Jump to content

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm curious about "High Fullutent" also

Is that like the 1%ers that are supposed to be letting the money trickle down? Are they saying they're bad?

- DSK

I misread that as "High Flatulent"

 

Just jokin. I actually know what they meant, even though their spelling is quite atrocious. Normally spelled "hifalutin" - that's redneck slang for someone who buys clothing at a store of higher quality than Walmart. Could also use the nice term hoity-toity...

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 348
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Cancel culture is supposed to be used on nigra quarterbacks who demand their rights, not Amuricans.  

No, you haven't offered anything, and your effort to deflect on me is about to blow up in your face. I went back and read your post (No post#s anymore, but it was at 4:08pm yesterday) and there i

My landlords got redlined out of the first house they wanted to buy.  1958.  Took 'em 'till '91 to be able to buy in a better neighbourhood. In time for the grandkids, if not the kids. They're mi

Posted Images

21 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

I misread that as "High Flatulent"

 

Just jokin. I actually know what they meant, even though their spelling is quite atrocious. Normally spelled "hifalutin" - that's redneck slang for someone who buys clothing at a store of higher quality than Walmart. Could also use the nice term hoity-toity...

Haifa looting. Fucking Palestinians.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

I'm curious about "High Fullutent" also

Is that like the 1%ers that are supposed to be letting the money trickle down? Are they saying they're bad?

- DSK

Highfalutin?

Highfalutin, meaning “pretentious” or “artificially elevated in style,” was first used in the early 19th century. ... In fact, though, its ancestor is hoit (which also gave us hoyden), an Old English word meaning “to romp inelegantly,” as the Oxford English Dictionary puts it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hifalutin' is a good old cowboy word. But I didn't know it was a sin

Maybe they were trying to say "High Fall-U-Tent" as in they are threatening to push your tent off a cliff?

Nice tent ya got there, be a shame if something happened to it.

God moves in mysterious ways

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/10/2021 at 11:07 PM, Shortforbob said:

Is Jeffie being schooled about his racism again?:rolleyes:

It's sad how his goal for society is for everyone to be as "colourblind" as he. He sees this as somehow a noble goal.

Jeff, the desire for communities to be "colourblind" is not at all helpful..

Why is it unhelpful?  If the goal or desire for society is not to be colorblind eventually, then what IS the goal?  What do you think we should become instead?  A society where a person's skin color defines them forever?  Where they are judged, good, bad or indifferent, by their skin color from the moment they walk into a room?  I hates to break it to you, but that's been our situation for a while now.  How's that working out for you so far?  

Quote

 

If you'd just shut up and listen to what people are trying to tell you, you might progress to acknowledging your own and everyone's innate racism and try to manage and overcome the more obviously destructive  elements of it.


 

My innate racism?  And I'm confused about what you're saying and want to give you the benefit of the doubt here....... are you saying that it's now racist to call for a colorblind society where we are judged by our merits and character and not by our skin color???

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Bus Driver said:

I am reminded of how the religious zealots are the ultimate in trying to cancel anything they don't like.

But, they sure do like their apostrophes.

159695703_5375622755811720_4897036504492080613_n.jpg

Jesus wept.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

are you saying that it's now racist to call for a colorblind society

No, we are saying it is racist to be blind to discrimination based on race . . 

or to advantage one ethnic group over others based on race. 

Like this . .  https://www.thenation.com/article/society/chauvin-jury-selection/

Jeebus you are dense. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Why is it unhelpful?  If the goal or desire for society is not to be colorblind eventually, then what IS the goal? 

It was in quotes for a reason.  She's talking about your version of "colorblind".  

45 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

are you saying that it's now racist to call for a colorblind society where we are judged by our merits and character and not by our skin color???

When it's a transparent attempt to deflect & redirect?  Yeah, of course it is. 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

No, we are saying it is racist to be blind to discrimination based on race . . 

or to advantage one ethnic group over others based on race. 

Like this . .  https://www.thenation.com/article/society/chauvin-jury-selection/

Jeebus you are dense. 

Dense?  Where the fuck have I ever said I'm blind to racial discrimination or that I favor advantaging one ethnic group over another based on race????  That I am advocating for a move to a colorblind society by its very nature of the statement acknowledges that we are not colorblind now.  In fact just the opposite.  Furthermore the VERY FUCKING ESSENCE of colorblindness and policies that are colorblind means that one ethnic group IS NOT advantaged over the other.  

Jeebus, and you call ME dense????  I honestly feel pity for your past students if you are what passed as a "critical thinker" role model for them.  Fuck me!

Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, frenchie said:
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Why is it unhelpful?  If the goal or desire for society is not to be colorblind eventually, then what IS the goal? 

It was in quotes for a reason.  She's talking about your version of "colorblind".  

Quote

are you saying that it's now racist to call for a colorblind society where we are judged by our merits and character and not by our skin color???

When it's a transparent attempt to deflect & redirect?  Yeah, of course it is. 

 

WHAAAAT????  WTF are you talking about Willis?  I'm curious what exactly you think MY version of colorblindness is.  I do not get the impression that you or the majority here or SJWs in the wild think that ANY version of colorblindness is a good thing.  I'm happy to be corrected on that, but please provide details as to your reasoning, if you don't mind.  

And what exactly do you think I'm attempting to "deflect & redirect" from/to?  I'm not following you at all.  I think I've been pretty clear and very outspoken about how I feel and what I would like to happen wrt racial issues.  I don't pull my punches nor do I play coy cat and mouse games like so many others here do.  If you want to know what I'm trying to say or how I think, just ask me.  If you don't like my bluntness and lack of PC subtlety, then I'm sorry.  But this is me.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff, do you imagine there is a switch that can be pulled that removes the white supremacy that is baked into modern US society? This colorblindness to which you refer... how would you bring it about?

And once that switch was thrown, is there a rational sum of money and list of names to whom you would direct deposit funds to make up for all past wrongs of the nation?

What in the actual fuck should America do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, phillysailor said:

Jeff, do you imagine there is a switch that can be pulled that removes the white supremacy that is baked into modern US society? This colorblindness to which you refer... how would you bring it about?

And once that switch was thrown, is there a rational sum of money and list of names to whom you would direct deposit funds to make up for all past wrongs of the nation?

What in the actual fuck should America do?

Those are good questions and I admit I don't have all the answers in enough detail to set a concrete policy or draft legislation today.  However in broad terms:

  1. No, I do not think there is a switch that we throw and Bam, we're a colorblind society or that switch exists to turn off white supremacy and racism overnight.  Any move in that direction will by nature be gradual, methodical, and likely painful at times.  But until we set that as our eventual goal and start moving society in that direction...... nothing of course will get done in that regard.  I think of it as a medium or long term vision/strategy for our country rather than a policy or EO Biden can sign tomorrow.  But it HAS to start somewhere.  The cliche of the "journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step" is true in this case.
  2. Some concrete things we can do over time is to stop emphasizing race as a discriminator.  Stop putting race or ethnicity on Gov't forms.  Stop putting race on Birth certificates.  Stop putting race on college admissions.  Stop all the hyphenated words like African-American, Asian-American, etc in official business.  And all the stuff we do ad nauseum that actually does more to segregate and divide than it does to bring us together.  
  3. I Strongly believe that, over time, racism and white supremacy will diminish due to #2 above.  Much of what gives oxygen to those groups and such is the sense that everyone preaches "equality", yet in the same breath turns right around and implements reverse discrimination policies.  Whether you agree or not, like it or not...... "Reverse Discrimination" is discrimination.  "Reverse racism" is racism.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  You cannot reverse or overcome past racism, by creating current racism - no matter how good it might feel to you to do so or how right you feel it might be.  Those policies, the current SJW cancel culture, and the one sided PC-culture that we currently live in are accelerating and making worse our racial issues - not solving them.  
  4. There is no amount of money in the world that can undo and make right the racial injustices that have been done in the past.  No amount of hand-wringing and pearl clutching is going to erase the legacy of our slavery past.  What do we do?  We sincerely, humbly and LOUDLY apologize as a nation and resolve to never do anything so ugly every again.  And then we tell society to move forward together as a nation - remembering the past as a lesson of what not to do, but looking towards the future to build a society where skin color and ethnicity are irrelevant.  Where those things are not even thought of anymore.  Where we root our and ruthlessly crush anyone who does use race as a hammer or a wedge in anyway.  
  5. What the actual FUCK American can do is to move past race and look at people.  Make them stand on their own two feet and be counted and held accountable.  Make race no longer something that makes us different or divides us.  Make race a complete non-issue and a complete non-discussion point (over time) and I guarantee you will see a change in our society for the better. 
  6. As FKT talks about AUS, while not perfect, they are light years ahead of us in terms of racial and ethnic harmony - precisely because they do not make it an issue.  But it's a two-way street because it forces all races to stand on their own two feet and be judged on who they are, not what color they are.  It takes the victim card away from both sides.  The issue with the US now is both white and blacks (and other POCs) play the victim card pretty much the same and then turn right around and point the finger at the other one for doing it.  

Feel free to respond with TL;DR, but you asked.....

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And just to be crystal clear..... I myself do not share or feel those personal grievances that I describe the white "victims" do above in my previous post.  I am simply describing what I see and hear and what is obvious in front of all of our faces.  I also am not saying that their grievances are 100% legitimate, but some are.  I am simply pointing out what is going on, IMHO.  There is a wall between the races and people on both sides are worker harder and harder to add layers of bricks to the top of the wall rather than trying to tear it down.  

The fact of the matter though, is that none of this personally affects me.  I am losing nothing when a black person gets ahead, or is admitted to a University when there are other more qualified people in the queue.  I lose nothing when BLM protests police violence.  I lose nothing when SJWs continue to preach for this social equity by doing exactly the opposite.  It would be exceedingly easy for me personally to say "fuck it, I got mine".  Because I do.  I could die happily in my old age with the world burning around me and it likely wouldn't touch me all that much. 

But the reason that I'm so adamant and outspoken on this issue is because I see what I believe as a solution so obvious that I'm gobsmacked when we are doing exactly the opposite.  And the people who keep pushing for exactly opposite by continually doubling down on what is not working are not even seeing that what they're doing is making matters worse, not better, for the very people they are purporting to want to help.  I'm outspoken on this subject because I see a society where race doesn't have to be even a consideration, much less a wedge - and it's maddening to see it all going to shit because we are doing the exact opposite.  Our current policies and language is exacerbating racial division, not healing it.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Those are good questions and I admit I don't have all the answers in enough detail to set a concrete policy or draft legislation today.  However in broad terms:

  1. No, I do not think there is a switch that we throw and Bam, we're a colorblind society or that switch exists to turn off white supremacy and racism overnight.  Any move in that direction will by nature be gradual, methodical, and likely painful at times.  But until we set that as our eventual goal and start moving society in that direction...... nothing of course will get done in that regard.  I think of it as a medium or long term vision/strategy for our country rather than a policy or EO Biden can sign tomorrow.  But it HAS to start somewhere.  The cliche of the "journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step" is true in this case.
  2. Some concrete things we can do over time is to stop emphasizing race as a discriminator.  Stop putting race or ethnicity on Gov't forms.  Stop putting race on Birth certificates.  Stop putting race on college admissions.  Stop all the hyphenated words like African-American, Asian-American, etc in official business.  And all the stuff we do ad nauseum that actually does more to segregate and divide than it does to bring us together.  
  3. I Strongly believe that, over time, racism and white supremacy will diminish due to #2 above.  Much of what gives oxygen to those groups and such is the sense that everyone preaches "equality", yet in the same breath turns right around and implements reverse discrimination policies.  Whether you agree or not, like it or not...... "Reverse Discrimination" is discrimination.  "Reverse racism" is racism.  Two wrongs do not make a right.  You cannot reverse or overcome past racism, by creating current racism - no matter how good it might feel to you to do so or how right you feel it might be.  Those policies, the current SJW cancel culture, and the one sided PC-culture that we currently live in are accelerating and making worse our racial issues - not solving them.  
  4. There is no amount of money in the world that can undo and make right the racial injustices that have been done in the past.  No amount of hand-wringing and pearl clutching is going to erase the legacy of our slavery past.  What do we do?  We sincerely, humbly and LOUDLY apologize as a nation and resolve to never do anything so ugly every again.  And then we tell society to move forward together as a nation - remembering the past as a lesson of what not to do, but looking towards the future to build a society where skin color and ethnicity are irrelevant.  Where those things are not even thought of anymore.  Where we root our and ruthlessly crush anyone who does use race as a hammer or a wedge in anyway.  
  5. What the actual FUCK American can do is to move past race and look at people.  Make them stand on their own two feet and be counted and held accountable.  Make race no longer something that makes us different or divides us.  Make race a complete non-issue and a complete non-discussion point (over time) and I guarantee you will see a change in our society for the better. 
  6. As FKT talks about AUS, while not perfect, they are light years ahead of us in terms of racial and ethnic harmony - precisely because they do not make it an issue.  But it's a two-way street because it forces all races to stand on their own two feet and be judged on who they are, not what color they are.  It takes the victim card away from both sides.  The issue with the US now is both white and blacks (and other POCs) play the victim card pretty much the same and then turn right around and point the finger at the other one for doing it.  

Feel free to respond with TL;DR, but you asked.....

Thunderous applause.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Why is it unhelpful?  If the goal or desire for society is not to be colorblind eventually, then what IS the goal?  What do you think we should become instead?  A society where a person's skin color defines them forever?  Where they are judged, good, bad or indifferent, by their skin color from the moment they walk into a room?  I hates to break it to you, but that's been our situation for a while now.  How's that working out for you so far?  

My innate racism?  And I'm confused about what you're saying and want to give you the benefit of the doubt here....... are you saying that it's now racist to call for a colorblind society where we are judged by our merits and character and not by our skin color???

"Colourblind" may not mean what you think it means.

There's a bit more to it than just the colour of ones skin. 

If one is "colourblind" does it also follow that one is "culturally blind" ?

And actually I said "you might progress to acknowledging your own and everyone's innate racism.

Stop playing victim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

"Colourblind" may not mean what you think it means.

There's a bit more to it than just the colour of ones skin. 

If one is "colourblind" does it also follow that one is "culturally blind" ?

 

We are, pretty much. Except for red lines that make up our society. A few examples:

You will vote if you're an adult, it's a civic responsibility. Some religious exemptions allowed but the default is - you will vote. And you will accept the outcome of an election.

It doesn't matter if some things are culturally acceptable back in your home/parent culture, if they cross one of our red lines you will NOT do them here. Slavery, indentured servitude, suttee, forced marriages, promised marriages for underage women - all banned regardless.

I could come up with others but the basic idea is there. There are limits to what is acceptable or justifiable under the umbrella of culture.

Outside that we're pretty much culturally blind - knock yourself out.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps Jeff could explain what he means by "colourblind"

It's not an expression used over here and not AFAIK, used by the black community anywhere.

I take it quite literally.

That one does not see that the man or woman (or other) that just walked into the room is of a different colour and possibly a different culture than me.

To assume that that person immediately understands the world and has the same cultural outlook as myself, may be insulting to that person. Therefore one treads carefully and respectfully.

To me, "colourblindness" indicates a desire to cancel the differences.

I'd be pretty pissed off if I were black, to have my "blackness" cancelled.

Hmm, would Jeff be pissed off to have his "whiteness" cancelled?

The issue is not about the colour of ones skin, it's about ones reaction to it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

We are, pretty much. Except for red lines that make up our society. A few examples:

You will vote if you're an adult, it's a civic responsibility. Some religious exemptions allowed but the default is - you will vote. And you will accept the outcome of an election.

It doesn't matter if some things are culturally acceptable back in your home/parent culture, if they cross one of our red lines you will NOT do them here. Slavery, indentured servitude, suttee, forced marriages, promised marriages for underage women - all banned regardless.

I could come up with others but the basic idea is there. There are limits to what is acceptable or justifiable under the umbrella of culture.

Outside that we're pretty much culturally blind - knock yourself out.

FKT

If you think we are culturally blind, that's a shame.

We shouldn't be blind to the cultural differences that make up a multicultural nation should we?

You see, you and Jeff are projecting an image of colour blindness and cultural blindness as an image where we don't see "them" as any different than "us" 

It's a very WASPY image your projecting.

Perhaps I misunderstand, maybe you could explain.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Perhaps Jeff could explain what he means by "colourblind"

It's not an expression used over here and not AFAIK, used by the black community anywhere.

I take it quite literally.

That one does not see that the man or woman (or other) that just walked into the room is of a different colour and possibly a different culture than me.

To assume that that person immediately understands the world and has the same cultural outlook as myself, may be insulting to that person. Therefore one treads carefully and respectfully.

To me, "colourblindness" indicates a desire to cancel the differences.

I'd be pretty pissed off if I were black, to have my "blackness" cancelled.

Hmm, would Jeff be pissed off to have his "whiteness" cancelled?

The issue is not about the colour of ones skin, it's about ones reaction to it.

 

Jeffreax is doing his snoopy happy dance that he derailed another thread into a "There's no racism, look at all the racism" thread.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Jeffreax is doing his snoopy happy dance that he derailed another thread into a "There's no racism, look at all the racism" thread.

 

 

Of course, but with his "colour blindness" thing, he seems to want to cancel black (and brown) culture, so it's back on topic. :D

Frankly, as FKT and I and other non Americans often point out, this whole colour thing is kind of bewildering. You are all AMERICANS.

The first and easiest step is to STOP official differentiation unless it's relevant to data collection or some other relevant purpose.

Ie, it's reasonable to have a voluntary identifier on forms where it's necessary to collect demographic data.

It's not reasonable to ask for cultural identifiers on a drivers license or home insurance form.

The idea that one has to nominate a racial identifier on a drivers license or birth certificate (for example)  is ludicrous. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

If one is "colourblind" does it also follow that one is "culturally blind" ?

Essentially, yes.  I am not suggesting that someone's skin color or ethnicity be "outlawed" in order for conformity to occur.  I'm just saying that it can't or shouldn't be used to specifically ID or tag someone for purposes of official public business.  There would be no more tick boxes for race or ethnicity on forms, etc.  If an individual or group still wants to celebrate and keep their heritage - then more power to them.  Just not on official gov't or public business time.  Certainly not at the Federal level, but I would hope state and local entities would follow suit.  In fact I would make it illegal for any business to either discriminate in favor of or adversely to any race, ethnicity, gender, creed etc.  

The only exception to the above that comes to mind would be medical issues where race, ethnicity and gender DO have biological implications that you just cannot be color blind to.  Other than that, nope - the label of that person is masked from view by any hiring, admission, service, etc. sector in society.  In fact, I would go so far as to remove names from applications to avoid the name bias we discussed earlier and instead assign a random generated number to the applicant that is their unique ID when applying for a job, school, signing up to a program, etc etc etc.  Such that the hiring person never sees a name, a picture, or any other personally identifying information other than the skills and background required for whatever the application is for.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

"Colourblind" may not mean what you think it means.

There's a bit more to it than just the colour of ones skin. 

Really?  What do you think I think it means and what do YOU think it means.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Really?  What do you think I think it means and what do YOU think it means.

I already answered that.

What you are proposing cuts all ways.

5 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

If an individual or group still wants to celebrate and keep their heritage - then more power to them.  Just not on official gov't or public business time. 

I assume you're good with abolishing Christmas, Easter and Thanksgiving too? and any other public holidays that are not all inclusive.

Ok with refusing public grants for all  cultural icons, like statues of hero's of the various revolutions. Paul Revere? Dan Boone and other "frontiersmen" 

Cultural Blindness cuts all ways.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Shortforbob said:

Perhaps Jeff could explain what he means by "colourblind"

It's not an expression used over here and not AFAIK, used by the black community anywhere.

I take it quite literally.

That one does not see that the man or woman (or other) that just walked into the room is of a different colour and possibly a different culture than me.

To assume that that person immediately understands the world and has the same cultural outlook as myself, may be insulting to that person. Therefore one treads carefully and respectfully.

To me, "colourblindness" indicates a desire to cancel the differences.

I'd be pretty pissed off if I were black, to have my "blackness" cancelled.

Hmm, would Jeff be pissed off to have his "whiteness" cancelled?

The issue is not about the colour of ones skin, it's about ones reaction to it.

 

And this is my entire point.  I can't control what one thinks when a black person or white person walks into a room.  But I can mask all the identifying things that prevent someone from being allowed to enter the room in the first place.  

When a kid applies for a Uni slot - it SHOULD NOT matter what their skin color is.  When that same kid applies for a job, it should not matter what their skin color is.  When I fill out a background check to buy a gun - I have to fill out several boxes about my race, ethnicity, whether I'm a white hispanic, black hispanic, pacific islander, etc.  What does ANY of that matter to being able to legally exercise a right?  In the news, if a man robs a store or shoots someone during a drug deal - why does their race matter?  It does here in the US......  Every news story about any crime is either "A black man robbed a liquor store" if they are black or if it's a white man, the headlines read "Man robs liquor store".  Why does their race matter to the public?  Why do we need to make a big fuss over whether the VP is a black woman?  Is Kamala Harris qualified and is she doing a good job?  If answer is yes or no - her blackness or female shouldn't have anything to do with her qualifications or performance.  

The only way we're going to address your last bolded statement is to STOP reacting to it.  The sooner we make it such that the skin color is not even noticed, then the sooner skin color will matter. 

Yes, to a degree I DO want someone's whiteness or blackness canceled - at least in the public's perception.  I don't want to be thought of a white person.  I'm just a person.  I don't want African-Americans thought of as AA's, I want them thought of only as "Americans".  There needs to be no qualifier involved.  If that person wants to dance around in their own home or with friends and family in their own sphere and yell "I'm black black black" - then as FKT said, have a nut.  But they should not be in anyway Identifiers of that person.  Until we get that through our thick heads, we are doomed to beat our heads against this brick wall of racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

If you think we are culturally blind, that's a shame.

We shouldn't be blind to the cultural differences that make up a multicultural nation should we?

You see, you and Jeff are projecting an image of colour blindness and cultural blindness as an image where we don't see "them" as any different than "us" 

It's a very WASPY image your projecting.

Perhaps I misunderstand, maybe you could explain.

 

I want whites to see blacks as just like them.  I want blacks to see whites as just like them.  It's as simple as that.  Has nothing to do with being "Blind" to cultural and racial differences and such - it has to do with one's reaction to that difference.  The reaction needs to be that there is no difference even if we see that there is.  

THE ONLY WAY we get there, IMHO, is if we force at least all governmental and public treatment of those differences as if they don't exist.  It has to start somewhere.  Instead, I believe our policies in the US of constantly trying to go ever further into the weeds to highlight those differences with all the options of tickboxes on forms, quest for "diversity" and such is achieving exactly the opposite of the goal of promoting inclusiveness.  I use the gov't forms of all the divisions and subdivisions of race, ethnicity, religion, etc as an example.  But those things are baked into how Americans think - so seek out the differences rather than seek out the commonality.  The more you officially further subdivide everyone down into tribes and subtribes - the further apart you keep people from coming together.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

And this is my entire point.  I can't control what one thinks when a black person or white person walks into a room.  But I can mask all the identifying things that prevent someone from being allowed to enter the room in the first place.  

When a kid applies for a Uni slot - it SHOULD NOT matter what their skin color is.  When that same kid applies for a job, it should not matter what their skin color is.  When I fill out a background check to buy a gun - I have to fill out several boxes about my race, ethnicity, whether I'm a white hispanic, black hispanic, pacific islander, etc.  What does ANY of that matter to being able to legally exercise a right?  In the news, if a man robs a store or shoots someone during a drug deal - why does their race matter?  It does here in the US......  Every news story about any crime is either "A black man robbed a liquor store" if they are black or if it's a white man, the headlines read "Man robs liquor store".  Why does their race matter to the public?  Why do we need to make a big fuss over whether the VP is a black woman?  Is Kamala Harris qualified and is she doing a good job?  If answer is yes or no - her blackness or female shouldn't have anything to do with her qualifications or performance.  

The only way we're going to address your last bolded statement is to STOP reacting to it.  The sooner we make it such that the skin color is not even noticed, then the sooner skin color will matter. 

Yes, to a degree I DO want someone's whiteness or blackness canceled - at least in the public's perception.  I don't want to be thought of a white person.  I'm just a person.  I don't want African-Americans thought of as AA's, I want them thought of only as "Americans".  There needs to be no qualifier involved.  If that person wants to dance around in their own home or with friends and family in their own sphere and yell "I'm black black black" - then as FKT said, have a nut.  But they should not be in anyway Identifiers of that person.  Until we get that through our thick heads, we are doomed to beat our heads against this brick wall of racism.

Jeff, you've been banging on about this for years.

You always manage to somehow give the impression that behind it all is a desire to not be able to give any advantage to the disadvantaged.

To remove all cultural identifiers in every instance, so everyone is the same as the majority? Who just happen to be white. 

 

Why does it always come out that way?

Problem with you're communication skills or you just being disingenuous?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Raz'r said:

Jeffreax is doing his snoopy happy dance that he derailed another thread into a "There's no racism, look at all the racism" thread.

 

Derailed????  What I'm talking about is THE VERY ESSENCE of this thread.  Try to keep up.  It's a fast moving game.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

We are, pretty much. Except for red lines that make up our society. A few examples:

You will vote if you're an adult, it's a civic responsibility. Some religious exemptions allowed but the default is - you will vote. And you will accept the outcome of an election.

It doesn't matter if some things are culturally acceptable back in your home/parent culture, if they cross one of our red lines you will NOT do them here. Slavery, indentured servitude, suttee, forced marriages, promised marriages for underage women - all banned regardless.

I could come up with others but the basic idea is there. There are limits to what is acceptable or justifiable under the umbrella of culture.

Outside that we're pretty much culturally blind - knock yourself out.

FKT

yup

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I want whites to see blacks as just like them.  I want blacks to see whites as just like them.  It's as simple as that.  Has nothing to do with being "Blind" to cultural and racial differences and such - it has to do with one's reaction to that difference.  The reaction needs to be that there is no difference even if we see that there is.  

THE ONLY WAY we get there, IMHO, is if we force at least all governmental and public treatment of those differences as if they don't exist.  It has to start somewhere.  Instead, I believe our policies in the US of constantly trying to go ever further into the weeds to highlight those differences with all the options of tickboxes on forms, quest for "diversity" and such is achieving exactly the opposite of the goal of promoting inclusiveness.  I use the gov't forms of all the divisions and subdivisions of race, ethnicity, religion, etc as an example.  But those things are baked into how Americans think - so seek out the differences rather than seek out the commonality.  The more you officially further subdivide everyone down into tribes and subtribes - the further apart you keep people from coming together.

https://news.yahoo.com/oklahoma-high-school-basketball-norman-announcers-expletives-racial-slurs-broadcast-kneel-national-anthem-protest-193448980.html

Yep, we're almost there. If only it were forbidden to have a check box on government forms, a "color blind" society would be within reach!

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I want whites to see blacks as just like them.  I want blacks to see whites as just like them.  It's as simple as that.  Has nothing to do with being "Blind" to cultural and racial differences and such - it has to do with one's reaction to that difference.  The reaction needs to be that there is no difference even if we see that there is.  

THE ONLY WAY we get there, IMHO, is if we force at least all governmental and public treatment of those differences as if they don't exist.  It has to start somewhere.  Instead, I believe our policies in the US of constantly trying to go ever further into the weeds to highlight those differences with all the options of tickboxes on forms, quest for "diversity" and such is achieving exactly the opposite of the goal of promoting inclusiveness.  I use the gov't forms of all the divisions and subdivisions of race, ethnicity, religion, etc as an example.  But those things are baked into how Americans think - so seek out the differences rather than seek out the commonality.  The more you officially further subdivide everyone down into tribes and subtribes - the further apart you keep people from coming together.

So a white guy says, "I would hire you if you weren't black." what do you do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Frankly, as FKT and I and other non Americans often point out, this whole colour thing is kind of bewildering. You are all AMERICANS.

Jesus, for once we are in agreement.  And you just made my entire point FOR me.  Thank you for that.  ^^^  THIS is what I've been trying to say all along.  We are all AMERICANS, so why do we not look at each other as that and only that?  The fact of the matter is we don't look at all Americans as American, mainly because many minority groups go to great pains to attempt to paint themselves as not just Americans.  They want to be different, and then they wonder why they are treated differently.  

The reason you and other non-Americans (FKT excluded) don't see it is because you don't live it everyday.  You essentially DO live in a color and ethnic blind society.  Is your race or skin color on your Birth Certificate?  Did you have to fill out your religion, race, ethnicity and such on your application to become an annoying, poorly informed librarian?  Did you have to fill out your race and all that other crap when you applied for a car loan or other type of loan?  Did you have to fill all that out when you applied to get into school?  Do you call yourself a "British-Australian" in casual or work related conversation and is that a choice on a form of any kind in AUS?  In America - the answer is YES to all of those and that is a way of life for us.  I just bought a house and the forms for the closing docs included all of the usual race and ethnicity questions.  

The reason it is all bewildering to you is because it is not a way of life for you.  It is here.  And it's killing us.  Literally.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

. . . The fact of the matter is we don't look at all Americans as American, mainly because many minority groups go to great pains to attempt to paint themselves as not just Americans.  They want to be different, and then they wonder why they are treated differently. . .

What, pray tell, is American versus different?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

yup

Notice you didn't respond to the concept of cancelling all cultural holidays and publicly funded icons

You see Jeff, you're putting the cart before the horse with your naïve idea of Colour/Cultural blindness.

While one group (in this instance, "white" people)  are in the power position, one cannot simply wish away prejudice by saying "we must be culturally and colour blind" 

You can only BE culturally and colour blind when there is no difference between the economic and educational demographic of "white people" and others.

And if you can't see that there are differences, you are indeed blind.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Danceswithoctopus said:

What, pray tell, is American versus different?

If we are talking about citizenship - you are either an American or you are not.  You are not Asian-American, you are an American.  You should not need or want to call yourself African-American, you are an American.  Or you're not. 

As an aside, many African immigrant communities in the US and individuals openly mock African-Americans for their self selected ID because they see them as poseurs and have no clue about true African culture or Identity.  Which is fair because they are not Africans, they are Americans.  No more than I'm a German or a Scot despite my ancestry.  

Look, I"ve said if you want to celebrate your culture and heritage in your off time among friends and a similar minded community - have at it.  But while Italian, German and Irish ancestry all celebrate and keep alive their own heritage as they see fit - there are no official designators for "German-American' or Irish-American in this country.  Now if you want to informally call yourself an "American of African descent", then I fully support you.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

The fact of the matter is we don't look at all Americans as American, mainly because many minority groups go to great pains to attempt to paint themselves as not just Americans.  They want to be different, and then they wonder why they are treated differently.  

You see, you just can't help yourself.

Does it occur to you that "white" Americans too want to be different from "other" Americans?

Difference is, that "white Americans" are in the majority, so they see that their "difference" is the desirable normal.

What you should be fighting is that the concept of difference is somehow undesirable.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

You see, you just can't help yourself.

Does it occur to you that "white" Americans too want to be different from "other" Americans?

Difference is, that "white Americans" are in the majority, so they see that their "difference" is the desirable normal.

What you should be fighting is that the concept of difference is somehow undesirable.

If that were true, then there would be a push among whites to demand to be listed as "European-Americans".  Or "White-Americans".  There is not, so you're wrong as usual.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meli, I think you are confusing the desire for official public policy that does not seek to promote or highlight differences in skin color, race or ethnicity with what people do on their own time.  I do not wish to "cancel" anything.  You are welcome to celebrate and live your unique culture on your own time.  

As for Christmas and all the other officially sanctioned holidays (bank holidays) as you would call them..... YES, I would stop the promotion and official sanction of anything that singles out one culture over another in an official venue.  I think there should be a "Winter Holiday" (in the N. Hemisphere) where all faiths and cultures could use the time to celebrate whatever they want.  The Christians can call it Christmas, the jews can call it Hanukkah, the African-wannabes can call whatever they do kwaanza, the Church of the FSM can do whatever they do and so on.  The People can celebrate it in their own way without any official form of discriminatory or exclusionary language.  I've now embraced the concept of a "holiday party" rather specific acts or traditions.  None of that prevents me from putting up a Christmas tree in my own home.                         

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

If that were true, then there would be a push among whites to demand to be listed as "European-Americans".  Or "White-Americans".  There is not, so you're wrong as usual.  

What of (for example) French-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans? A lot of people identify as such.

Perhaps Mel isn't as wrong as you think she is.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

If that were true, then there would be a push among whites to demand to be listed as "European-Americans".  Or "White-Americans".  There is not, so you're wrong as usual.  

Sigh, Why would there be such a push when the people you mention are culturally the ancestors of your white America.

Demand? Excuse me, but Americans of Greek decent sometimes culturally identify as American greek, hell, they even make funny movies about it.

There's no demand because they are respected as Ameicans of Greek or Italian origin these days,(it wasn't always the case)

When Americans of African or South American origin are accorded the same respect, you can equate the two. To do so now is disingenuous.

Greeks and Italians here often culturally identify as Australian greek or Australian Italian IN CONTEXT.

You trivialise the discussion.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Danceswithoctopus said:

What of (for example) French-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans? A lot of people identify as such.

Perhaps Mel isn't as wrong as you think she is.

As I have said repeatedly here - so what if you self-ID as anything you want on your own?  When it comes to official gov't or public policy recognition.  You are either an American, or you are not.  I don't see Irish or French-American on any forms of any sort.  Even on the census form, IIRC.  But there are a gazillion sub categories of "other than white" on pretty much any gov't form you might fill out.  

And again to be clear - I am not hung up on gov't tick boxes in and of themselves.  I'm using that as an illustration of the greater societal hang up on officially tribalizing everyone.  And we wonder why we have become so fucking tribal....... because it has been forced down our throats to think that way!

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

Greeks and Italians here often culturally identify as Australian greek or Australian Italian IN CONTEXT.

Of course they do.  And they should if that is what they want to do in their own sphere. 

But I'll type this slowly for you.........  Are any of those distinctions part of public policy or official gov't language in AUS?  Are they officially afforded specific considerations, grants, benefits, advantages, preferential hiring, college admissions, recognition, etc.  Are they specifically recruited for your Parliament because of their ancestry?  Are they referred to as ____-Australians in your public media?  Or are they just simply "Australians" in the eyes of your public policy and official public discourse?  Why or why not?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

As I have said repeatedly here - so what if you self-ID as anything you want on your own?  When it comes to official gov't or public policy recognition.  You are either an American, or you are not.  I don't see Irish or French-American on any forms of any sort.  Even on the census form, IIRC.  But there are a gazillion sub categories of "other than white" on pretty much any gov't form you might fill out.  

And again to be clear - I am not hung up on gov't tick boxes in and of themselves.  I'm using that as an illustration of the greater societal hang up on officially tribalizing everyone.  And we wonder why we have become so fucking tribal....... because it has been forced down our throats to think that way!

So a white guy says, "I would hire you if you weren't black." what do you do?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Burning Man said:

As I have said repeatedly here - so what if you self-ID as anything you want on your own?  When it comes to official gov't or public policy recognition.  You are either an American, or you are not.  I don't see Irish or French-American on any forms of any sort.  Even on the census form, IIRC.  But there are a gazillion sub categories of "other than white" on pretty much any gov't form you might fill out.  

And again to be clear - I am not hung up on gov't tick boxes in and of themselves.  I'm using that as an illustration of the greater societal hang up on officially tribalizing everyone.  And we wonder why we have become so fucking tribal....... because it has been forced down our throats to think that way!

I'll tell you what Jeff, I'll agree to remove ALL references to ALL ethnicity on official forms if it is replaced with one's economic status.

Salary

Under 20,000 PA

20-30,000 PA

30-50,000 PA

50-70,000PA 

etc

Now that would be colour blind and really useful.

One could distribute government funding on a needs basis, issue fines on an ability to pay.

Levy road tax on your ability to pay.

All beautifully colour and culturally blind.

Would that suit you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Danceswithoctopus said:
24 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

If that were true, then there would be a push among whites to demand to be listed as "European-Americans".  Or "White-Americans".  There is not, so you're wrong as usual.  

What of (for example) French-Americans, German-Americans, Italian-Americans, Russian-Americans? A lot of people identify as such.

Perhaps Mel isn't as wrong as you think she is.

There's for darn sure a lot of Irish-Americans.

There is more Irish DNA in America than there is in Ireland

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Of course they do.  And they should if that is what they want to do in their own sphere. 

But I'll type this slowly for you.........  Are any of those distinctions part of public policy or official gov't language in AUS?  Are they officially afforded specific considerations, grants, benefits, advantages, preferential hiring, college admissions, recognition, etc.  Are they specifically recruited for your Parliament because of their ancestry?  Are they referred to as ____-Australians in your public media?  Or are they just simply "Australians" in the eyes of your public policy and official public discourse?  Why or why not?

Are any of those distinctions part of public policy or official gov't language in AUS?  Are they officially afforded specific considerations, grants, benefits, advantages, preferential hiring, college admissions, recognition, etc.  Are they specifically recruited for your Parliament because of their ancestry?  Are they referred to as ____-Australians in your public media?  Or are they just simply "Australians" in the eyes of your public policy and official public discourse?  Why or why not?

Sometimes they are, sometimes not depending on the purpose.

For example, we give weight to indigenous Australians on most forms.

This is for culturally respectful policy and sometimes to give weight in educational matters BECAUSE WE RECOGNISE THEIR DISADVANTAGE.

We give weight in University applications by POSTCODE not the ethnicity of their postcode. Because we recognise that people in lower economic demographics often are disadvantaged in education.

All you want to do is remove any racial indicators of disadvantage. How does that help the disadvantaged? 

Your arguments seem a thinly disguised variation of the "people should help themselves and not expect hand ups, the cream will rise" bullshit.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

So a white guy says, "I would hire you if you weren't black." what do you do?

I'd file a racial discrimination lawsuit just like I would now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Of course they do.  And they should if that is what they want to do in their own sphere. 

But I'll type this slowly for you.........  Are any of those distinctions part of public policy or official gov't language in AUS?  Are they officially afforded specific considerations, grants, benefits, advantages, preferential hiring, college admissions, recognition, etc.  Are they specifically recruited for your Parliament because of their ancestry?  Are they referred to as ____-Australians in your public media?  Or are they just simply "Australians" in the eyes of your public policy and official public discourse?  Why or why not?

How would you respond to the situation of a "color blind" gov't and legal system, when you realized that in a country with a population that 15% ethnicity X (easily identifiable by skin color), only 3% of doctors are of that ethnicity. A major gov't contractors with > 100,000 employees in over 30 states has exactly zero employees of that ethnicity. Let's further stipulate that company was paying it's female employees half the wage of males in identical jobs.

You made it illegal to not be "color blind." Medical universties shrug and say they are picking the best students to become doctors. The corporations says they are paying a market wage to women because they are free to seek higher wages elsewhere, and they have hired every single employee by strict merit.

Have they broken your law?

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Shortforbob said:

We give weight in University applications by POSTCODE not the ethnicity of their postcode. Because we recognise that people in lower economic demographics often are disadvantaged in education.

All you want to do is remove any racial indicators of disadvantage. How does that help the disadvantaged? 

FUCK ME, we agree again!!!  What the hell is this world coming to?  Cats and dogs, sleeping together!

Yes, this is EXACTLY what I want to replace how we treat disadvantaged demographics - by socioeconomics, NOT race.  I have been saying here for years that disadvantage is class driven, not race driven.  If we did outreach and social/economic help by zipcode here rather than skin color - I'd be in violent agreement with any program that did that.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Burning Man said:

FUCK ME, we agree again!!!  What the hell is this world coming to?  Cats and dogs, sleeping together!

Yes, this is EXACTLY what I want to replace how we treat disadvantaged demographics - by socioeconomics, NOT race.  I have been saying here for years that disadvantage is class driven, not race driven.  If we did outreach and social/economic help by zipcode (or similar) here rather than skin color - I'd be in violent agreement with any program that did that.  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

FUCK ME, we agree again!!!  What the hell is this world coming to?  Cats and dogs, sleeping together!

Yes, this is EXACTLY what I want to replace how we treat disadvantaged demographics - by socioeconomics, NOT race.  I have been saying here for years that disadvantage is class driven, not race driven.  If we did outreach and social/economic help by zipcode here rather than skin color - I'd be in violent agreement with any program that did that.  

 

If that's your position it's fine with me.

Now all you have to deal with is the hiring/housing prejudice of white America.

No educational qualification or bags of money will combat that.

it still puzzles me why you always have to bang on about migrants and colour though and never start threads on socioeconomic disadvantage.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jeff

As a thought experiment, pretend a distinct group of people were subjected to being bought & sold, beaten, stripped from their family, forced to labor without profit and occasionally killed for sport or bloodlust.

Their kids were terrorized and their churches, houses and barns burned. Their grandkids were shunted to poor rent districts and forced to live amid squalor and open sewage. Their great grandkids had dogs set upon them and were beaten for standing in the wrong place, drinking from the wrong fountain, speaking to the wrong girl.

And nowadays, their schools are weak, their guns are cheap & plentiful, their dads are locked up and drugs are everywhere they turn. Government programs such as vaccines to prevent disease which affect their communities most of all go to richer, obviously different groups. They have less wealth, earn less, are more likely to be arrested, tried & convicted and be less well educated.

Do you think a privileged member of that society saying “now you don’t have to check ‘black’ on questionnaires!” is going to be helpful? Do you really think telling them they now can compete “equally” with all other members of society sounds fair to them or anyone else?

You have NO plan to correct the wrongs our society have inflicted on minorities. Heck, you can’t even begin to understand just how much oppression we have purposefully and consistently inflicted on whole segments of our population, nor how that oppression has left them less able to compete, on average, in a society based on this structural inequity. 

You cannot wish upon a star and make a single person in America less racist, or turn around the racially relevant statistics which prove our hypocrisy. Basing a policy on your pipe dream of “Colourblindness” is selfish and ignorant.

The Green New Deal is a start. Ending gerrymandering and enacting campaign finance reform is a start. Changing the way police departments are organized, equipped and trained is a start.

Specifically hiring, providing better educational opportunities and social services for those we have wronged is a start. Consider these reparations.

But singing kumbaya is a waste of time.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, phillysailor said:

Jeff

As a thought experiment, pretend a distinct group of people were subjected to being bought & sold, beaten, stripped from their family, forced to labor without profit and occasionally killed for sport or bloodlust.

Their kids were terrorized and their churches, houses and barns burned. Their grandkids were shunted to poor rent districts and forced to live amid squalor and open sewage. Their great grandkids had dogs set upon them and were beaten for standing in the wrong place, drinking from the wrong fountain, speaking to the wrong girl.

And nowadays, their schools are weak, their guns are cheap & plentiful, their dads are locked up and drugs are everywhere they turn. Government programs such as vaccines to prevent disease which affect their communities most of all go to richer, obviously different groups. They have less wealth, earn less, are more likely to be arrested, tried & convicted and be less well educated.

Do you think a privileged member of that society saying “now you don’t have to check ‘black’ on questionnaires!” is going to be helpful? Do you really think telling them they now can compete “equally” with all other members of society sounds fair to them or anyone else?

You have NO plan to correct the wrongs our society have inflicted on minorities. Heck, you can’t even begin to understand just how much oppression we have purposefully and consistently inflicted on whole segments of our population, nor how that oppression has left them less able to compete, on average, in a society based on this structural inequity. 

You cannot wish upon a star and make a single person in America less racist, or turn around the racially relevant statistics which prove our hypocrisy. Basing a policy on your pipe dream of “Colourblindness” is selfish and ignorant.

The Green New Deal is a start. Ending gerrymandering and enacting campaign finance reform is a start. Changing the way police departments are organized, equipped and trained is a start.

Specifically hiring, providing better educational opportunities and social services for those we have wronged is a start. Consider these reparations.

But singing kumbaya is a waste of time.

If only you had bothered to read my response to you.  Nevermind, you're not interested in a real discussion.  As evadent. 

Nevermind.

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

it still puzzles me why you always have to bang on about migrants and colour though and never start threads on socioeconomic disadvantage.

I've tried that line here and got nowhere. The conclusion I came to is, US citizens are utterly *incapable* of being able to examine things from such a POV. Worse, they actively resist anything that even vaguely resembles such an approach. They all want to keep defining things on a racial basis even when it leads to utter idiocies like whether Kamala Harris is black or subcontinental Indian, and plumping for black. And that people like Meaghan Markel are black when all sh is is slightly caramel coloured. It's idiotic.

I'd love disadvantage to be addressed by socioeconomic disadvantage because then we all might have some hope of making headway in addressing it and altering the root causes. The current approach is a demonstrated failure yet the only response seems to be doubling down and trying harder.

Time to try something different. Same or more money spent but differently targeted.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Burning Man said:

If only you had bothered to read my response to you.  Nevermind, you're not interested in a real discussion.  As evadent. 

Nevermind.

Perhaps you’re the one whose mind is closed. Or you dislike my premise, and get tired of me repeating it.

You never present any way to get from A to B. Just a dream of everyone as equal and your government “squashing anyone who shows racial bias”. You anonymize data and let all members of society compete equally and remove all vestiges of racial importance.

But none of your “plan” will ever happen. Minorities would have to either assimilate to near whiteness or stay subjugated. Meantime, they would continue to be oppressed based on obvious visual, speech, name and other cultural clues and there is no plan to achieve parity of opportunity. And even once stripped of racial uniqueness, they’d still encounter racist cops and HR dudes. Don’t pretend otherwise.

America is racist, and you wouldn’t work to turn that on its head. 

Their dads are still in jail, their houses & water still have lead and they’ve died more from this pandemic.

I don’t think a level playing field is fair. And your magic wand of “sameness” only works at Hogwarts.

Much of our economy was based upon their bodies before. Perhaps we have to reorient our economy to develop their success to help us now. 

I propose America invests in economic classes in a hugely inverted way, pushing $ into inner city & predominantly black schools and zip codes. We make HBCUs, Community Colleges and trade schools free and open more of them. We strip the judicial system of racial identifiers as you describe, and yet create rewards for employers and schools who make strides righting societies wrongs.

We would have to end the pattern of corporate welfare that has replaced overt class subjugation as a way to ensure our tax dollars and wealth are used to maintain the grip of the rich White man on society. This means a smaller armed forces and ending the for-profit prison systems. Ya know, socialist programs that Conservatives must hate.

We reestablish the Voting Rights Act, end gerrymandering and end the filibuster in its modern form.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hmm. Instead of “smaller” armed forces, I probably mean “less expensive”, as in fewer F35 boondoggles & purchasing systems  staffed primarily by Boyd OODA acolytes, paired with a vicious  thinning of the General ranks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Burning Man said:

If only you had bothered to read my response to you.  Nevermind, you're not interested in a real discussion.  As evadent. 

Nevermind.

I didn't see a response to PhillyS (other than this one).

I didn't see a response to this either:

How would you respond to the situation of a "color blind" gov't and legal system, when you realized that in a country with a population that 15% ethnicity X (easily identifiable by skin color), only 3% of doctors are of that ethnicity. A major gov't contractors with > 100,000 employees in over 30 states has exactly zero employees of that ethnicity. Let's further stipulate that company was paying it's female employees half the wage of males in identical jobs.

You made it illegal to not be "color blind." Medical universties shrug and say they are picking the best students to become doctors. The corporations says they are paying a market wage to women because they are free to seek higher wages elsewhere, and they have hired every single employee by strict merit.

Have they broken your law?

- DSK

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Jeff

As a thought experiment, pretend a distinct group of people were subjected to being bought & sold, beaten, stripped from their family, forced to labor without profit and occasionally killed for sport or bloodlust.

Their kids were terrorized and their churches, houses and barns burned. Their grandkids were shunted to poor rent districts and forced to live amid squalor and open sewage. Their great grandkids had dogs set upon them and were beaten for standing in the wrong place, drinking from the wrong fountain, speaking to the wrong girl.

And nowadays, their schools are weak, their guns are cheap & plentiful, their dads are locked up and drugs are everywhere they turn. Government programs such as vaccines to prevent disease which affect their communities most of all go to richer, obviously different groups. They have less wealth, earn less, are more likely to be arrested, tried & convicted and be less well educated.

Do you think a privileged member of that society saying “now you don’t have to check ‘black’ on questionnaires!” is going to be helpful? Do you really think telling them they now can compete “equally” with all other members of society sounds fair to them or anyone else?

You have NO plan to correct the wrongs our society have inflicted on minorities. Heck, you can’t even begin to understand just how much oppression we have purposefully and consistently inflicted on whole segments of our population, nor how that oppression has left them less able to compete, on average, in a society based on this structural inequity. 

You cannot wish upon a star and make a single person in America less racist, or turn around the racially relevant statistics which prove our hypocrisy. Basing a policy on your pipe dream of “Colourblindness” is selfish and ignorant.

The Green New Deal is a start. Ending gerrymandering and enacting campaign finance reform is a start. Changing the way police departments are organized, equipped and trained is a start.

Specifically hiring, providing better educational opportunities and social services for those we have wronged is a start. Consider these reparations.

But singing kumbaya is a waste of time.

There is an aspect of simple self-interest creating the situation we have to deal with today, a full understanding of that has to be part of a true accounting. 

 Are the Rs acting to stop black people from voting because they are black or because as poor people they do not vote for Rs?  The latter is entirely plausible. Was redlining based on hatred of blacks or to protect property values in other areas? The latter seems more likely there too. A black family moving in next door could half the value of one's home overnight. This was a reality of society as a whole and we can't call individuals who acted to protect their own meager personal fortunes from it racists.  

   

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, phillysailor said:

Perhaps you’re the one whose mind is closed. Or you dislike my premise, and get tired of me repeating it.

You never present any way to get from A to B. Just a dream of everyone as equal and your government “squashing anyone who shows racial bias”.

I have offered several things in my post to get from A to B.  You just chose to ignore it or disagree with it.  I'm fine with the latter, but don't jump my shit for not offering any ideas.  My entire post was a generalized plan of how to get there.  What is YOUR plan.  How do you get from A to B?

Quote

 

You anonymize data and let all members of society compete equally and remove all vestiges of racial importance.


 

Yep, pretty much.  What's wrong with that?  I want everyone to compete equally, not lower the bar to accommodate the weaker swimmers.  How is it that African immigrants who come here without two nickels to rub together seem to thrive when "african-'Muricans" can't?  Same color skin, if not typically a bit darker IME.  AND.... they often have language barriers to get over as well.  AND...... they typically are not eligible for many of the same welfare programs that home grown A-A's are by virtue of their immigration status.  Why isn't the same systemic racism holding these immigrants back just the same as A-A's?  There absolutely should be NO racial importance one way or the other.  We're all pink inside.  So why should we not remove any vestiges of it???

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I've tried that line here and got nowhere. The conclusion I came to is, US citizens are utterly *incapable* of being able to examine things from such a POV. Worse, they actively resist anything that even vaguely resembles such an approach. They all want to keep defining things on a racial basis even when it leads to utter idiocies like whether Kamala Harris is black or subcontinental Indian, and plumping for black. And that people like Meaghan Markel are black when all sh is is slightly caramel coloured. It's idiotic.

I'd love disadvantage to be addressed by socioeconomic disadvantage because then we all might have some hope of making headway in addressing it and altering the root causes. The current approach is a demonstrated failure yet the only response seems to be doubling down and trying harder.

Time to try something different. Same or more money spent but differently targeted.

FKT

And that's exactly what I've been saying here for years.  Zactly that^^.  All of it. 

Try something different.  What we're doing is not working.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark K said:

There is an aspect of simple self-interest creating the situation we have to deal with today, a full understanding of that has to be part of a true accounting. 

 Are the Rs acting to stop black people from voting because they are black or because as poor people they do not vote for Rs?  The latter is entirely plausible. Was redlining based on hatred of blacks or to protect property values in other areas? The latter seems more likely there too. A black family moving in next door could half the value of one's home overnight. This was a reality of society as a whole and we can't call individuals who acted to protect their own meager personal fortunes from it racists.  

   

I'd be willing to bet that the latter is likely true in 90%+ of the cases.  I have no way to prove it, but I doubt it had much at all to do with skin color rather than it being a purely economic calculus.  It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it outright racism either.  There are plenty of zoning laws, HOA covenants, and the like that zealously keep white trash from putting up their double-wides next to upscale housing developments.   Just saying.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I'd be willing to bet that the latter is likely true in 90%+ of the cases.  I have no way to prove it, but I doubt it had much at all to do with skin color rather than it being a purely economic calculus.  It doesn't make it right, but it doesn't make it outright racism either.  There are plenty of zoning laws, HOA covenants, and the like that zealously keep white trash from putting up their double-wides next to upscale housing developments.   Just saying.

 

But it was based entirely on skin color. Didn't matter how middle class or decent you were, the fact that you were black crashed the market value of your neighbor's house. Just saying.   

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mark K said:

There is an aspect of simple self-interest creating the situation we A black family moving in next door could half the value of one's home overnight. This was a reality of society as a whole and we can't call individuals who acted to protect their own meager personal fortunes from it racists.  

   

What's the difference between a racist enabler and a racist?

How can they not be Racist if they sell up when Black people move into the street or make regulation to prevent the same? 

I'm shocked that you would excuse it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

And that's exactly what I've been saying here for years.  Zactly that^^.  All of it. 

Try something different.  What we're doing is not working.  

I already told ya. But you didn't respond.

Sometimes data is needed so local gov etc or even insurance companies can target funds or marketing.

I'll tell you what Jeff, I'll agree to remove ALL references to ALL ethnicity on official forms if it is replaced with one's economic status.

Salary

Under 20,000 PA

20-30,000 PA

30-50,000 PA

50-70,000PA 

etc

Now that would be colour blind and really useful.

One could distribute government funding on a needs basis, issue fines on an ability to pay.

Levy road tax on your ability to pay.

All beautifully colour and culturally blind.

Would that suit you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Shortforbob said:

What's the difference between a racist enabler and a racist?

How can they not be Racist if they sell up when Black people move into the street or make regulation to prevent the same? 

I'm shocked that you would excuse it.

Probably because I've lived it. My dad was half black half Samoan. We lived next to some fine folks who's net worth we most definitely damaged. The funny thing was when we first moved in our house became the only one that held its value, because if they could get us out of there... 

  There is a difference between people trying to protect their assets and racists, so applying the same label to both is misleading.   

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

How would you respond to the situation of a "color blind" gov't and legal system, when you realized that in a country with a population that 15% ethnicity X (easily identifiable by skin color), only 3% of doctors are of that ethnicity. 

Unfortunately, this probably takes generational change.

Here in Aus, we have seen migration demographics change over time. In the 50s, there was an influx of Southern Europeans who got a hard time. Now, baklava and pasta are just staples of Aus diet, and you are likely to hear a skip call a yellow skinned person "malacca".

In the 70s there were a lot of Vietnamese, who got a hard time. Now, I have a self described banana ( yellow on the outside, white on the inside) work mate ask a Persian where to go for Pho. 

In the 50s, your doctor was a white male. In the 70s, white or Mediterranean. By the 2000s, GPs of either sex, and representing the racial mix of the 70s. (ie, more European, but growing numbers of Asians, Indians, rare black Africans). No one cares if their neighbour is Indian or Greek descent anymore.

The point I'm trying to make with these examples is: without government cementing the differences in place, folks get integrated in the second generation. Both the immigrants become part of the norm, and parts of their culture become part of everyone's culture. 

 

Oh, if you are going to direct spending based on economic status, then you should focus on wealth / ability to spend, rather than income. Someone in the suburbs trying to raise a family on $120k a year with a $600k mortgage is likely more in need than someone with a wholey owned million dollar townhouse in an inner suburb on $50k a year.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mark K said:

Probably because I've lived it. My dad was half black half Samoan. We lived next to some fine folks who's net worth we most definitely damaged. The funny thing was when we first moved in our house became the only one that held its value, because if they could get us out of there... 

  There is a difference between people trying to protect their assets and racists, so applying the same label to both is misleading.   

 

I'm sorry, I can't get my head around that.

If I moved house because a black family moved in next door, I'd have 25 reporters on my doorstep.

Saying "i'm not racist, I'm just protecting my assets" would invoke howls of laughter/anger.

That's like saying slave owners were not racist, simply protecting their assets.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Se7en said:

Unfortunately, this probably takes generational change.

Here in Aus, we have seen migration demographics change over time. In the 50s, there was an influx of Southern Europeans who got a hard time. Now, baklava and pasta are just staples of Aus diet, and you are likely to hear a skip call a yellow skinned person "malacca".

In the 70s there were a lot of Vietnamese, who got a hard time. Now, I have a self described banana ( yellow on the outside, white on the inside) work mate ask a Persian where to go for Pho. 

In the 50s, your doctor was a white male. In the 70s, white or Mediterranean. By the 2000s, GPs of either sex, and representing the racial mix of the 70s. (ie, more European, but growing numbers of Asians, Indians, rare black Africans). No one cares if their neighbour is Indian or Greek descent anymore.

The point I'm trying to make with these examples is: without government cementing the differences in place, folks get integrated in the second generation. Both the immigrants become part of the norm, and parts of their culture become part of everyone's culture. 

 

Oh, if you are going to direct spending based on economic status, then you should focus on wealth / ability to spend, rather than income. Someone in the suburbs trying to raise a family on $120k a year with a $600k mortgage is likely more in need than someone with a wholey owned million dollar townhouse in an inner suburb on $50k a year.

I get what you're trying to demonstrate but the way you're expressing those ideas are shockingly racist.

Banana? really?

and the repayments on a $600,000 at 3% are $2800 PM over 25 years so somehow I don't think so.

(and my income is less than $40K pa smartarse)

But precisely, if one distributed school funding on a needs basis by postcode, in my area we should get nothing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Se7en said:

Unfortunately, this probably takes generational change.

Here in Aus, we have seen migration demographics change over time. In the 50s, there was an influx of Southern Europeans who got a hard time. Now, baklava and pasta are just staples of Aus diet, and you are likely to hear a skip call a yellow skinned person "malacca".

In the 70s there were a lot of Vietnamese, who got a hard time. Now, I have a self described banana ( yellow on the outside, white on the inside) work mate ask a Persian where to go for Pho. 

In the 50s, your doctor was a white male. In the 70s, white or Mediterranean. By the 2000s, GPs of either sex, and representing the racial mix of the 70s. (ie, more European, but growing numbers of Asians, Indians, rare black Africans). No one cares if their neighbour is Indian or Greek descent anymore.

The point I'm trying to make with these examples is: without government cementing the differences in place, folks get integrated in the second generation. Both the immigrants become part of the norm, and parts of their culture become part of everyone's culture. 

 

Oh, if you are going to direct spending based on economic status, then you should focus on wealth / ability to spend, rather than income. Someone in the suburbs trying to raise a family on $120k a year with a $600k mortgage is likely more in need than someone with a wholly owned million dollar townhouse in an inner suburb on $50k a year.

I have no doubt that progress has been slow but steady in Australia and most countries, for that matter. In the USA, it seems to cycle in place. Here we have a bunch of historically black universities, although the first black enrollees at Harvard (I picked that one because it's probably the best known US uni) were admitted in the 1860s.

The first black medical doctors in the USA rec'd degrees from European unis... better educated than white doctors, which at the time was regulated by the states and very erratic; medical education in the US was not organized around a systematic education in the biological sciences until around 1910.

I have the honor of having been being friends with the first black doctor at Duke; he was hired in the 1960s.

That historical gap is shameful enough.

Here it is, more than 50 years later, and there is only the very slightest uptick in the number of black doctors graduating from US medical schools.

Why is that?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2021 at 7:41 PM, Burning Man said:

I want

I was hoping to find the pot of gold under the rainbow.

People were treated as cattle.  Their votes continue to be suppressed.  The Supreme Court is complicit.

If you want a way forward, ask THEM how.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I'm sorry, I can't get my head around that.

If I moved house because a black family moved in next door, I'd have 25 reporters on my doorstep.

Saying "i'm not racist, I'm just protecting my assets" would invoke howls of laughter/anger.

That's like saying slave owners were not racist, simply protecting their assets.

On a certain level, you are correct. The slave owners thought of the slaves as property, Much like a modern farmer thinks of his tractors as property. You buy them, you maintain them so that they can work properly, you can trade them in on a newer model....

 The thing was, that a slave not only worked like a tractor, but properly maintained, could make more tractors..... Little lawn mowers, weed wackers..... Which eventually became bigger field tractors. Not only that, but if you had a good breeder tractor, you got to fuck it every time you felt the urge... Try that with a Kubota, or John Deere. And often enough, your fucking the tractor would produce another little tractor, or a dishwasher, or kitchenaid..... And in about 12 years, you could fuck the dishwasher, and make more little tractors, or dishwashers.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

I get what you're trying to demonstrate but the way you're expressing those ideas are shockingly racist.

Banana? really?

and the repayments on a $600,000 at 3% are $2800 PM over 25 years so somehow I don't think so.

 

Other than the banana label ( which is how a couple of work mates describe themselves, and I thought was pretty funny when I heard it recently) how was what I said racist?

I am definitely prejudiced, but don't think many folk would say that race causes my prejudice.

The 2800 is after tax remember, so takes 4200 of income. Or $50k a year. The point being that the $120k salary is only $70k after paying for the house, so existing wealth has a big impact on being able to live. And considering income only is too simplistic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I have offered several things in my post to get from A to B.  You just chose to ignore it or disagree with it.  I'm fine with the latter, but don't jump my shit for not offering any ideas.  My entire post was a generalized plan of how to get there.  What is YOUR plan.  How do you get from A to B?

No, you haven't offered anything, and your effort to deflect on me is about to blow up in your face.

I went back and read your post (No post#s anymore, but it was at 4:08pm yesterday) and there is zero policy initiatives except to strip all governmental data of race info. This would effectively relieve the government from having to report how badly they are failing to improve significant metrics. 

If you don't measure it, you can't change it. You are arguing not to measure racial impact on education, wealth, wages, voting, homelessness, drug use, incarceration, unemployment and disease and death, so you have zero desire, intention or expectation of improving those metrics. You'd just rather not know.

You argue we should admit that no amount of payment can make up for past wrongs, so we should just say "sorry" and move on. Your only other proposal is to stop "reverse racism", so you would get rid of any method of improving circumstances for those who've been oppressed. And while doing so you insult SJWs who want to see and experience change, something you call "cancel culture" and "one-sided PC culture".

Why don't you point out where and how I'm wrong, but its not in that post.

AND you've told blacks to shut up about the issue, already.

I, on the other hand, wrote plenty of ways to get from A to B, you just have your blinders on.

23 hours ago, phillysailor said:

The Green New Deal is a start. Ending gerrymandering and enacting campaign finance reform is a start. Changing the way police departments are organized, equipped and trained is a start.

Specifically hiring, providing better educational opportunities and social services for those we have wronged is a start. Consider these reparations.

17 hours ago, phillysailor said:

I propose America invests in economic classes in a hugely inverted way, pushing $ into inner city & predominantly black schools and zip codes. We make HBCUs, Community Colleges and trade schools free and open more of them. We strip the judicial system of racial identifiers as you describe, and yet create rewards for employers and schools who make strides righting societies wrongs.

We would have to end the pattern of corporate welfare that has replaced overt class subjugation as a way to ensure our tax dollars and wealth are used to maintain the grip of the rich White man on society. This means a smaller armed forces and ending the for-profit prison systems. Ya know, socialist programs that Conservatives must hate.

We reestablish the Voting Rights Act, end gerrymandering and end the filibuster in its modern form.

As a caveat to anyone actually reading this for comprehension and discussion, I'd like to qualify what I mean about stripping race data from the judicial system; reducing the impact race has on prosecution and sentencing phases in order to achieve more uniform or standardized outcomes.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2021 at 3:19 PM, Burning Man said:

WHAAAAT????  WTF are you talking about Willis?  I'm curious what exactly you think MY version of colorblindness is.  I do not get the impression that you or the majority here or SJWs in the wild think that ANY version of colorblindness is a good thing.  I'm happy to be corrected on that, but please provide details as to your reasoning, if you don't mind.  

And what exactly do you think I'm attempting to "deflect & redirect" from/to?  I'm not following you at all.  I think I've been pretty clear and very outspoken about how I feel and what I would like to happen wrt racial issues.  I don't pull my punches nor do I play coy cat and mouse games like so many others here do.  If you want to know what I'm trying to say or how I think, just ask me.  If you don't like my bluntness and lack of PC subtlety, then I'm sorry.  But this is me.  

Would an analogy help? 

Guy cheats on his wife.  Gets caught, confesses, whatever.  Aside from breaking up, there's two paths open to them:

One option is that they talk it out, repeatedly, he goes to therapy & figures out WTF's wrong with him, whatever: they work through it.  Five years down the line, their relationship is, if anything, on even more solid ground than it was before.  

The other option is that they never talk about it, basically just pretend it didn't happen.  Five years down the line, they resent each other so much that it's uncomfortable to even visit them. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On 3/13/2021 at 1:28 AM, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I've tried that line here and got nowhere. The conclusion I came to is, US citizens are utterly *incapable* of being able to examine things from such a POV. Worse, they actively resist anything that even vaguely resembles such an approach. They all want to keep defining things on a racial basis even when it leads to utter idiocies like whether Kamala Harris is black or subcontinental Indian, and plumping for black. And that people like Meaghan Markel are black when all sh is is slightly caramel coloured. It's idiotic.

Barking up the wrong tree, bro.  No wonder it makes no sense to you. 

In American parlance, "Black" is has little to do with skin color.  It's about being descended from property instead of people.

 

8 hours ago, Shortforbob said:

What's the difference between a racist enabler and a racist?

How can they not be Racist if they sell up when Black people move into the street or make regulation to prevent the same? 

I'm shocked that you would excuse it.

He's not excusing anything.  He's just adding another dimension.  De-over-simplifying.  It's what Mark does...