The Nature of Racism in America

[iceaura]

"I don't know. But you are. And every white male Trump voter is. So let's start there."
Prove it!

The burden of proof is not on the person making the ordinary, obviously indicated, long accepted, and overwhelmingly evidence based observation.

All the Birthers, for example, have presented overwhelming evidence of racism by adopting that political stance in public. Trump is their leader. Likewise with the Pocahontas jokes about Elizabeth Warren, the Mexican rapist and terrorist lines, the hostility to BLM and resistance to the ordinary accounts of reliable black witnesses, and so forth. Any Trump backer is signed on with that crowd and with Trump himself - burden of proof thereby acquired.

It's the extraordinary claim that requires the extraordinary evidence - the "proof".

 

[spidergoat]

I disagree, not everyone that supports Trump is a racist, most of them are just angry white men without degrees who have been denied jobs due to globalism.

 

[river]

The Nature of racism in the US and Canada really ; is propaganda .

The superiority of Europe , 400yrs.ago or so . The arrogance and the manipulation of the bable ( bible ) as the basis for all of this .

 

[Tiassa]

I disagree, not everyone that supports Trump is a racist, most of them are just angry white men without degrees who have been denied jobs due to globalism.

As a note aside, one of these days I would hope to finally hear some understandable explanation from, say, angry white men upset with globalism, why they are willing to cede to the private sector so much more than their hair-trigger loathing of government would permit in their wildest dystopian fantasies about the public trust. Nor is it just angry white men. And I suppose I would also like some explanation of why these anti-institutional, anti-globalist sentiments would rally 'round an emblem of institutional-globalist corruption.

More to the point, though: As much as we talk about division and anger and frustration, a point that doesn't get discussed much is what people who aren't white conservatives are angry about. And, you know, part of what people are angry about includes the idea that, okay, so one who suppports [candidate/cause] isn't [bigotry], it's just that what they actually support is important enough that they are willing to empower [bigotry]. Add in a dash of their blaming everybody else because they got what they wanted and it blew up in their faces and now they really want to blame everyone else, and, you know, it's an effing mess. Not a hot mess, just a mess. And, quite frankly, pretty much everyone I know on my side of the left-right split is sick and tired of hearing our conservative and (cough!) libertarian neighbors constantly making such bargains. And this time it's such an obvious spectacle of absolutely not that there really is no acceptable reason left for supporting Donald Trump. What, they don't like Hillary Clinton? Hell, I don't even care what their reasons are; pick someone else, then. Like the dude who has a chance in Utah, but ... isn't he also the one who signed on the wrong vice presidential candidate? But, yeah, at any rate, this time around it's so obvious we're simply not taking the usual "we're not bigots but" mincing. There is always something more important than decency for some people, and this is a year when that excuse just isn't going to work. It's a point I keep repeating because it seems worth doing so when the occasion demands:

Either you're okay with this, or you're not, and if you're willing to put Donald Trump in the White House, we have our answer.​

That, at least, is what I'm telling the Trump supporters you refer to.

Indeed, as I was up grabbing a beer, Chris Matthews was prattling on about why would anybody vote for Trump, and it was nice to hear Robert Costa try to work some petty both-sides equivocation into it all because he reminds of an important discussion, but the underlying point was just a matter of people being antisocial; for whatever reason, they want someone to wreck stuff. Michael Moore has been making the same point lately, too. And for a lot of us on my side of the left-right divide, this is a long dispute; they've been losing for years, and they're sick of it, and this supremacist tantrum is a particularly undignified iteration of a necessary wrangling between a dying, unjust traditionalism and the innocent I'm-not-a-bigots for whom globalism means too much advancement for nonwhites.

These are the same people who weren't racist but didn't understand why the newspaper police blotter only made a point of someone's color when they were nonwhite. And who weren't homophobic but told us to wait because, you know, those homophobes over there are uncomfortable with the pace of change. And, you know, my whole life they've been saying that to women. And reminding them to be a little more thankful for what the men have done for them. My whole life: I'm not [prejudice/bigotry] but ....

This time there just really isn't a question.

They've been losing for over a generation. They're really, really pissed, and this time there just isn't any question about the stakes. Those who will tell us they had other reasons should stop and think very carefully, now, on the front side, because after we're all through this part, no, the rest of us aren't going to be so accommodating of such excuses. If they're in with Trump on Election Day, we have our answer.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

I disagree, not everyone that supports Trump is a racist, most of them are just angry white men without degrees who have been denied jobs due to globalism.

Actually there are several demographic groups supporting Trump:
1. Racists
2. Christian fundamentalists
3. Male chauvinists
4. Gun nuts
5. Women who don't respect women, including themselves (i.e., women who for various reasons don't support Hillary, or who in fact actually hate her)

 

[iceaura]

I disagree, not everyone that supports Trump is a racist, - -

Do you have any evidence for that claim?

Actually there are several demographic groups supporting Trump:
1. Racists
2. Christian fundamentalists
3. Male chauvinists
4. Gun nuts
5. Women who don't respect women, including themselves (i.e., women who for various reasons don't support Hillary, or who in fact actually hate her)

Racists are not a demographic group separate from those others. Most of those groups overlap considerably, and all of the members of them who support Trump - as far as is visible anyway, so by all the evidence we have - are racial bigots.

Check the boxes: Birtherism, even as a "doubt" or "some questions", is conclusive evidence of racial bigotry. So is believing there is a possibility that Obama is a secret Muslim, that he needed help from a teleprompter to speak well, that he was an affirmative action incompetent without real college achievement, that Michelle Obama is unusually ugly, that most of the people voting for Obama were liberals assuaging racial guilt, and that either or both Obamas hate white people. Then we have the builders of walls to keep Mexican rapists out, and the critics of treaties that deal with yellows and blacks from around the world but not those that align us with whites, and so forth. Then there's the Trump backers who date the beginning of the loss of their country, its moral and sociological slide, to the election of 2008.

How many Trump supporters do we have left?

 

[river]

Bill Maher is right it seems

US is stupid .

 

[wellwisher]

The left, which controls education, Hollywood and media, has defined racism and sexism is such a way as to exempt it own racist and sexist behavior and laws, from the definition. If we create laws for women's rights, why isn't this called sexists? If some men pushed for laws, for male rights, this would be called sexists. If the Black Panthers can fixate on the needs of wants of blacks and blame white, why aren't they called racists? If white people did a parallel thing, it would be called racist. The two faces of the left, has created two definitions for the same behavior.

Trump supporters believe in a level playing field, based on law. The Democrats believe in two sets of laws, one for groups that vote democrat, and another set of laws for those who do not. Why are there women rights and not men's rights? What are men's rights, when it come to abortion, since the unborn will have one half male DNA? Abortion, as written is very sexists, but is not called sexist, by liberal definition.

Black Lives Matter should be called racist, since it will not consider that All Lives Matter. This is condoned by the party of two faces, who uses two sets of laws to help divide people.

Trump supporters are for equal rights for all. They are not about two faced laws, which apply differently based on who you vote for. The Democrats party is the original party of division and dual standard; racism. In traditional symbolism, the binarius is Satan. God is unity; e pluribus unum. There should not be women rights or male rights, just human rights that apply to all, equally. If one set of laws makes you racist and sexist by liberal definition, than call me what you like. In a rational world, one set of laws for all is called equality and justice.

 

[Ophiolite]

If I were American and if I felt the entire political system needed tearing apart then rebuilding, if in short, I felt we needed a revolution, then voting for Trump would be my best chance of getting it.

 

[Tiassa]

If I were American and if I felt the entire political system needed tearing apart then rebuilding, if in short, I felt we needed a revolution, then voting for Trump would be my best chance of getting it.

Americans have a long history with purported unintended repercussions. To wit, experientially―that is to say, living here―the way things go, according to your point, would be:

• Tired of the way things are, Americans stage a revolution ...

• ... to reiterate conservative politics ...

• ... ensuring that we must go through certain troubles again ...

• ... but since we go through them together, the disappointed blame liberals ...

• ... and since it's a problem with both sides, people feel the entire political system needs tearing apart, so ...

• ... tired of the way things are, Americans stage a revolution ....​

Those who attend the tale of our history can see the tail of the ouroboros.

This does not preclude your point, but, rather, simply reminds what history reminds. Those looking to tear things apart the Trump way are looking to turn back the hands of time.

If it was you, for instance, why would you want to tear the political system apart?

Part of what is happening is a paradigmatic transition. The old guard is losing; the rising establishment is impatient and wants its chance to entrench.

Americans to the left of center are tired of waiting. Americans to the right of center are angry that they are running out of time to waste. Blowing things up the way they've gone this cycle, with the left showing no clue how to get from A to B and the right chomping to wind us back to 1950 in order to put women, gays, and people of color back in their place, isn't a healthy prospect. Between the two, the right traditionally has a better chance of winning out. That's what is changing.

And that's the other big question: Just how much longer do we expect the rest of the world to put up with our shit? We are an empire at the height of folly, and if we're over, we're over. Ask the British. The thing is that our imperial prestige is really, really important to the people who think they can maintain and even grow it by blowing it to dust.

If I need to put a hole in myself, do I use a gun or a scalpel?

I don't know: Do I need to put myself back together again, afterward?

And, see, the thing is that we'll do all this to ourselves, and then we'll just blame everyone else.

Look, if Americans had done what the Germans did, we would have blamed our victims for not stopping us. You know. We were just trying to take our country back, that sort of thing.

 

[James R]

wellwisher:

You seem to be doing what is known as "dog whistling" here. Let's see if that's what you're doing or whether you actually have a point.

The left, which controls education, Hollywood and media, has defined racism and sexism is such a way as to exempt it own racist and sexist behavior and laws, from the definition.

Got some examples?

If we create laws for women's rights, why isn't this called sexists?

What rights are you referring to, specifically? And which laws? Do any of these laws you mention currently exist? Let's take a look.

If some men pushed for laws, for male rights, this would be called sexists.

What rights are you thinking of, specifically?

If the Black Panthers can fixate on the needs of wants of blacks and blame white, why aren't they called racists?

A racist is a person who holds the prejudiced believe that one racial group is inherently superior to others. Do the Black Panthers hold that belief? Do you?

If white people did a parallel thing, it would be called racist.

What, specifically, are you referring to? Please give an example or two. What "parallel thing" are you thinking of comparing to?

The two faces of the left, has created two definitions for the same behavior.

Be specific. Give an example or two.

Trump supporters believe in a level playing field, based on law.

You're a Trump supporter, I take it.

Who gets the level playing field? Be specific.

The Democrats believe in two sets of laws, one for groups that vote democrat, and another set of laws for those who do not.

Please give some specific examples of laws that discriminate between those who vote democrat and those who do not.

Why are there women rights and not men's rights?

Please give a few examples of both, so we know what you're talking about. Which women's rights do you despise, and which men's rights do you want to see made into law?

What are men's rights, when it come to abortion, since the unborn will have one half male DNA?

What rights do men not have that you think they should have, in regard to abortion? Be specific.

Abortion, as written is very sexists, but is not called sexist, by liberal definition.

Please explain why abortion is sexist.

Black Lives Matter should be called racist, since it will not consider that All Lives Matter.

Do you not think there is a problem with white police regularly killing black people? Do you think it is racist that people complain about that? Is the complaint invalid, in your opinion?

This is condoned by the party of two faces, who uses two sets of laws to help divide people.

Be specific. Examples.

Trump supporters are for equal rights for all.

Except Mexicans, who will be blocked by the wall, of course. And Muslims, who won't be allowed to settle in the US. And people who can't afford health care, since Obamacare will be abolished. And so on.

The Democrats party is the original party of division and dual standard; racism. In traditional symbolism, the binarius is Satan. God is unity; e pluribus unum.

Trump is God and Hillary is Satan? Are you sure?

There should not be women rights or male rights, just human rights that apply to all, equally.

I look forward to hearing about your many examples of unfair women's rights etc.

 

[wellwisher]

Human rights apply to all, equally. If we are all equal, why do we need separate rights for each democratic party voter demographics? You are confusing entitlements for rights. Rights means one set of rules that applies to all, including those on the opposite side of the political spectrum. Entitlements tend to be restrictive to one demographic, which benefits one political party, either for votes or for campaign contributions.

The entitlement mentality of the Democratic party; called rights to confuse its base, comes from an Aristocracy mentality, that dates back to southern royalty and slavery; southern gentlemen and gentlewomen. This mentality is extrapolated into the modern Democratic party, into the intellectual arrogance of the Ivy League democrats, in leadership and media. The leftist media is entitled to lie, since the ends justifies the means; smarter than all.

The slave owners had something analogous to the divine right of kings; on their plantation. They could lord over others and they could even choose life and death, or what is lawful and unlawful for their slaves. The divine right of kings, was not a human right, but an entitlement. An entitlement is not designed for all, but it only designed for certain groups, at the expense of equal rights for all.

The entitlement mentality sees two classes of people, whereas rights sees only one class. In our Democratic led government of Obama, we have the overlords in big Government, and the peasant class the overlords decide for. One is force by law to buy Obamacare, even though it is a bad deal. The Congress does not have to buy into ObamaCare but has a better system just for them. Equal rights does not allow an overlord class, who gets to follow a different set of rules, than those they lead.

Entitlement allowed Hillary to break the classified information laws with her personal server. She was entitled to use a rigged Justice Department, which itself is entitled to alter the law, for the needs of one political party.

I am not saying things have always been fair, or one political party is better or worse. However, two opposing entitlements, do not add to equal rights. In math, if we multiple a number by its reciprocal we get 1. But how do you multiply women's rights/entitlement times the former mens rights/entitlements? These don't multiply. These add. A number plus its reciprocal is greater than the original number; more injustice is created when you reverse who gets to sit on the back of the bus. it does not cancel out the original injustice.

The founding fathers defined inalienable human rights as connected to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government is not allowed to constraint part of the population, by defining entitlements, earmarked for a few. If we have equal rights, there can be no entitlements. The entitlements of the slave owners, allowed them to placed restrictions on the human rights of the slaves. When Lincoln got rid of these slave owner entitlements, human rights became more uniform. This did not get rid of the southern democrat entitlement mentality; aristocracy, which continued to restrict the rights of blacks; thought it was above the law. The Democrats don't seem to understand equal rights cannot appear as long as we have entitlements. Entitlements restrict equal rights.

Another confusion with the left, is they have been conditioned to confuse rights with results. Equal rights makes the race fair for all, and allows all to compete in the race. However, equal rights does not assure that everyone will win the race. Winning the race comes down to individual talents and hard work, not a decree but the overlord class.

Individual talents and hard work is connected to the pursuit of happiness. If something makes us happy, we are often good at it, and we don't mind putting in the effort, since happiness is fun. Humans have a wide range of talents that can make them happy. Not everyone will win a foot race. It is up to each person to find their niche of happiness, instead of having the government or the media define happiness for the herd. Instead of entitling everyone to win the race and get a metal, equal rights means each person will find interests that makes them happy, so they can win the medal.

The entitlement mentality of the Democrats, divides the country into those who are above the law and those who are below the law. Above and below the law is connected to entitlements. Since big government is entitled over the peasants class; can escape justice, they get to decide the direction of the pursuit of happiness for the peasants. Th one size fits all of the ruling class, does not work for all, since true happiness comes from inside. The result is not everyone can win the race, they are told will make them happy. To maintain class division, they will need to add even more entitlements, to make result of the race appear fair. This takes way the rights of those who should win the race, because they are being true to their inner source of happiness, that makes its fun and weightless to train and race.

 

[origin]

wellwisher:

You seem to be doing what is known as "dog whistling" here. Let's see if that's what you're doing or whether you actually have a point.


Got some examples?


What rights are you referring to, specifically? And which laws? Do any of these laws you mention currently exist? Let's take a look.


What rights are you thinking of, specifically?


A racist is a person who holds the prejudiced believe that one racial group is inherently superior to others. Do the Black Panthers hold that belief? Do you?


What, specifically, are you referring to? Please give an example or two. What "parallel thing" are you thinking of comparing to?


Be specific. Give an example or two.


You're a Trump supporter, I take it.

Who gets the level playing field? Be specific.


Please give some specific examples of laws that discriminate between those who vote democrat and those who do not.


Please give a few examples of both, so we know what you're talking about. Which women's rights do you despise, and which men's rights do you want to see made into law?


What rights do men not have that you think they should have, in regard to abortion? Be specific.


Please explain why abortion is sexist.


Do you not think there is a problem with white police regularly killing black people? Do you think it is racist that people complain about that? Is the complaint invalid, in your opinion?


Be specific. Examples.


Except Mexicans, who will be blocked by the wall, of course. And Muslims, who won't be allowed to settle in the US. And people who can't afford health care, since Obamacare will be abolished. And so on.


Trump is God and Hillary is Satan? Are you sure?


I look forward to hearing about your many examples of unfair women's rights etc.

It would be so interesting if Wellwisher actually resoponded and gave some examples so that a real discussion could ensue. He won't, I am afraid, because he never does. If he does respond I assume it will be with his typical strawman analogies.

 

[Ophiolite]

If it was you, for instance, why would you want to tear the political system apart?

If it was me, I wouldn't want to pull the system apart. I simply presented a set of conditions that, were they applicable, could provide an alternative reason for voting for Trump not covered by your list.

 

[origin]

Human rights apply to all, equally. If we are all equal, why do we need separate rights for each democratic party voter demographics? You are confusing entitlements for rights. Rights means one set of rules that applies to all, including those on the opposite side of the political spectrum who will not vote for you. Entitlements tend to be restrictive to one demographic, which benefits one political party, either for votes or for campaign contributions.

The entitlement mentality of the Democratic party; called rights to confuse its base, comes from an Aristocracy mentality, that dates back to southern royalty and slavery; southern gentlemen and gentlewomen. This mentality is extrapolated into the modern Democratic party, by the intellectual arrogance of Ivy League democrats, in leadership and media. The leftist media is entitled to lie, since the ends justifies the means; smarter.

The slave owners had something analogous to the divine right of kings; on their plantation. They could lord over others and they could even choose life and death, or what is lawful and unlawful for their slaves. The divine right of kings, was not a human right, but an entitlement. An entitlement is not designed for all, but it only designed for certain groups, at the expense of equal rights for all.

The entitlement mentality sees two classes of people, whereas rights sees only one class. In our Democratic led government of Obama, we have the overlords in big Government, and the peasant class the overlords decide for. One is force by law to buy Obamacare, even though it is a bad deal. Equal rights does not allow an overlord class, who gets to follow a different set of rules, than those they lead. The Congress does not have to buy into ObamaCare.

Entitlement allowed Hillary to break the classified information laws with her personal server, and then use a rigged Justice Department, which feels it is entitled to alter the law, so Hillary isn escape the justice, that would have been applied to anyone in the peasant class.

I am not saying things have always been fair, or one political party is better or worse. However, two opposing entitlements, do not add to equal rights. In math, if we multiple a number by its reciprocal we get 1. But how do you multiply women's rights/entitlement times the former mens rights/entitlements? These don't multiply. These add. A number plus its reciprocal is greater than the original number; more injustice is created when you revers who gets to sit on the back of the bus.

The founding fathers defined inalienable human rights as connected to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government is not allowed to constraint part of the population, by defining entitlements, that are only earmarked for a few. If we have equal rights, there can be no entitlements. The entitlements of the slave owners, allowed them to placed restrictions on the human rights of the slaves. When Lincoln got rid of these slave owner entitlements, human rights became more uniform. This did not get rid of the southern democrat entitlement mentality; aristocracy, which continued to restrict the rights of blacks; thought it was above the law. The Democrats don't understand equal rights cannot appear as long as we have entitlements. Entitlements are not rights.

Another confusion with the left, is they have been conditioned to confuse rights with results. Equal rights makes the race fair for all, and allows all to compete in the race. However, equal rights does not assure that everyone will win the race. Winning the race comes down to individual talents and hard work not a decree but the overlords.

Individual talents and hard work is connected to the pursuit of happiness. If something makes us happy, we are often good at it, and we don't mind putting in the effort. Humans have a wide range of talents that can make them happy. Not everyone will win a foot race. It is up to each person to find their niche of happiness, instead of having the government or the media to define happiness for the herd. Instead of entitling everyone to win the race and get a metal, rights means each person will need tuned their interests to what makes them happy so they can win the medal.

The entitlement mentality of the Democrats, divides the country into those who are above the law and those who are below the law. Above and below the law is connected to entitlements. Since big government is entitled over the peasants class; can escape justice, they get to decide the direction of the pursuit of happiness for the peasants. This one size fits all does not work for all, since true happiness comes from inside. The result is not everyone can win the race, they are told will make them happy. To maintain the class division, they will need to add even more entitlements, to make result of the race appear fair. This takes way the rights of those who should win the race, because they are being true to their inner source of happiness that makes its weightless to train and race.

Well, surprise, surprise. No examples and just strawman analogies. Who would have thought....

 

[sculptor]

In 1966, the U.S. Department of Labor began collecting employment records with breakdowns by race in order to evaluate hiring practices, overturning earlier policies of the Eisenhower and Kennedy administrations. In 1968, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance issued regulations which required, for the first time, that specific targets be set by which the effects of affirmative action programs could be evaluated. The regulations stated that "the contractor's program shall provide in detail for specific steps to guarantee equal employment opportunity keyed to the problems and needs of minority groups, including, when there are deficiencies, the development of specific goals and timetables for the prompt achievement of full and equal employment opportunity." It was in these regulations and analogous measures by the EEOC that the debate over affirmative action quotas had its origins.

Goals and timetables were established by the U.S. Department of Labor using "utilization analysis," which statistically compared the proportion of employed women and minorities in a firm with the proportion of women and minorities in the regional workforce, deriving a measure of what the department called "disparate impact." In the absence of discrimination, it was assumed that these proportions would and should be roughly equal. Since these regulations focused on results and not intent, the structural nature of discrimination was officially recognized. In addition, these regulations provided an official and measurable basis for the preferential treatment of affected groups.

In the landmark Griggs v. Duke Power Co. case of 1971, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Duke's requirement of high school diplomas or IQ tests for those applying for unskilled jobs. The decision held that "Title VII forbids not only practices adopted with a discriminatory motive, but also practices which, though adopted without discriminatory intent, have a discriminatory effect on minorities and women." The ruling provided a legal foundation for cases of "disparate impact," asserting that employers may not use job requirements that adversely affect women and minorities unless required by what it termed "business necessity." (For example, in the case of serious health or safety threats to co-workers or customers.)

The EEOC was strengthened by the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, which enabled the Commission to file class action suits. Under the Carter administration, the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection established the "four-fifths rule." This rule was significant in that it provided an explicit benchmark to determine disparate impact, which had been left vague in earlier U.S. Department of Labor regulations. The four-fifths rule held that firms contracting with the federal government should not be allowed to hire any race, sex, or ethnic group at a rate below four-fifths that of any other group.

Another significant Supreme Court ruling on affirmative action came in a 1978 case, Regents of the University of California v. Bakke. Under the University of California at Davis's admission policies, 16 of 100 places were set aside for minority applicants. Allan Bakke was a white applicant who was denied enrollment to Davis's medical school, even though his test scores were higher than the minority students who were admitted. Casting the deciding vote, Justice Lewis Powell held that Bakke should be admitted to the program since Davis's policies constituted a rigid quota, but that, nonetheless, Davis could continue to favor minorities in its admission practices and that it had a "compelling state interest" to attain a diversified educational environment.

 

[Randwolf]

Here is some more of that article you plagiarized there Sculptor...

The tide favoring affirmative action began to turn in the 1980s during the Reagan and Bush administrations. In his 1980 campaign, Reagan stated, "We must not allow the noble concept of equal opportunity to be distorted into federal guidelines or quotas which require race, ethnicity, or sex—rather than ability and qualifica-tions—to be the principal factor in hiring or education." Through court appointments, hiring and firing decisions, and budget cuts, the Reagan administration sought to end affirmative action as it had evolved since the Johnson administration. Between 1981 and 1983, the budget of the EEOC was cut by 10 percent and the staff by 12 percent. The Office of Federal Contract Compliance was hit harder yet, with budget cuts of 24 percent and staff cuts of 34 percent during these same years.

Two important Supreme Court rulings in the late-1980s also acted to substantially weaken affirmative action. The 1988 case, Watson v. Fort Worth Bank and Trust overturned the landmark 1971 case, Griggs v. Duke Power Co., shifting the burden of proof in employment discrimination cases from employers to plaintiffs. In the 1989 case Wards Cove Packing Company v. Antonio, the Court ruled that a plaintiff could not simply show disparate impact to prove discrimination, but must demonstrate that a specific employment practice created the existing disparity.

http://www.inc.com/encyclopedia/affirmative-action.html
​

We get it, Republicans believe affirmative action bad, regulations bad, government bad... Because EMAILS, BENGHAZI!!

 

[PhysBang]

The left, which controls education, Hollywood and media, has defined racism and sexism is such a way as to exempt it own racist and sexist behavior and laws, from the definition. If we create laws for women's rights, why isn't this called sexists? If some men pushed for laws, for male rights, this would be called sexists. If the Black Panthers can fixate on the needs of wants of blacks and blame white, why aren't they called racists? If white people did a parallel thing, it would be called racist.

I have bolded that last part to show just where wellwisher falls down in the understanding category. The problem is that white people are, almost all the time, fixating on the needs of white people. Sometimes, they imagine that the needs of white people are the needs of everyone; in some ways, that is worse.

And then, racists like wellwisher get all upset when people who aren't white start to look out for their own interests when these interests are not exactly the ones that white people have.

Why are there women rights and not men's rights?

I'm guessing that even wellwisher can answer this question, but doesn't because it doesn't fit the rhetoric.

What are men's rights, when it come to abortion, since the unborn will have one half male DNA?

But men aren't actually pregnant, are they? It's funny how quickly wellwisher can forget that women are human beings.

Abortion, as written is very sexists, but is not called sexist, by liberal definition.

Why, wellwisher, are you not willing to accept that men and women are not equal? Men (as you understand them) cannot get pregnant, so they don't get to control a pregnant body. I'm sorry, but that's just the facts. No amount of whining will give men the rights to control the bodies of other people.

Black Lives Matter should be called racist, since it will not consider that All Lives Matter.

This is your racist lie. People who say that black lives matter believe that all lives matter, they just know that it is important to not lose the message that black lives matter. People like you want this message lost.

 

[billvon]

Human rights apply to all, equally. If we are all equal, why do we need separate rights for each democratic party voter demographics?

We don't. We just need to extend the same rights (right to vote, right to privacy, right to marry who we want) to all.

The slave owners had something analogous to the divine right of kings; on their plantation. They could lord over others and they could even choose life and death, or what is lawful and unlawful for their slaves. The divine right of kings, was not a human right, but an entitlement. An entitlement is not designed for all, but it only designed for certain groups, at the expense of equal rights for all.

Yep. And per Donald Trump, that was a much better time to be black. Republicans want to return to a time where they are kings, and have power of life and death over the "lesser" segments of society.

The Congress does not have to buy into ObamaCare but has a better system just for them. Equal rights does not allow an overlord class, who gets to follow a different set of rules, than those they lead.

And you are free to purchase that same congressional level of healthcare.

What? You don't want to buy it? You think you are ENTITLED to it? Well, get in line and start voting for your sweet entitlements.

The founding fathers defined inalienable human rights as connected to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The government is not allowed to constraint part of the population, by defining entitlements, earmarked for a few.

Of course they are. You don't get the same rights as a veteran; you can't use veteran's hospitals, for example. (I know, you think you're entitled, but again, sorry.)

The Democrats don't seem to understand equal rights cannot appear as long as we have entitlements. Entitlements restrict equal rights.

And yet you demand them.

On another forum there is a frequent right wing poster who brags about his guns, his mountain compound and his religion, while attacking immigrants, blacks, liberals and entitlements. He is able to live in his mountain compound because he gets his entitlement checks (social security and medicare) from the government. He is the epitome of the right wing today - he wants HIS entitlements, and wants to deny everyone else their entitlements (and indeed their rights.) He manages to maintain this worldview through a studied ignorance; he is very careful to make sure he does not think about the contradictions his lifestyle poses, and indeed becomes furious when questioned on his contradictions.

Here's a good example of what happens when a Tea Partyer is forced to think: (from 2010)

=================
But in follow-up interviews, Tea Partyers said they did not want to cut Medicare or Social Security - the biggest domestic spending programs, suggesting instead a focus on "waste."

Some defended being on Social Security while fighting big government by saying that since they had paid into the system, they deserved the benefits.

Others could not explain the contradiction.

“That’s a conundrum, isn’t it?” asked Jodine White, 62, of Rocklin, Calif. “I don’t know what to say. Maybe I don’t want smaller government. I guess I want smaller government and my Social Security.” She added, “I didn’t look at it from the perspective of losing things I need. I think I’ve changed my mind.”
================

 

[Kittamaru]

I think it seems obvious that doing away with all current social-welfare programs and replacing them with a universal basic income, at a level that would take care of basic human needs (shelter, food, etc) would be far better - on the current system, someone on food stamps and/or other forms of assistance are quite literally discouraged from seeking better, more gainful employment for the simple fact that doing so may result in them losing said benefits - thus, a slight increase in pay could cause them to lose their government assistance, which results in a net loss of income for them! Why should/would they want to get a better job if it results in making the situation harder on them?

Now, certainly, they could potentially land a much better job, in which they would still be in a better situation than they were with gov't assistance... but for a majority of them, that just doesn't happen - they will likely find a job paying just a few dollars an hour more, which is just enough to result in a loss of benefits and, as a result, a net reduction in their "income".

With a UBI based system, that fear is removed, and they are free to slowly work themselves up the proverbial ladder, as opposed to being in an "all or nothing" leap of faith.

The question some are no doubt asking is "How does this relate to racism?" Simple - the system, as it stands now, can provide virtually any reason to deny someone benefits. It is all "merit based" in a way, but the standards someone is judged against are hardly set in stone; exceptions can (and are) made in both directions.

This enables those with less than, hm, pure motives to potentially exploit these programs, on both sides of the line (case in point, I am aware of a small family that received food stamps while living on their own, because after the cost of rent et al, they barely had enough to keep the utilities on. Good, they needed the help! Then, they moved in with a family member, didn't have to pay rent/utilities/et al, and still kept the food stamps... for a while they wound up spending that "saved "money on random stuff, including a few times drugs; this went on for at least a year or two before anything was adjusted; I am not sure if they still have those benefits or not at this point)

At the same time, there are those of us who are struggling to keep our finances "in the black", who make too much to qualify for any kind of help, yet do not make enough to actually make headway. For us, the prospect of forever working 16+ hour days via two or more jobs until we simply keel over from exhaustion is not pleasant... but what is there to do? Student loans, the need to have shelter and food, basic amenities, health insurance... if just one of those costs were eliminated or significantly reduced, that money could be diverted to paying down other things, and would quickly snowball; I wager that for my wife and I, if we could cut one major expense for two years (say rent), that would be sufficient to allow us to make a major dent in our student loans. As it stands right now, though, we make just enough to be expected to juggle them all, which we can, but it doesn't allow us to put much of anything (and indeed, most months we can put nothing at all) into savings... one good medical bill, or someone t-boning our vehicle, would quite literally bankrupt us.

*shrug* All in all, this pursuit of "life liberty and happiness" seems to come with a large asterisk appended to the end, leading to some fine-print at the bottom of the page saying "but only if you make above a certain amount of money - otherwise, you are a slave to the system forever"...