Rep. Geoff Davis (R-KY) Refers to Obama as "Boy"

[quote name='thrustbucket']But the main difference between you and I, is that anyone that chooses not to construct their reality in such a superficial way, you clearly deem ignorant, think less of, and think yourself better. I've met many like you. Where as, I emphasize the importance in my life of accepting others ways of viewing the world as just as valid as mine.[/QUOTE]

Woah. Not all viewpoints are equally valid. You got that part of me right.

The guy who thinks Obama is a muslim does not have as valid a viewpoint as I do.
The person who thinks Iraq was involved in 9/11 does not have as valid a viewpoint as I do.
The member of the Christian Identity church, who belives blacks are soulless mud creates, does not have as valid a viewpoint as I do.

I do not accept all viewpoints as equal. Mine are clearly better than others. What's so scary or narcissistic about that? I study society, so I better be an expert at it. Likewise, I'm sure you program (? I think you program for a living) far better than I do. Likewise, my buddy is a better personal trainer than I am, because that's what he does.

Now, I don't "have a viewpoint" for a living (some may argue otherwise), but I do study racial inequality, social stratification, and crime for a living. I read studies that demonstrate that racism is far more powerful and pervasive than most anyone would admit; and many non-blacks become very defensive and scared when confronted with that fact. Blacks, on the other hand, recognize the daily patterns of antiblack discrimination they feel in their daily lives as the result of the behaviors of others. Meanwhile, I'm told that my kind of political ideology has created the problem by making the diagnosis. Do you blame your physician for giving you a disease?

Let me be clear: I am armed with knowledge and facts. Like you perform in your daily work and hobbies, you are armed with the knowledge and facts that requires. There's nothing ideological about telling you that racism is rampant in modern American society. It's proven.

You can call me names, that's fine. You can call me arrogant, and I may well be. But until you can move beyond mocking the idea that I back up my viewpoints with research and data and findings, throwing out "ivory tower" ad hominems and the like, and trying to act as if we all have equally valid viewpoints on all things in life (so would you trust me to repair your broken down Subaru as much as you would a mechanic?), then you have very little to add or offer to the conversation.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']That said, I am not discounting the usefulness of said audits/studies or their conclusions, although I would dispute the supposed advantages of having the government sanction certain groups as needing special government preferences as compared to other groups.[/QUOTE]

Tell me more about this.

I see what you're getting at by claiming that no two interviews are alike; that's the thing about audits, is that they're scripted *very* meticulously because of the need to control for everything except for race/gender/whatever's being audited. In an ideal universe, anyway; we all know that something as innocuous as a glance in the wrong direction may trigger a response that could ruin the "test" itself.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Woah. Not all viewpoints are equally valid. You got that part of me right.[/quote]

No. But all viewpoints should be equally tolerated. Unless, of course, they bring harm to people, or in a court of law.

I do not accept all viewpoints as equal. Mine are clearly better than others. What's so scary or narcissistic about that? I study society, so I better be an expert at it.
Click to expand...
Something is unsettling about that statement. The word "society" is a pretty damn big damn general word. To claim expertise in "society" almost sounds as if you know how everyone in society thinks. I know that's not what you meant. You might be an expert at analyzing social issues based on studies, I'll concede that much...

Likewise, I'm sure you program (? I think you program for a living) far better than I do.
Click to expand...
Not really. I'm honestly hesitant to mention what I do because after observing your posts for as long as I have, I assume you will attempt somehow use it against me, pre-judge me and condescend me in later arguments.... No offense.

Now, I don't "have a viewpoint" for a living (some may argue otherwise), but I do study racial inequality, social stratification, and crime for a living. I read studies that demonstrate that racism is far more powerful and pervasive than most anyone would admit; and many non-blacks become very defensive and scared when confronted with that fact. Blacks, on the other hand, recognize the daily patterns of antiblack discrimination they feel in their daily lives as the result of the behaviors of others. Meanwhile, I'm told that my kind of political ideology has created the problem by making the diagnosis. Do you blame your physician for giving you a disease?
Click to expand...
I wasn't referring to the diagnosis. I was referring to some of your suggested solutions.

Speaking of diagnosis, I have a hypothetical for you: Let's say you took two black people, put them in separate rooms, and asked each one just how much racism they feel they encounter daily. The first one says a lot, throughout their day they feel racial tension and feel downtrodden for their skin color constantly. The second one says sometimes, but not that often.

What would your explanation for that be? Would you tend to say that the second one is living a sheltered life, or is he blind and ignorant, or could it be something else? Or... I'm half expecting your answer to be along the lines of "both would be like the first".


Let me be clear: I am armed with knowledge and facts. Like you perform in your daily work and hobbies, you are armed with the knowledge and facts that requires. There's nothing ideological about telling you that racism is rampant in modern American society. It's proven.
Click to expand...

Racism is one of a myriad of bigoted issues rampant in society. I don't need to be armed with knowledge and facts to know that. Everyone knows that, because everyone participates in it. The fact that so many are so addicted to consistently singling out one age-old prejudice is another discussion.

The ideology is what you do about it. How to combat it. How much you should shirk up and deal with, and what types of bigotry you shouldn't. Maybe bigotry of all kinds should be combated instead of separated out and dealt with differently?

Nobody needs your level of "knowledge and facts" to be allowed to offer possible solutions to it. They only need them to impress you, and those that think like you.

You can call me names, that's fine. You can call me arrogant, and I may well be. But until you can move beyond mocking the idea that I back up my viewpoints with research and data and findings, throwing out "ivory tower" ad hominems and the like,
Click to expand...

Sigh. Myke, I know a lot of people like you. Many of them are lawyers or programmers. They only know how to express how they feel and believe through what they perceive to be proven facts, statistics, mathematical certainties... etc. It can be excruciatingly difficult to try and have a discussion about just about anything with people like that. Because feelings don't matter. Personal experience doesn't matter. Only what could possibly win a case in a court of law is what matters. Nobody enjoys casual discussion with a lawyer, unless he can turn that off.

I can only imagine trying to sustain a marriage like that. "Honey, I probably should not fold the laundry, because in 1996 there was a study at Princeton that showed that men that did too many chores around the house were more likely to become sterile..... I'm not making excuses honey, those are verifiable facts. I'll show you on the internet...."

See where I'm getting? Probably not. I still enjoy trying to have conversations with you, even though yes, you do come off very condescending most of the time.

BTW, none of your examples really apply, because we are just talking about having a discussion. Not getting a car fixed, or programming. Simply having a discussion with someone.... anyone - I do not first attempt to find out if I know more than they do, and then attempt to point out to them that their opinion can not possibly matter as much as mine on the subject, nor is it valid. Why? Because they are PEOPLE. People with opinions. And everyone deserve to be heard with an open mind even if they have a very rudimentary understanding of the subject. The best politicians understand this. Your favorite candidate has gained immense popularity by learning that lesson.

It actually IS possible to listen to people, have a conversation with them, and not put them in a court of law to prove your superiority. And furthermore, it's even possible to gain something from it... hard as that might be to believe. As argumentative as I might sometimes seem, I ultimately am searching for, and learning, new things. I naively assume everyone strives to, without prejudice.

and trying to act as if we all have equally valid viewpoints on all things in life (so would you trust me to repair your broken down Subaru as much as you would a mechanic?), then you have very little to add or offer to the conversation.
Click to expand...

See what I mean? No, I would not want you to try and fix my Subaru. But if you wanted to discuss my Subaru, in any way, I'd listen. And I'd listen without trying to pre-judge what you are saying by your mechanical experience.

You are essentially saying that without the proper credentials, you can't be bothered with opinions form the less knowledgeable. There is a word for that, which I mentioned above. I guess the subtle hypocrisy in your posts are what keep me reading and responding. When people believe so much in regulated tolerance and fairness, as long as it's outside yourself, it always fascinates me. But no worries - most people (especially die-hard liberals) are like that.
And I don't mean that offensively. Seriously.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']I am curious if you have any input towards trying to terminate bad employees of different races. Does the difficulty/stress factor increase based on race?[/QUOTE]

Happily, I cannot answer this question.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Tell me more about this.

I see what you're getting at by claiming that no two interviews are alike; that's the thing about audits, is that they're scripted *very* meticulously because of the need to control for everything except for race/gender/whatever's being audited. In an ideal universe, anyway; we all know that something as innocuous as a glance in the wrong direction may trigger a response that could ruin the "test" itself.[/QUOTE]

More about what? I mean I don't doubt the conclusions that there is still some discrimination in hiring. I think that anyone who lives in this country would be deluding themselves to think that all people are colorblind in this regard. But I do disagree with the remedies we currently use.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Not really. I'm honestly hesitant to mention what I do because after observing your posts for as long as I have, I assume you will attempt somehow use it against me, pre-judge me and condescend me in later arguments.... No offense. [/quote]


Come on, sharing is caring :D, the whole point of this board is to use a mocking and condescending tone to belittle others...

Me first, me first... Sociology... what do I know about sociology... probably not much... but I do know that it was the major that 3 types of people took at my school:
1. Athletes to have an easy ride.
2. The popular cool people to have an easy ride.
3. Activists because they actually cared.
(Personally, I perceived the field to be a bit less concrete than I like... but then again, so is much of medical research... as I would find out later...)

... but my view may be limited because I spent 99% of my time on the engineering and physical sciences side of campus. (Insert antisocial book worm or lab rat joke here). Now its the fun field of medicine (insert comments about how I refuse to treat indigent patients while taking kickbacks from pharma and driving the cost of care up).

See making fun of others and of oneself is fun! ;)
 
[quote name='BigT']Come on, sharing is caring :D, the whole point of this board is to use a mocking and condescending tone to belittle others...

Me first, me first... Sociology... what do I know about sociology... probably not much... but I do know that it was the major that 3 types of people took at my school:
1. Athletes to have an easy ride.
2. The popular cool people to have an easy ride.
3. Activists because they actually cared.
(Personally, I perceived the field to be a bit less concrete than I like... but then again, so is much of medical research... as I would find out later...)

... but my view may be limited because I spent 99% of my time on the engineering and physical sciences side of campus. (Insert antisocial book worm or lab rat joke here). Now its the fun field of medicine (insert comments about how I refuse to treat indigent patients while taking kickbacks from pharma and driving the cost of care up).

See making fun of others and of oneself is fun! ;)[/QUOTE]

Alright. You seem cool. And if your goona show yours, I'll show mine.

I'm just a game designer for a large developer that you've likely not heard of.
 
Ok I'm going to say my piece here. I believe the comment at Obama was clearly meant as an insult and whether racist or not I'm sure he knew it would be construed that way if he knew ANY history on the Blacks in this country.
To HotShotX you realize they have that reaction because of seeing all that racist/biased treatment all through their life right? it's really easy to say "Well don't overreact." but how would you feel if you were periodically followed and pulled over by police for DWB. Another example is being followed all around the store because you're expected to shoplift since you're Black.
THIS is where I get annoyed with some Libertarians and Republicans with that attitude. You need some empathy and to place yourself in their shoes for a minute. Just THINK for a second, for crying out loud. You also can't tell me throughout his life, at least, here, Obama hasn't heard at least ONE racial slur against him. I expected better from you HotShot.
Thrust while I agree Affirmative Action isn't solving the problem and I can see not hiring Blacks when you have firing turn into a pain in the ass if they're incompetant there's more.
Besides the equality schtick, teaching kids that and ACTING upon it as well, we need to make sure both sides get the SAME standard of education. This is part of the reason, not just discrimination, for AA.
Say I have two candidates and this is a BIG what if?. But say I have two candidates, one White and one Black and they both only have HS Diploma's. Now the White guy went to an inner city school with low test scores and I know this and the Black guy went to the Suburb one. All things being equal I might hire the Black guy instead.
Anyway part of the issue on funding is this and it's huge. Blacks LEFT the inner city when shopping. Black businesses in the city don't get the mney that will pay for a proper education there. That being said I'm sure towns which have been destroyed by Wal-Mart coming in and most of the money leaving the town there is still subsidized by the State, Government or both so that's NO excuse.
Bottom line, this CAN be done and should be, then eventually we can take AA off the books. The issue is actually taking that step. No one wants to because they want to use it as an issue.
 
[quote name='Sarang01']Ok I'm going to say my piece here. I believe the comment at Obama was clearly meant as an insult and whether racist or not I'm sure he knew it would be construed that way if he knew ANY history on the Blacks in this country.
To HotShotX you realize they have that reaction because of seeing all that racist/biased treatment all through their life right? it's really easy to say "Well don't overreact." but how would you feel if you were periodically followed and pulled over by police for DWB. Another example is being followed all around the store because you're expected to shoplift since you're Black.
THIS is where I get annoyed with some Libertarians and Republicans with that attitude. You need some empathy and to place yourself in their shoes for a minute. Just THINK for a second, for crying out loud. You also can't tell me throughout his life, at least, here, Obama hasn't heard at least ONE racial slur against him. I expected better from you HotShot.
Thrust while I agree Affirmative Action isn't solving the problem and I can see not hiring Blacks when you have firing turn into a pain in the ass if they're incompetant there's more.
Besides the equality schtick, teaching kids that and ACTING upon it as well, we need to make sure both sides get the SAME standard of education. This is part of the reason, not just discrimination, for AA.
Say I have two candidates and this is a BIG what if?. But say I have two candidates, one White and one Black and they both only have HS Diploma's. Now the White guy went to an inner city school with low test scores and I know this and the Black guy went to the Suburb one. All things being equal I might hire the Black guy instead.
Anyway part of the issue on funding is this and it's huge. Blacks LEFT the inner city when shopping. Black businesses in the city don't get the mney that will pay for a proper education there. That being said I'm sure towns which have been destroyed by Wal-Mart coming in and most of the money leaving the town there is still subsidized by the State, Government or both so that's NO excuse.
Bottom line, this CAN be done and should be, then eventually we can take AA off the books. The issue is actually taking that step. No one wants to because they want to use it as an issue.[/quote]

The first step in all of that is to stop giving a damn about race at all, which is what I believe is the best method. That's the methodology I carry in my life and I'm going to keep doing that regardless of whether or not the country feels "it is time" to end racism. fuck them, they can catch up to me. :)

I'm not arguing that racism isn't still a component in society, I'm arguing against ASSUMING it is present every time someone of one race makes a criticism of someone of another race. That's the problem in my eyes, people in society today want to be as PC as possible in hopes that they won't offend ANYONE of another race or creed, but that same policy does nothing but drive wedges between us since we cannot instill any emotion into interacting with one another. In reality, it's nothing more than a cleverly guised "separate, but equal" policy, and the sad part is that too many people have bought into this bullshit and deemed it a good idea.

Too bad, I'm not buying. Consider me inconsiderate or whatever, but I guarantee you that you're going to get the best damn chance at anything with someone like me than any of these other AA assholes. Why?

Because I'm actually going to judge you based on who you are and what you're capable of (intelligence and professionalism).

How would you feel being an intelligent black man, college education, engineering degree, hoping to achieve your dream career, only to find out you were hired mostly to fulfill a racial quota?

I'd be pretty damn offended.

~HotShotX
 
Like I said HotShot, it's hard NOT for anyone being bombarded over their life with bullshit like DWB and being followed around the store expected to steal something TO help jade them into that line of thought.
And don't even try to argue DWB doesn't exist because it does. Don't get me wrong. I'm sure there are some cops who truly go by the book and pull anyone over, Black or White, for suspcious behavior but I also think Racial Profiling is around as well.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']

Because I'm actually going to judge you based on who you are and what you're capable of (intelligence and professionalism).
~HotShotX[/quote]

Funny you should mention it, because this is EXACTLY what AA aims to acheive.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Specifically it was used to feed the lie that black people are inferior (specifically child like and irresponsible) no matter how old they actually were. I had made the assumption that Davis was in his 70's and could be given somewhat of a pass but for a person three some odd years older to use that in an attempt to insult someone as being unable to handle the government does not leave a lot of wiggle room.

.[/QUOTE]

Oh please. 'Boy' insult is used on all races. It's ridiculous how radical PC leftist are clinging onto this as some sort of racist insult used exclusively on black people.
 
[quote name='rumblebear']Oh please. 'Boy' insult is used on all races. It's ridiculous how radical PC leftist are clinging onto this as some sort of racist insult used exclusively on black people.[/QUOTE]

The insane amount of hypocrisy for Obama supporters is off the charts, that's for sure.

Obama's race gives him just the right balance of PC armor to say things no other candidate could, be associated with the type of people no other candidate could, and be offended at things no other candidate can be.

It's amazing to watch.
 
[quote name='rumblebear']Oh please. 'Boy' insult is used on all races. It's ridiculous how radical PC leftist are clinging onto this as some sort of racist insult used exclusively on black people.[/quote]


yes I often call my chinese delivery man, boy, and my mexican gardener, boy. In fact rumblebear be a good boy and tell me who do you insult by callin boy to since apparently all races have that term used on them. Also the fact that if its a racist insult used on all races, its still a racist insult.
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']yes I often call my chinese delivery man, boy, and my mexican gardener, boy. In fact rumblebear be a good boy and tell me who do you insult by callin boy to since apparently all races have that term used on them. Also the fact that if its a racist insult used on all races, its still a racist insult.[/QUOTE]

My great-grandfather called me 'boy' all the time. It's doubtful he thought of me as a young black person.

It's just as much a product of older culture as it is racist.
 
[quote name='CocheseUGA']My great-grandfather called me 'boy' all the time. It's doubtful he thought of me as a young black person.

It's just as much a product of older culture as it is racist.[/QUOTE]

fail-24.jpg
 
[quote name='Ikohn4ever']yes I often call my chinese delivery man, boy, and my mexican gardener, boy. In fact rumblebear be a good boy and tell me who do you insult by callin boy to since apparently all races have that term used on them. Also the fact that if its a racist insult used on all races, its still a racist insult.[/QUOTE]

well by that logic, any form of insult is racist... but of course it can only be called out as such as long the receiver of the insult is black. Yay for Obama-loving P.C. leftist, now let's call majority of non-Obama supporters racists as well.
 
[quote name='rumblebear']well by that logic, any form of insult is racist... but of course it can only be called out as such as long the receiver of the insult is black. Yay for Obama-loving P.C. leftist, now let's call majority of non-Obama supporters racists as well.[/QUOTE]

Boy has a special history of being applied to black people as I have pointed out before.

If you would like to whine and/or deny reality feel free, no one expects anything better from you.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']Funny you should mention it, because this is EXACTLY what AA aims to acheive.[/QUOTE]

Of course it is. Nobody here, I expect, would question the goal of "affirmative action," which is to level the playing field. The problem is that this line of reasoning is misguided since it creates as many problems as it solves. Surely you don't find unreasonable an argument that holds government-enforced preferences exacerbate animosity between "favored" groups and those left out.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Boy has a special history of being applied to black people as I have pointed out before.

If you would like to whine and/or deny reality feel free, no one expects anything better from you.[/quote]

Again, I don't think anyone here is arguing against the obvious racial past the context of the word "boy" has been used in.

However, that means we are arguing over the context of the word used, which in this case, can also be aptly applied to show seniority.

That being said, there are two legitimate contexts in which this word was used, so I think it's pretty stupid that everyone's all up in arms over the racial version, not because it might have been actually used, but because it was simply available.

The only person who can honestly state the context of the word is the speaker themselves. If Davis said he didn't mean it in the racist context, who are you to say he's lying?

If I say fuck!, are you going to assume it to be my method of expressing anger or frustration, or the green light to commence fornication?

Regardless of which context you choose, it still ultimately comes down to the context I chose to use when I said it, not whichever works best for your agenda.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']However, that means we are arguing over the context of the word used, which in this case, can also be aptly applied to show seniority.[/QUOTE]

No.

That being said, there are two legitimate contexts in which this word was used
Click to expand...

And No.
 
[quote name='Msut77']No.



And No.[/quote]

Well at this point I don't think there's really anything else to discuss with you then, now is there? You can go seek racism all you want in life and try digging it up wherever you want, even if it doesn't exist. Continuously perpetuating it in whatever manner gives you a stiffy best, instead of trying to see through all the bullshit, both racist and politically correct, and just see the damn person and words at the value of intention, not whatever way you feel you can twist them.

~HotShotX
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Well at this point I don't think there's really anything else to discuss with you then, now is there? You can go seek racism all you want in life and try digging it up wherever you want, even if it doesn't exist. Continuously perpetuating it in whatever manner gives you a stiffy best, instead of trying to see through all the bullshit, both racist and politically correct, and just see the damn person and words at the value of intention, not whatever way you feel you can twist them.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

Look I know you feel like you have been mugged by some big meanies in the past but I really do not give a shit.

Even if it was not racist (consciously or subconsciously) it was still nowhere near legitimate, especially using your criteria i.e. Davis is not senior he was elected in 2004 just like Obama and is close in age. If you think someone is just going to concede those major points to make you feel better fuck off.

Anyhoo this is basically moot. What is important is that Davis apologized in a serious manner which is pretty rare these days.
 
[quote name='HotShotX']Well at this point I don't think there's really anything else to discuss with you then, now is there? You can go seek racism all you want in life and try digging it up wherever you want, even if it doesn't exist. Continuously perpetuating it in whatever manner gives you a stiffy best, instead of trying to see through all the bullshit, both racist and politically correct, and just see the damn person and words at the value of intention, not whatever way you feel you can twist them.

~HotShotX[/QUOTE]

You should probably join the growing club of people that have Msut77 on ignore. He rarely has anything useful to say. He's only interested in name calling and flame throwing.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You should probably join the growing club of people that have Msut77 on ignore. He rarely has anything useful to say. He's only interested in name calling and flame throwing.[/QUOTE]

I thought everyone had him on ignore.
 
unfortunately this is my states rep. and yes i also have to deal with willy cunnigham, also just north of me....

where are you located at anyway op./
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Of course it is. Nobody here, I expect, would question the goal of "affirmative action," which is to level the playing field. The problem is that this line of reasoning is misguided since it creates as many problems as it solves. Surely you don't find unreasonable an argument that holds government-enforced preferences exacerbate animosity between "favored" groups and those left out.[/quote]

Ehh, I bet you some people here would question the goal of affirmative action. But that isn't really your point.

Your main point is that there is a good argument that government preferences that aim to level the playing field and provide equal opportunity "exacerbate animosity between 'favored' groups and those left out." You're right. There are good arguments. Allow me to switch onto your side for a while and lay them out:

1). By simply acknowledging race, and considering it in any way at all, you're being racist.
 
Let me ask you, thrust, since you're advocating this argument:

Until we raise a generation that is NOT encouraged to define their identity by race, sexuality, or family history, the problems you want to try and fix with bandaid approaches like AA, will always exist.
Click to expand...

Which is pretty much saying "once we start raising people in ways that nobody, historically, has ever raised people, things will be different," first and foremost.

But let's not delve into that just yet. My question for you is this: do you advocate a "sexblind" society in order to minimize gender-based differences as well? Do you think that a society who is "sexblind" is possible in the way you seem to exalt "colorblindness" as an ideal?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Which is pretty much saying "once we start raising people in ways that nobody, historically, has ever raised people, things will be different," first and foremost.[/quote]

Well that's a great point. And partially my own point. Because I turn that around and use that logic on AA advocacy.

"Once we employ just the right AA government programs, we'll finally change the way people have, historically, always thought. And things will be different".

Unless what you ultimately are suggesting that racism can never be eliminated, and instead we should just employ a permanent and artificial mechanism of fairness to try and eliminate it's effects.

But let's not delve into that just yet. My question for you is this: do you advocate a "sexblind" society in order to minimize gender-based differences as well? Do you think that a society who is "sexblind" is possible in the way you seem to exalt "colorblindness" as an ideal?
Click to expand...

Well first of all, I didn't really mean gender. I didn't mean a society that ignores gender, if anything our society would probably benefit more if we did more focusing on gender differences (each sex inherently specializing in something beneficial to society).

I was referring to sexual behavior being embraced as part of one's identity. Sexual orientation, sexual prowess, sexual preferences are all things I think are silly to embrace as part of one's identity.

For example:

What I do with my cock, doesn't/shouldn't define who I am.
What color my skin is, doesn't/shouldn't define who I am.
Where my ancestors came from, doesn't/shouldn't define who I am.

On the other hand:

My feelings and thoughts do/should define who I am.
How I spend my time does/should define who I am.
And most importantly, how I treat other people does/should define who I am.

Our society seems obsessed with the emphasis of embracing ancient tradition/culture, having "pride" in your race, externally glorifying what you do in the bedroom, and defining yourself by your family history.

I happen to feel that's at least half of our problems.

I am not suggesting people forget the past, or ignore their heritage. But I am suggesting we start teaching kids that those things don't determine WHO THEY ARE, and instead start promoting that ultimately choice, belief, and action determine who they are.
 
I don't think you mentioned sex/gender at all in your post.

Nevertheless, there is sexism in society just as there is racism.

Knowing that, should we try to move towards a sexblind society where we no longer acknowledge sex?

Not orientation, not gender, but good ol' biological what-were-you-born-with sex? Should we strive towards sexblindness to eliminate sexism?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't think you mentioned sex/gender at all in your post.[/quote]
In post #78 I did:
[quote name='thrustbucket']
Until we raise a generation that is NOT encouraged to define their identity by race, sexuality, or family history, the problems you want to try and fix with bandaid approaches like AA, will always exist.[/quote]
So I thought that's what you were referring to.


Not orientation, not gender, but good ol' biological what-were-you-born-with sex? Should we strive towards sexblindness to eliminate sexism?
Click to expand...

No. Not to the extent that we should try and all dress the same and become a unisex society. That would go against nature and probably be harmful to society. Nature relies on the differences between the sexes to persist. It does not rely differences things like family heritage, race, or nationality to persist. As near as I can tell, the sooner we shed such ancient dogmatic tradition, the better.


Ultimately the big thing I advocate is accepting the things you were born with and move past it as quickly as possible. Find a way to define yourself outside what you were born with. There is no room for pride in the thing's I have mentioned in my last post. Pride in those things, I feel, have done more harm for humanity than even religion. And presently our society dangerously promotes pride in born differences.

I honestly cringe every time I hear someone mention "black pride", or "brown pride", or "proud of my heritage". I know that they are meant as harmless statements, but I truly do feel that talk and feelings such as those are at the root of all that you and I fight against. Removing focus from all that stuff is of paramount importance.
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']Nature relies on the differences between the sexes to persist.[/QUOTE]

But nature relies on the biological differences to persist.

Not the social.
 
I think thrust pretty much said most of what i would say in response here. The government encouraging classification of people based on the color of their skin is not going to help society stop judging people by the color of their skin. Instead, the government should be doing the opposite: trying to eliminate consideration of skin color as a defining characteristic in our society. If we keep insisting that all people with black skin are to be treated one way and all people with white skin are to be treated another way, what hope is there of a future where these petty differences are dismissed for that they are in society at large?
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I think thrust pretty much said most of what i would say in response here. The government encouraging classification of people based on the color of their skin is not going to help society stop judging people by the color of their skin. Instead, the government should be doing the opposite: trying to eliminate consideration of skin color as a defining characteristic in our society. If we keep insisting that all people with black skin are to be treated one way and all people with white skin are to be treated another way, what hope is there of a future where these petty differences are dismissed for that they are in society at large?[/quote]

So do you feel the government shouldn't sanction those who don't hire, fire, or take some adverse employment action against somebody just because of their color, race, sex, religion or national origin?

Or is it your position that sanctioning these actions are okay, but taking affirmative actions to remedy/fight past racism and current racism respectively is going too far?

Obviously I feel that the government should maintain the first policy, but I have no strong opinion one way or the other about AA. Punishing a bigot for bigotry is one thing, but requiring that racist to not be racists anymore is another. Well, when I say it like that I guess I do support AA in some respects.

Eh fuck it. If AA is good enough for the USSC then it's good enough for me; those are some smart fuckers up on that bench, who know a thing or two about law and policy, so if they buy it I'll buy it too.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']But nature relies on the biological differences to persist.

Not the social.[/QUOTE]

The social benefits come FROM the biological.

Humans don't biologically receive social benefits from skin color. Which is why it's dangerous to attempt to conjure them through policy.
 
[quote name='pittpizza']So do you feel the government shouldn't sanction those who don't hire, fire, or take some adverse employment action against somebody just because of their color, race, sex, religion or national origin?

Or is it your position that sanctioning these actions are okay, but taking affirmative actions to remedy/fight past racism and current racism respectively is going too far?

Obviously I feel that the government should maintain the first policy, but I have no strong opinion one way or the other about AA. Punishing a bigot for bigotry is one thing, but requiring that racist to not be racists anymore is another. Well, when I say it like that I guess I do support AA in some respects.[/quote]

Yes, I feel the government needs to aggressively combat the sort of bigotry you are mentioning for the good of society. Obviously since we believe in free speech and freedom to think what you want to think we cannot legislate away racism, but we can make it illegal to discriminate based on race in terms of employment or allowing someone in your restaurant.

[quote name='pittpizza']Eh fuck it. If AA is good enough for the USSC then it's good enough for me; those are some smart fuckers up on that bench, who know a thing or two about law and policy, so if they buy it I'll buy it too.[/QUOTE]

Be careful, these are the same guys who came up with Kelo v. New London, the Dred Scott decision of the 21st century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top