What is this??

@vivify said
Man, your reading comprehension sucks.

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.

Just because someone agrees to take away your rights, does not mean you agreed or consented in any way. The person who lost their job because he was white did not volunteer to lose their job. Using your logic couldn't you argue that Americans agreed that blacks should count as 3/5 of a person?

@quackquack said
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.

So Bill should be laid off instead of Jim because Bill wasn't hired first because of racism? Of course, that validates the original illegal discrimination.

Bill is a victim of racial discrimination and he should not be penalized because of it. That is fundamentally unfair.

@quackquack said
Just because someone agrees to take away your rights, does not mean you agreed or consented in any way. The person who lost their job because he was white did not volunteer to lose their job. Using your logic couldn't you argue that Americans agreed that blacks should count as 3/5 of a person?

What "right"? The "right" to benefit from illegal racial discrimination?

@quackquack said
The relevant thing is that some white guy lost his job because of his skin color.

If the white guy who lost his job agreed to it, it's not racism.

@no1marauder said
What "right"? The "right" to benefit from illegal racial discrimination?

The right be treated fairly. No one should lose a job because you lump all white guys in one category. Prove a discriminatory act and punish the perpetrator. Don't assume discrimination and punish any white guy.

@quackquack said
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.

So, what you mean to say is that thinking in black and white is okay as long as you're white, and get the benefit of racist thinking. Even the skewed playing field and you guys go nuts. Are you thinking whites earned that benefit so they shouldn't take it away?

Your argument is that what they're doing now is unfair to whites, but zero acknowledgement that what they did before to blacks was unfair.

In almost every case, whites screaming "racism" are being racist. But they never acknowledge that racism.

@vivify said
If the white guy who lost his job agreed to it, it's not racism.

If it wasn't a unanimous vote so everyone did not agree.

@quackquack said
If 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 ...[text shortened]... k guy because a different black guy at a different time may or may not have been wronged is moronic.

So, in other words, you want to keep the mechanisms that caused the initial racism in place. Because whites benefited from that. And you are arguing that that is not racist at all.

@suzianne said
So, what you mean to say is that thinking in black and white is okay as long as you're white, and get the benefit of racist thinking. Even the skewed playing field and you guys go nuts. Are you thinking whites earned that benefit so they shouldn't take it away?

Your argument is that what they're doing now is unfair to whites, but zero acknowledgement that what th ...[text shortened]... ry case, whites screaming "racism" are being racist. But they never acknowledge that racism.

Our legal system is very clear. If you are the victim of discrimination prove a specific act, punish the person who committed the act and compensate the victim. If you can't prove the act then there is no compensation. Don't assume discrimination, don't reward a random black person who wasn't discriminated against and don't punish a guy because he looks like someone who allege (but did not prove) discriminated.

@quackquack said
The right be treated fairly. No one should lose a job because you lump all white guys in one category. Prove a discriminatory act and punish the perpetrator. Don't assume discrimination and punish any white guy.

The racial discrimination is already conceded by both sides. So Jim, the beneficiary of illegal racial discrimination, is hardly being treated unfairly because Bill, the victim of illegal racial discrimination, isn't being penalized again by it. Jim is in exactly the same position he would have been if there had been no illegal racial discrimination in the first place.

@suzianne said
So, in other words, you want to keep the mechanisms that caused the initial racism in place. Because whites benefited from that. And you are arguing that that is not racist at all.

You want to fire a guy because he is white. Are you arguing that isn't racist?

You need to stop looking at race and either prove a wrong doing and compensate for that or find a remedy that does not violate someone's rights.

@quackquack said
You want to fire a guy because he is white. Are you arguing that isn't racist?

You need to stop looking at race and either prove a wrong doing and compensate for that or find a remedy that does not violate someone's rights.

The wrong is already conceded by both sides. You want the effect of that wrong to be protected and the wrong validated.

That's not how a just and fair system works.

@no1marauder said
The racial discrimination is already conceded by both sides. So Jim, the beneficiary of illegal racial discrimination, is hardly being treated unfairly because Bill, the victim of illegal racial discrimination, isn't being penalized again by it. Jim is in exactly the same position he would have been if there had been no illegal racial discrimination in the first place.

You have no idea whether Jim specifically was the beneficiary of racial discrimination or Bill specifically was the victim and there is no allegation that Jim ever was discriminatory in any way. There is no justification for embedding improper things like race in hiring and firing decision. Furthermore it is ridiculous to think some should be fired or promoted because the share the skin color of someone else who we don't or do like.

@no1marauder said
The wrong is already conceded by both sides. You want the effect of that wrong to be protected and the wrong validated.

That's not how a just and fair system works.

Nothing is conceded. Workers do not consent to be fired because of their race any more than black people consented to be counted as 3/5 of a person.

@quackquack said
You have no idea whether Jim specifically was the beneficiary of racial discrimination or Bill specifically was the victim and there is no allegation that Jim ever was discriminatory in any way. There is no justification for embedding improper things like race in hiring and firing decision. Furthermore it is ridiculous to think some should be fired or promoted because the share the skin color of someone else who we don't or do like.

This is ridiculous and justifies me calling you an idiot.

Race was already made a factor in hiring as both sides concede. It illegally caused blacks to be victimized and whites to benefit. Layoffs now based on seniority would further penalize blacks because of the racial discrimination and benefit whites because of the racial discrimination.

That you won't concede it makes you either an apologist for racial discrimination or an idiot.

Take your pick.