Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll never have understanding for initiations of force. Nothing excuses them, ever.
Your fallacy in the above quote is a form of false dilemma. You suggest that there are only two possible outcomes - either 1) we force associations to make white people not discriminate or 2) we allow freedom of association, in which case ALL white people will discriminate.
False. I never said such a thing. In fact, I believe in the total opposite.
Your mind is trapped in a prison of absurd racial stereotypes where all white people are racist devils who only associate with black people if forced to by the government's forceful hand. That's the only mindset that explains your false dilemma, because you can only see a world where black people ONLY get ahead if white people are forced to give black people jobs.
False again. I'm not one those "the man is out to get me" types. That being said, I'm sane enough to know that in a country where I'm in the VERY small minority and therefore the person who has the power to hire me is in the VERY high majority, ***** will not turn out fair for me more than half the time. That's just being real, and you're foolish to believe otherwise.
There is a much more likely outcome to 100% voluntary associations that your false dilemma does not account for, which can be seen in the real world where white and black people marry each other, make babies, are friends/roommates/colleagues/etc...they'll get along just fine for the most part? Yeah, some white racists will not associate with black people BECAUSE RACIST!! And guess what...plenty of black people will eschew ever associating with a white person for the exact same reason. Those people are outliers. I get that your brain operates in these weird stereotype caricatures of drooling MAGA troglodytes and angelic, abused black victims being dragged behind said troglodytes' pickup trucks and all that, but that is a hyperbolic media fever dream that does not reflect reality.
Ha ha ha...so you're saying that these things never happened? Let's take a trip to James Byrd Jr.'s grave and ask him about that.
[In the real world, most black people get along with most white people just fine, and vice versa.
I can agree with that, although I'd call it more of an "uneasy truce" than "getting along" for the most part.
Free your mind.
So you agree that this world is azz-backwards then, like the Matrix?
No, I don't agree that the world is ass backwards like the Matrix. The media-political complex wants you to buy into a fantasy that does not match daily reality.
Here's an example - when Jesse Jackson did his March of the Week For Whatever Racial Gripe of the Week last fall in Chicago, it was attended by like 140 people. There are more than a million black people in the Chicago area, which means that on the day Jesse was doing his nonsense, 99.9% of the black people in Chicago had something better to do.
The way the media portrayed it was....
Left - huge wave of black protest in Chicago, clear sign that racism oppresses everyone, etc
Right - massive protest against white people, Lightfoot bad, Jackson bad, black people gone crazy...
And the truth was neither because 99.9% of the black people in the immediate area weren't there, didn't care, had something better to do, etc. That is the real world of real race relations...most people, white or black, are not what the media on either side would like you to believe.
In the real world, black and white people get along fine. Middle class America doesn't much care about all the race crap the media-political complex does, although they keep telling you and I how much we hate each other, or are supposed to...or something.
I have interviewed and recommended for hire one person in the last 5 years, and he is a black guy. When our company laid him off along with like 2/3 of our workforce, I wrote the recommendation and gave the phone interview that helped him land his current job, where the racial makeup is literally "one of everything." Nobody told me to "hire the black guy because AA" or anything, We interviewed 5 people for that job, and he was the most qualified, so he got the job. That, good sir, is the real world.
I don't know. I'm not a conservative. I'm not a liberal either. I'm a common sense independent.
If someone does not have the ability, then they should expect an equal outcome. Example. Being that I don't have the ability to throw a football well, I should not expect to have the same amount of MVP awards as Aaron Rodgers, nor should I expect to have his wealth he built on his ability. I don't know why you and some others think I should have the same outcome.
The Supreme Court has heard and ruled on cases where state laws assign different application point values BASED ON RACE, and they upheld the practice in some cases, while also defeating the law in other cases. The case concerning Harvard that is coming up to the SCOTUS is based on Harvard (and all the Ivy league schools do this as well) penalizing Asians and whites using legit quota scoring systems based entirely on race in order to "promote diversity", which harkens back to Harvard's "too many Jews" rules they put in place in the early 1900s, to keep Jews out.
In the UT and UM cases from years ago, in both cases, the universities gave entrance to a black person with a lower overall set of scores than the white person who was denied entrance, and the acceptance/denial were based SOLELY ON RACE.
The case doesn't say there are no deserving black students, nor that all whites and asians are more deserving, just that there are rules in place that institutionally give preference based solely on race to one race over another. Why they do it is irrelevant. Which races benefit and which lose is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a state law or regulation that gives codified, institutional preference or discriminatory disadvantage to any race based solely on race is a violation of both the Civil Rights Act and the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment.
As always, switch some names and colors around and ask if it sounds racist:
Would it sound racist or somehow violating of CRA and 14th Amendment if all the historically black colleges and universities implemented "too many blacks" rules to their admissions, to limit the number of black students to some overall percent, and did so in the name of diversity?
That is EXACTLY what Harvard and the Ivy League are doing to Asians. That is exactly what Michigan and Texas do to white people. So if Grambling and Jackson State started doing it to black people...would the exact same practice be, in your opinion, a violation of the Civil rights Act and the 14th Amendment?
What are you talking about UT doesn’t have affirmative action. Also White students are over represented as a percent of High School, graduates. The girl lost the case, because it wasn’t true. Their are certainly black students at UT with lower SAT scores but in all my years at Ut you could find maybe 1 person of any race with an SAT score lower than Abigail Fisher (1180). Below 1200 is basically unheard of at this school.
Of the 47 students with lower SAT scores and GPA than her. 42 of them were white. Over 168 students with a better SAT and GPA than her didn’t get into the school.
Somewhere around 70%-90% of all UT applicants are automatically in the school because of the top 10 (now top 6%) rule.
My brother applied with a better SAT score than me, (1370 vs. 1460), a few years back and didn’t get into Texas. He also had a better GPA and better extracurriculars. When your not automatic it’s literally a role of the dice.
That's not what the other guy said. His point, and he's provably correct, is that large numbers of Asian-Americans and some whites are passed over in favor of mostly black applicants, but other historical educational minorities as well, with markedly lower metrics. Harvard et al stipulate that this is the case and has been for number of years.
This maybe true but a disproportionate amount of black students at nearly all college campuses are athletes. Black men are 1.8% of UT’s campus and 68% of the Basketball and Football players. Depending on the college their sometimes as many black athletes as regular students. Theirs probably as many black athletes as black Engineering students in UT.
Any SAT average that doesn’t take that into account will be skewed. Not to mention. The black students skew more towards liberal arts and non-stem majors at most colleges. Majors have SAT cutoffs, basically. It’s easier to get accepted with a certain major preference at colleges than other places.
"Racial equity is even more difficult to achieve, especially when there is a dishonest narrative about issues such as the racial wealth gap. Human Bio Diversity, the science of studying inherent genetic differences amongst peoples should be taken into account when discussing equity. There needs to be open debate and research on the causes of racial disparities in wealth, as to how much is genetic, cultural, historic circumstances, and intergenerational cycles of poverty. You can’t solve a problem unless you have an accurate and honest understanding of the root causes."
The Radical Center’s Psychosocial approach to Race Relations
Let's pretend I did buy bitcoin ten years ago, does that entitle me to have others work for me for the rest of my life?
It certainly would entitle you to do whatever you want the rest of your life. You would have made a great financial decision and you would deserve to enjoy the benefits of that.
Why do you think people who work hard and make great financial decisions should not be able to enjoy their lives as a result?
Why do you think people should not have to work for a living before getting to the point of sitting back and enjoying the fruits of their labor?
Do you have something against hard work, smart decisions and eventual happy retirement?
What is your wish? Is it that everything I worked hard for, broke my body for and all the research I did to maximize my investments should be taken away from me and given to someone who did not do any of that? If so, you would love living in China or Russia.
It certainly would entitle you to do whatever you want the rest of your life. You would have made a great financial decision and you would deserve to enjoy the benefits of that.
Why do you think people who work hard and make great financial decisions should not be able to enjoy their lives as a result?
Why do you think people should not have to work for a living before getting to the point of sitting back and enjoying the fruits of their labor?
Do you have something against hard work, smart decisions and eventual happy retirement?
What is your wish? Is it that everything I worked hard for, broke my body for and all the research I did to maximize my investments should be taken away from me and given to someone who did not do any of that? If so, you would love living in China or Russia.
There is a saying... When you have no capital, you do the work. When you have capital, your capital does the work.
There is a big difference between saving money you worked for, versus investing in a market manipulated by the government to produce returns far in excess of what they would naturally be, all while your savings loses value to inflation.
In economics this is often called "rent-seeking behavior". People who want to "live off the interest". Which in the old days was called usury and was illegal. I don't blame you for using the existing system to your advantage, but why do you attack the people who criticize it?
What do hedge-fund managers produce? What is bitcoin but just another financial scam, or a dump for the trillions of dollars being printed by central banks.
Last edited by Redshadowz; 02-16-2022 at 06:32 PM..
There is a saying... When you have no capital, you do the work. When you have capital, your capital does the work.
There is a big difference between saving money you worked for, versus investing in a market manipulated by the government to produce returns far in excess of what they would naturally be, all while your savings loses value to inflation.
In economics this is often called "rent-seeking behavior". People who want to "live off the interest". Which in the old days was called usury and was illegal. I don't blame you for using the existing system to your advantage, but why do you attack the people who criticize it?
What do hedge-fund managers produce? What is bitcoin but just another financial scam, or a dump for the trillions of dollars being printed by central banks.
I haven't attacked anyone. I simply stated you are free to be as poor as you want to be, as I am free to live off the decades of extremely hard work I put in along with some good financial decisions I made along the way. To be honest, I wish I made even better financial decisions, but at least I did good enough to live comfortably enough now. I'm just going to enjoy the rest of my days the best I can.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
