Debates
16 Aug 22
17 Aug 22
@averagejoe1 saidWhether it's the KKK or a liberal redistributionist, when one advocates allocating rights based on someone's race, they are a racist in the truest, most basic and most literal sense of the word. It should always be illegal and morally objectionable and honestly there should be nothing to discuss on this issue.
This really is all nutty, you are right.
But, this question ...There are about 9300 shades of black, et al, et al, how do you know what is what? What color what race was the cretin who shot all the children in Austin? How do you know? If they say to fire black people, in your premise, how do you determine who is black, are a little bit black, ,or somewhere in the mi ...[text shortened]... just don't get all this race conversation , never have. Now Culture?!?!?!?? Now That's a problem.
17 Aug 22
@quackquack said"Liberal Redistributionist"". !! Great one QQ
Whether it's the KKK or a liberal redistributionist, when one advocates allocating rights based on someone's race, they are a racist in the truest, most basic and most literal sense of the word. It should always be illegal and morally objectionable and honestly there should be nothing to discuss on this issue.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
17 Aug 22
@averagejoe1 saidWe went through this yesterday, with the other racist,
Can you fellers weigh in on this? I assume that we would all be against it???
https://freebeacon.com/latest-news/minnesota-public-schools-changes-rules-to-lay-off-white-teachers-before-minority-teachers/
.....do try and keep up.
''Blatant Racism By State School Union and Distr...''
@quackquack saidYou're deliberately avoiding to acknowledge 2 key things:
It certainly is racism. If we have a vote and we decide that blacks lose their job and then you (a black person) lose your job you absolutely have a claim of racism.
Similarly, if we have a vote on the same issue and we decided that white people lose their job and then you (white person) lose your job you 100% have the same claim of racism.
All other facts including mo ...[text shortened]... mpletely irrelevant and losing your rights because of race should indisputably always be actionable.
1) This is a majority white union deciding to help nonwhites
2) They are doing this to fix racist practices that lead to them being majority white.
All your posts dance around these two key factors.
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
17 Aug 22
@quackquack saidIs that the reason that Black Slaves were
Our founding fathers were very concern about the majority imposing taking away the rights of smaller groups even if they voted on things. That is why we have the Bill of Rights. It is racism if you are losing your job because of you race and whether others agreed on this arrangement is completely irrelevant.
counted as 3/5's(?) a person?
- Joined
- 27 Sep 06
- Moves
- 251103
17 Aug 22
@quackquack saidWould you prefer,
Whether it's the KKK or a liberal redistributionist, when one advocates allocating rights based on someone's race, they are a racist in the truest, most basic and most literal sense of the word. It should always be illegal and morally objectionable and honestly there should be nothing to discuss on this issue.
'Revisionist History?'
17 Aug 22
@vivify saidYour defense of blatant race based discrimination is shocking. Are you saying if the majority voted to repeal the 13th Amendment that it would be OK? Apparently majority race based rule is acceptable only if you personally approve of the result.
You're deliberately avoiding to acknowledge 2 key things:
1) This is a majority white union deciding to help nonwhites
2) They are doing this to fix racist practices that lead to them being majority white.
All your posts dance around these two key factors.
Do you think any method to fix any problem is justified? A person who loses their job because of their race has a cause of action and it's shocking that anyway would think otherwise. To create a new injustice because you are bothered by an old one is indefensible.
@quackquack saidMan, your reading comprehension sucks.
Your defense of blatant race based discrimination is shocking. Are you saying if the majority voted to repeal the 13th Amendment that it would be OK? Apparently majority race based rule is acceptable only if you personally approve of the result.
If Race X says Race Z must give up seats on a bus for them, that's racist.
If Race X *volunteers* to give up their seats in order to make up for their own discrimination against Race Z, that's not racist.
It can't be any simpler.
@quackquack saidYou're an idiot. Both sides concede that racial discrimination in the past caused whites to be hired rather than blacks; the idea that blacks eventually hired should be the first dismissed because they lack seniority because of the racial discrimination would be shockingly unjust. That whites hired because of the discrimination be the first to be dismissed if necessary is only sensible and fair. Otherwise, you are validating the illegal policy of racial discrimination.
Your defense of blatant race based discrimination is shocking. Are you saying if the majority voted to repeal the 13th Amendment that it would be OK? Apparently majority race based rule is acceptable only if you personally approve of the result.
Do you think any method to fix any problem is justified? A person who loses their job because of their race has a cause of ...[text shortened]... think otherwise. To create a new injustice because you are bothered by an old one is indefensible.
17 Aug 22
@vivify saidYour analogies improving
Man, your reading comprehension is lacking.
If Race X says Race Z must give up their seat on a bus for them, that's racist.
If race X *volunteers* to give up their seats in order to make up for their own discrimination against Race Z, that was that's not racist.
It can't be any simpler.
17 Aug 22
@no1marauder saidInstead of calling me an idiot, realize that you are wrong. A person is being fired and it because of their race. That is textbook discrimination and is intolerable on every level. Using your logic the white person who is fired now, should have a future cause of action because if he were black he would have kept his job.
You're an idiot. Both sides concede that racial discrimination in the past caused whites to be hired rather than blacks; the idea that blacks eventually hired should be the first dismissed because they lack seniority because of the racial discrimination would be shockingly unjust. That whites hired because of the discrimination be the first to be dismissed if ne ...[text shortened]... s only sensible and fair. Otherwise, you are validating the illegal policy of racial discrimination.
17 Aug 22
@quackquack saidLayoffs are not the same as firings
Instead of calling me an idiot, realize that you are wrong. A person is being fired and it because of their race. That is textbook discrimination and is intolerable on every level. Using your logic the white person who is fired now, should have a future cause of action because if he were black he would have kept his job.
17 Aug 22
@no1marauder saidIf there is a cause of action for discrimination, it should be against the person who discriminated. Let the victim prove it and punish the person who violated another rights. Don't fire some random white guy and don't hire some random black guy. You actually need to (1) prove a specific act of discrimination and (2) punish the person who actually committed a wrongful act. Just alleging wrongs without proof and firing a white guy because a different white guy might have done something wrong and hiring a black guy because a different black guy at a different time may or may not have been wronged is moronic.
"Well Bill we didn't hire you back then because you were black; we hired Jim. Now we have to dismiss some people and you have to go because Jim has more seniority."
Is anyone really going to argue that isn't manifestly unfair?
17 Aug 22
@athousandyoung saidThe relevant thing is that some white guy lost his job because of his skin color. How does it matter whether it is a layoff or a firing?
Layoffs are not the same as firings