you're trying to take (without reason: thus steal) from those who did no wrong and give it to those who were not wronged. You're trying to throw gas on the fire of racial hatred. You're playing right into the hands of the KKK and alt-right.

- - - Updated - - -

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.

That is the strangest definition of White Privilege I've ever seen. I suspect it's one you made up yourself.

The definition I use is the standard one of societal privileges given to whites and withheld from non-whites in Western societies. I am a beneficiary of white privilege, and so are most people I know.

My father went to a better school than the black kids in his town. When he went into the Navy during WWII he was given training denied to black sailors right up until the end of the war when the Roosevelt Administration started the desegregation of the Armed Forces. When my dad went to college on the GI Bill he was admitted to a highly regarded college that did not accept black students. When he graduated with a degree in Electrical Engineering he got a job at GE and was put on the managerial career path - something else denied blacks at that time. By the time I came along my family lived in a nice neighborhood with a good school system and I benefitted hugely from that.

Black kids in families from my dad's hometown didn't get the same chances, not because their fathers were less competent than my dad, but because they didn't get the same opportunities to succeed. Doors to advancement that were open to my father, an immigrant's son, were closed to them despite their American heritage. That's how white privilege works.

You're talking about things in the distant past. The people going to school now aren't suffering because of what happened then. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution!

- - - Updated - - -

No individual is responsible for the deeds of their ancestor, but it cannot be denied that past a social strata had effects on other social strata that reverberate to this day. Forget about guilt, just deserts and whatever else occurs to your individualist mindset. Focus on social iniquities that need to be addressed. It cannot be done by leaving each and every individual to their own devices. That way serves only to preserve the status quo.

Exactly. Help the disadvantaged. Their skin color doesn't matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

"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.

Notwithstanding the fact that there are elites within the white population, white privilege is not a myth. The statistics prove it. Check income rates, arrest rates, incarceration rates, home owner rates and so on.

Reality: Those things are socioeconomic status, not race. Something the racism-"researchers" consistently fail to do is check if race is a merely a proxy variable for socioeconomic status. Strangely enough, those who actually do this obvious check come to a very different conclusion--the supposed racism vanishes. White, black or polka-dot makes no difference.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No individual is responsible for the deeds of their ancestor, but it cannot be denied that past a social strata had effects on other social strata that reverberate to this day. Forget about guilt, just deserts and whatever else occurs to your individualist mindset. Focus on social iniquities that need to be addressed. It cannot be done by leaving each and every individual to their own devices. That way serves only to preserve the status quo.

It's not really fair to characterize a position advocating for "universal basic income ... free education, universal health care, etc." as "individualist".

I was addressing the "You are not responsible for the sins of your forefathers" whine in particular and Trausti, Jolly_Penguin and Loren Pechtel in general.

I think you misunderstand the use of "individual" here.

We are saying that the decision as to who to help should be based on the individuals, not on what racial etc group they belong to. We aren't saying one should only be looking out for oneself, others don't matter.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am arguing in favor of fairness and social justice. I am arguing in favor of addressing deficiencies and obstacles to fairness and social justice efficiently and effectively. If you can't address injustice to a group because someone will cry "Racism!"' or "Sexism!" then you can't actually address racism and sexism. That would actually be a pretty effective ploy by racists and sexists to shut down efforts to thwart their racist and sexist agenda, which is probably why KKK racists are usually the first to cry about 'reverse-discrimination' when their exclusive whites-only privileges are threatened.

The problem is that your answer to "addressing" it is to discriminate. You want to impose racism and sexism in order to combat racism and sexism. You want to equip the firefighters with gasoline rather than water. While it might occasionally be a good idea (firefighters do sometimes deliberately set fires as a firefighting tactic when facing something so big they can't confront it directly) it's not the general solution.

And yes, the way to fix it is to help all those in need. But first you have to identify the need. And if the need is due to a group being discriminated against, you're going to have to *gasp* talk about the group, and how the group can be helped.

At one point three of our 4 neighbors were black. We had little contact with the ones we share a back fence with but the others were (one might be alive in an assisted care facility, we know the others are dead, natural causes) all professionals. Obviously blacks don't need help! (Makes as much sense as you finding some blacks that need help and saying we should help "blacks".)

They cannot be addressed efficiently or effectively by making each case a separate legal action. Which is rather the point for some folks who don't want social injustice addressed at all. They suppose, rightly IMO, that if the courts are overwhelmed by cases then the whole process will grind to a halt and nothing will change.

And they can't be addressed successfully with a policy that creates far more victims than it "helps." (And I have serious doubt about the help--you get blacks into schools they can't handle, they get saddled with student loans and no degree to show for it. And when they get into the workforce people always wonder if they're an affirmative action hire--just like people are suspicious of the boss' relatives in the workplace.)

Racism isn't good. Stop promoting it.

I don't promote it. I recognize it. I see what it does. And I'm willing to combat it's effects in the most efficient and effective ways available, not just ignore it and hope it goes away.

No. You're in favor of using a battleship to kill a rowboat. In a harbor.

 

[Elixir]

Reality: Those things are socioeconomic status, not race.

Reality: They correlate strongly with race. White privilege is the prime causal suspect for that correlation, unless you can come up with another factor that accounts for the stark division in what you prefer to call socioeconomic status.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since every study controls for background checks, credit scores, income and the like (although you tend to deny this even when shown the exact paragraphs from the studies stating as much), it's skin color.

Every study? Hah! Virtually every study I look at has obvious holes. Note that I do not take their word for it that they applied proper controls, I look at what they actually did. (Admittedly, all too often the research is paywalled and I can't check it.)

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.)

Again, since the government does not want any such thing, this is false.

If someone doesn't get hired by the 4-6 company the EEOC very well might sue.

Actually, this is *not* the definition of "racism, but putting that aside, you have failed to respond to the most basic problem here - again, the US is divided by race already, physically and in terms of wealth. And this is do to deliberate action by local, state, and federal governments. It's fully appropriate for these same governments to repair these divisions, and simply ignoring them is obviously not working.

Your side has chanted the redefinition so much that you don't realize it isn't the proper meaning.

Reminds me of a guy on a tech board a few weeks ago confronted with a cable he didn't recognize. A **standard** USB plug--something of a rarity these days compared to the micro version.

 

[Mumbles]

And what makes you think that this will actually fix the issue at hand?

What do you see as the issue at hand? Fair treatment towards individuals or an immediacy of equal numbers between groups on measures of wealth and status?

Well, no, it's quite often the case that, in the case of racism, many people today are poor because of things that happened to them, not to some long-ago ancestor. And what happened to them was intentional, and malicious, and the groups that acted against them are known.

Sure. And those individuals should get justice. And I'm not sure if you realize it, but you are making that point not just for members of minority groups but also for members of majority groups who are discriminated against for being members of majority groups. You're making my point for me.

Since this contradicts your previous response to me, I'll assume that you have changed position, and are trying to sneak it past everyone. Or perhaps you have some other reason to pull this "slavery was a long time ago, get over it" argument. For reference, I'd still be in favor of programs to benefit the descendants, much like I'm fine with the survivors of a person killed by police or corporate negligence suing the responsible government or business. This is particularly true given the fact that we still find that even high-income black and Native households tend to have lower wealth than low income white households. I'm not in favor of the whole "let's just set up a completely neutral policy, and it will help everyone" style. It has been tried, we find that the money still gets steered away from black neighborhoods and into white neighborhoods. In other words, it's been tried, it has failed. Time for something new.

And I notice that you cut out my point that this is not, in any way, about "punishing" white people today. Rather, this is about local, state, and federal governments correcting their intentional errors. Are there poor white and Asian communities that could also use help? Sure, and I'd favor programs tailored to address their specific needs as well. That's a separate topic, however.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Reality: Those things are socioeconomic status, not race.

Reality: They correlate strongly with race. White privilege is the prime causal suspect for that correlation, unless you can come up with another factor that accounts for the stark division in what you prefer to call socioeconomic status.

I answered this already. History and lack of proper social support and equal opportunity for individuals. You rubes don't even have universal health care nevermind universal basic income or free education (which we also lack). And both our countries still allow massive transfers of wealth from parent to child upon the death of the parent with minimal taxes. Think about it. Change that and you go a LONG way to creating a more even playing field, and over generations it should even out. This isn't racist and is far better than throwing gasoline on the flames as Loren put it, by the government actually pushing racism rather than combating it.

Seriously, if you are for racist treatment of people, pushing for policies based on race groups rather than on individuals, race instead of merit, race instead of need, etc, how are you so different from racists from the past? You've just changed the favoured race.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

What do you see as the issue at hand? Fair treatment towards individuals or an immediacy of equal numbers between groups on measures of wealth and status?

You quoted this question to you but didn't answer it. If you are going to dodge questions, you may not want to quote them while doing so. Should I presume it is the latter? You care more about group numbers than fair treatment of individuals?

Since this contradicts your previous response to me, I'll assume that you have changed position, and are trying to sneak it past everyone.

I'm doing no such thing. Nor did I make the claim you are pretending I made. And as an aside, slavery actually wasn't a long time ago. Slaves exist all around the world TODAY.

My point was that when we give redress for groups instead of individuals, we excluding many who should be included and include many who should not. You did not suffer the hardships your grandfather or father did. Your life experience is your own. The hardships you have suffered, and privileges you have enjoyed, are yours and yours alone. We are abandoning the concepts of fairness and merit for individuals and trying to equalize group numbers. We are discriminating by race and being racist. Its not good policy. Racism never is.

Excluding the poor white kid is only part of it. Doing this also dilutes the resources for those minorities who actually need them. Giving preferred entrance to a medical school program to some wealthy black kid because he is black isn't doing anything to help the poor black kids in the ghetto. What it does do is give us a pat on the back for "helping black people" so we can justify overlooking those truly in need, along with those non-black people in need.

I'm not in favor of the whole "let's just set up a completely neutral policy, and it will help everyone" style. It has been tried, we find that the money still gets steered away from black neighborhoods and into white neighborhoods. In other words, it's been tried, it has failed. Time for something new.

A lot of progress has been made. You would have to be blind not to see it. Yes, racism still needs to be routed out and racists and racist policies need to be taken down.

But the answer isn't go give up on this progress and push us the other way. You want to give up on fair treatment between races, and dive into explicit racism again? Really? And you think this is a good idea? And you don't realize how this can backfire on you bigly? Believe me. You'll be so tired of winning as racism grows instead of shrinks.

And I notice that you cut out my point that this is not, in any way, about "punishing" white people today.

It doesn't have to be about "punishing". A lot of racism against black people hasn't been about punishing either. It has been about seeing black people and white people as inherently different, separate but equal if you want to put it that way, and favouring

programs tailored to address their specific needs

.