328d
@wajoma saidPretending that discrimination doesn't exist and nothing needs to be done about it is your DreamWorld fantasy.
We're getting there No.1, keep trying, the key here is your use of the word 'individuals' for which I commend you, here're ⭐⭐.
What happens to individuals does not happen to all individuals of a particular race, nor is it perpetrated by all persons of another race, so there's no possible way of addressing what happened to person 'A', an individual, through the racism which ...[text shortened]... al lowered standards (because they're inferior ???) or quotas.
We made some small progress today.
No matter how many times you incorrectly use the word racism doesn't mean what you and the other right wingers claim. It's an example of doublethink to pretend that programs that remedy the effects of pernicious discrimination based on racism are based on any type of racist beliefs. AA merely recognizes that discrimination disadvantages individuals in certain groups and takes the effects of such discrimination into account.
It's a rational, realistic approach which evaluates qualifications based on all factors, not ignoring the effects of discrimination.
You've made no progress with your disingenuous posting here since we both know you oppose any civil rights laws or remedies and think employers and others should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race if they feel like it
@metal-brain saidYou're just making s88t up now. You have no idea how many Blacks are perfectly aware of this well covered brouhaha from almost 50 years ago. It did not effect the 2020 election despite your bleating about it and the chances it will effect this election is near zero.
Are you lying to me or yourself?
99% of all Americans have no idea Biden said racial jungle. If Black people knew they would not vote for Biden and you know it. I am still waiting for the words "racial jungle" to be said on any Sunday political talk show. Why have they never allowed anyone on to say it? If it is not a conspiracy of silence explain why no republican eve ...[text shortened]... d from the Sunday political talk shows? Why have those words never been uttered on the TV news ever?
It's hardly surprising that comments relating to the controversy regarding mandatory busing for the purposes of integration aren't front and center of our present political discourse; the programs simply don't exist any more and haven't for decades.
328d
@no1marauder saidDo you?
You're just making s88t up now. You have no idea how many Blacks are perfectly aware of this well covered brouhaha from almost 50 years ago. It did not effect the 2020 election despite your bleating about it and the chances it will effect this election is near zero.
It's hardly surprising that comments relating to the controversy regarding mandatory busing for the purp ...[text shortened]... f our present political discourse; the programs simply don't exist any more and haven't for decades.
328d
@AverageJoe1
You know nothing about foreign governments. Putin dancing in the streets wasn't meant literally, Putin welcomes the idea of another Trump presidency because Trump will hand Ukraine to Putin on a silver platter and you can't see any problem with that.
China will be looking at that very closely also, if Trump caves on Ukraine the Chinese will go, so Trump is that weak, we can attack Taiwan now.
All because of people like you who can't see beyond their money and our southern border as if those two are the defining problem in our entire civilization.
Of course there is a problem at the border, several million have been sent back and it is a crisis but not THE crisis. I just wish folks like you can see the danger in another Trump presidency. You seem to think Trump is just joking when he says immigrants poisons the blood of the people or I will be a dictator on day one. You see no hypocrisy in the fact he puts down immigrants but his own family are immigrants? As well as his wife?
Are you totally ignoring what Trump has said recently? Do you seriously think he is joking? Serious question.
328d
@no1marauder saidA correction: use of the word "racism" to describe remedial actions that actually reduce the effects of racist discrimination would be more accurately termed "doublespeak" rather than "doublethink".
Pretending that discrimination doesn't exist and nothing needs to be done about it is your DreamWorld fantasy.
No matter how many times you incorrectly use the word racism doesn't mean what you and the other right wingers claim. It's an example of doublethink to pretend that programs that remedy the effects of pernicious discrimination based on racism are based on any ...[text shortened]... ink employers and others should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race if they feel like it
328d
@no1marauder said"Pretending that discrimination..."
Pretending that discrimination doesn't exist and nothing needs to be done about it is your DreamWorld fantasy.
No matter how many times you incorrectly use the word racism doesn't mean what you and the other right wingers claim. It's an example of doublethink to pretend that programs that remedy the effects of pernicious discrimination based on racism are based on any ...[text shortened]... ink employers and others should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race if they feel like it
This is sunstroker level misrepresentation, I have never said this, racism exists, discrimination exists, FFS if I were to deny discrimination I would have to close my eyes to affirmative action, and in NZ an electoral roll reserved for persons of a selected race.
Point 1/ Your definition stating racism is a belief is insufficient, without physical action it requires thought police and mind reading. As an example kelly osbournes clanger.
KO said:
"If you kick every Latino out of this country, then who is going to be cleaning your toilet, Donald Trump?”
So that is KO's belief, and that's all it is until she voices that belief, until she takes action. A belief is nothing but a thought without action, I don't doubt you're a 1st amendment type guy until it comes to speech you don't like. That is why the definition 'to treat someone differently based on their race' is the more full and correct definition than your 'belief' definition. I can debunk a dictionary definition without devolving to the dictionary def of 'dictionary'. And indeed the subject of this thread, sleepy not wanting to live in a racial jungle, no big deal, black people don't want to live in black neighborhoods.
But the killer blow to the head of the nail was your use of the word 'individual' that's the seed planted, it will grow. Of course the first reaction was to lash back with, firstly a major misrepresentation then diversion, hey that's the nature of the place that is RHP debates board.
328d
@no1marauder saidA correction: use of the word "racism" to describe remedial actions that actually reduce the effects of racist discrimination would be more accurately termed 'discrimination on the basis of race'.
A correction: use of the word "racism" to describe remedial actions that actually reduce the effects of racist discrimination would be more accurately termed "doublespeak" rather than "doublethink".
You see the hole you're digging for yourself?
328d
@wajoma saidNo, what you did is doublespeak i.e. reversing the definition of a word for ideological and propaganda purposes.
"Pretending that discrimination..."
This is sunstroker level misrepresentation, I have never said this, racism exists, discrimination exists, FFS if I were to deny discrimination I would have to close my eyes to affirmative action, and in NZ an electoral roll reserved for persons of a selected race.
Point 1/ Your definition stating racism is a belief is insufficient, wit ...[text shortened]... ajor misrepresentation then diversion, hey that's the nature of the place that is RHP debates board.
You're not fooling anyone except, perhaps yourself, by doing so.
328d
@wajoma saidNo, I don't.
A correction: use of the word "racism" to describe remedial actions that actually reduce the effects of racist discrimination would be more accurately termed 'discrimination on the basis of race'.
You see the hole you're digging for yourself?
Your sophistry doesn't change the reality that remedial actions designed to reduce the pernicious effects of discrimination based on racism is the opposite of real racism.
328d
@no1marauder saidUh oh, and so the cracks appear. A slip no doubt, like your use of the word 'individuals' but a telling one.
No, I don't.
Your sophistry doesn't change the reality that remedial actions designed to reduce the pernicious effects of discrimination based on racism is the opposite of real racism.
"...of real racism"
I'll say no more because you're in face saving mode at any cost even at the expense of being honest. All you have now is your rote robot replies.
328d
@wajoma saidIt would also be more honest if you would reiterate your oft-stated opposition to any laws restricting invidious discrimination by private actors in business, hiring, etc. etc. etc.
"Pretending that discrimination..."
This is sunstroker level misrepresentation, I have never said this, racism exists, discrimination exists, FFS if I were to deny discrimination I would have to close my eyes to affirmative action, and in NZ an electoral roll reserved for persons of a selected race.
Point 1/ Your definition stating racism is a belief is insufficient, wit ...[text shortened]... ajor misrepresentation then diversion, hey that's the nature of the place that is RHP debates board.
328d
@wajoma saidNo slip at all though perhaps I should have put " " over your concocted definition of the word "racism" .
Uh oh, and so the cracks appear. A slip no doubt, like your use of the word 'individuals' but a telling one.
"...of real racism"
I'll say no more because you're in face saving mode at any cost even at the expense of being honest. All you have now is your rote robot replies.
@no1marauder saidThe employee/employer relationship is a reciprocal voluntary exchange of value for value, so just as any employee can decide who they work for/not work for, any employer has the same right. This means employees and employers are free to discriminate in any way, no matter how irrational, they choose: shoes too big, ginger hair, buck teeth, sex, retard gimp/non-retard gimp, anything. And to a large degree this continues to happen anyway despite goobermint attempts at interference. When employers/employees discriminate on an irrational basis they themselves are the losers.
It would also be more honest if you would reiterate your oft-stated opposition to any laws restricting invidious discrimination by private actors in business, hiring, etc. etc. etc.
Question: Not sure your views on prostitution, should clients and indeed prostitutes be allowed to discriminate as they choose.
327d
@no1marauder
If I were to assert that African Americans are more likely to have criminal tendencies than Africans because African rulers sold their criminals into slavery would that be racism?
327d
@metal-brain saidYes.
@no1marauder
If I were to assert that African Americans are more likely to have criminal tendencies than Africans because African rulers sold their criminals into slavery would that be racism?