We are all equal again, right?

[*pally*]

(07-12-2023, 01:04 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Mixed people had no choice. One-drop rule[one drop of black blood, then you are black] created by the Old Democrats.

The law was written by conservatives, not liberals regardless of party. 

 Whites with 1/16th Indian blood were allowed to claim to be white due to what is called the Pocohantas Rule.  It was fashionable at the time to claim to be a descendant of her.  They calculated out the generations from her time to the time of the law to get to that 1/16th.  Even then racists made exceptions for their own circumstances

[BengalYankee]

(07-12-2023, 01:52 PM)pally Wrote: Never said
The law was written by conservatives, not liberals regardless of party. 

 Whites with 1/16th Indian blood were allowed to claim to be white due to what is called the Pocohantas Rule.  It was fashionable at the time to claim to be a descendant of her.  They calculated out the generations from her time to the time of the law to get to that 1/16th.  Even then racists made exceptions for their own circumstances

Never mentioned liberals or conservatives. 

I did mention OLD DEMOCRATS as in Democrats from yesteryear. As if I said OLD REPUBLICANS freed the slaves. 

[*michaelsean*]

(07-12-2023, 01:04 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Mixed people had no choice. One-drop rule[one drop of black blood, then you are black] created by the Old Democrats.

I'm talking more about  today.

[*michaelsean*]

(07-12-2023, 01:52 PM)pally Wrote: The law was written by conservatives, not liberals regardless of party. 

 Whites with 1/16th Indian blood were allowed to claim to be white due to what is called the Pocohantas Rule.  It was fashionable at the time to claim to be a descendant of her.  They calculated out the generations from her time to the time of the law to get to that 1/16th.  Even then racists made exceptions for their own circumstances

Good lord take a breather.

[HarleyDog]

(07-12-2023, 01:04 PM)BengalYankee Wrote: Mixed people had no choice. One-drop rule[one drop of black blood, then you are black] created by the Old Democrats.

This looks like something from the movie, "The Jerk!"

[BengalYankee]

(07-12-2023, 05:16 PM)michaelsean Wrote: I'm talking more about  today.

I am also talking about today.

In most "mixed race" countries for example the Dominican Republic most people who are mixed there would be called black here and white there.

‘Indio’ skin color reveals Dominicans’ latent racism: poll (dominicantoday.com)

In our country the One-drop rule was instilled because many "mixed race" people would describe them as white[passing] or Mulatto. 
So many people called themselves as Mulatto's, that there were more Mulatto's than Blacks. 

The Old Democrats wanted to stop this so they came up with the One-drop rule, so no more Mulatto's, if you have One-drop black, then you are Black.

    

Again, this rule did not occur in Brazil, Dominican Republic, Cuba, Haiti, etc. Ergo, many people refuse to call themselves other than "mixed race" or White.

Check out time stamp 3:54-3:58 from below's video.


The Mulattos & Zambos of the Americas Part 1| Caribbean, Central/South America, United States - YouTube

[GMDino]

Folks the race problem has been solved. 

Jesse Waters has an easy, multi-step plan for black people.

No more worries! 

Jesse Watters - A white man talks down to Black people.

Red-lining prevented generations of Black families from owning homes.

GA and AL already have large Black communities

Marriage? Watters already has one divorce under his belt.

Jesus? There are lots of Black Christians pic.twitter.com/ziJttsGyfp

— Decoding Fox News (@DecodingFoxNews) July 12, 2023

 

[HarleyDog]

(07-13-2023, 01:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Folks the race problem has been solved. 

Jesse Waters has an easy, multi-step plan for black people.

No more worries! 

Jesse Watters - A white man talks down to Black people.

Red-lining prevented generations of Black families from owning homes.

GA and AL already have large Black communities

Marriage? Watters already has one divorce under his belt.

Jesus? There are lots of Black Christians pic.twitter.com/ziJttsGyfp

— Decoding Fox News (@DecodingFoxNews) July 12, 2023

 

Seems there are a lot of Dems turning Republicans lately. Holy crap, I hope they don't make the GOP look bad. 

[KillerGoose]

(07-13-2023, 02:04 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: Seems there are a lot of Dems turning Republicans lately. Holy crap, I hope they don't make the GOP look bad. 

I was actually looking at this the other day because back in May there was data released on registration by party affiliation. It's true that Democrats have dropped slightly as a percentage of total registered voters, but they don't appear to be going to the Republicans. Republicans have also dropped. By far the biggest increase was the selection of "Other". This may make you think of Independent or Libertarian, but it isn't those as registered voters under both of those classifications is already covered. No idea what other means, but since 2016 it has increased by 500%. 

[*pally*]

(07-13-2023, 02:21 PM)KillerGoose Wrote: I was actually looking at this the other day because back in May there was data released on registration by party affiliation. It's true that Democrats have dropped slightly as a percentage of total registered voters, but they don't appear to be going to the Republicans. Republicans have also dropped. By far the biggest increase was the selection of "Other". This may make you think of Independent or Libertarian, but it isn't those as registered voters under both of those classifications is already covered. No idea what other means, but since 2016 it has increased by 500%. 

Likely older voters, who are more likely to claim party affiliation, dying off and being replaced by younger voters who are more likely to claim independence status.  Obviously some states will show big jumps one way or another such as Florida which has a population jump from older Republican voters moving in from the NE and MW but it balances out as a whole country.

[Dill]

(07-12-2023, 12:29 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Dill Wrote:Sure. Not hard if you pre-define a "system," then dismiss further investigation/analysis.  Case settled.
Different story though if you withhold judgement till after you've examined 1) how such a "system" actually worked to exclude one race,
and 2) consider what would happen if racial criteria were simply abolished and exclusion continued under "merit," 
and 3) what would happen if the evaluation were reversed, so that race-based criteria created preference to make up past exclusion.
Each of these possibilities could be called "fair," but not according to the same definition.
Some would think 1) was fair because it reflected their belief in natural equality.
Those who didn't think race should factor in admissions, but didn't care if past inequality proportionally affected who

meets the merit standard, thus continuing racial exclusion on the merit criterion, would think 2) was fair. 
Those who thought race-based exclusion and merit legacy unfair, might think race-based criteria for inclusion fair,

though it meant some formerly privileged might be excluded on race-based criteria, and opt for 3) as "fair," or at least MORE fair. 
Looks like a completely "fair" choice is not possible. You appear to be defending 2. 
I'm defending 3; That means I reject 1 because I reject the inequality argument, and I reject 2 because its effect has been historically

to reproduce 1 under different criteria.
You choose a different system because you chose a different definition of "fair." 

You literally just responded to a long, and point by point, rebuttal to your post by addressing a single sentence of it.
There are easier ways to wave the white flag, Dill.  

That post identifies three definitions of "fair" linked to three possible responses to racial discrimination. 

Are those definitions wrong, incomplete, false?  

As stated, they make clear that no one avoids discrimination by opting out of race-based admission criteria.

Your response is to accuse me of waving a "white flag," while you run from the problem posed here.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-14-2023, 03:14 PM)Dill Wrote: That post identifies three definitions of "fair" linked to three possible responses to racial discrimination. 

Are those definitions wrong, incomplete, false?  

As stated, they make clear that no one avoids discrimination by opting out of race-based admission criteria.

Your response is to accuse me of waving a "white flag," while you run from the problem posed here.

No, I just get tired of having to explain the same thing multiple times while you endlessly state the same position in different, and increasingly wordy, fashion.  You think discrimination is fair because of past wrongs, I do not.  That's pretty much the end of it, thanks.

[Dill]

(07-11-2023, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:Creating greater minority access to higher ed =/= proof AA advocates think minorities lack natural ability or "agency"--especially when minorities have done the directing and heavy lifting. It's proof AA advocates then and now think the system unfairly discriminates against minorities who DO have natural ability and agency. And now we are headed back to pre-AA numbers.

How does it not?  if a black applicant has the same, or better, qualifications as a white or Asian applicant and fails to get in, that would be discrimination.  If said applicant had significantly less qualifications than said white or Asian applicant and got in instead of them, that would be discrimination.

Still some cleaning up to be done on this thread.

In the pro AA argument, there is a prior question about how people get "qualified" in the first place.  

The conservative con-argument assumes only three things at play--natural ability, individual determination, and family support. Gaining qualifications is basically a matter of ability and choice, not whether one's family has little wealth and has been denied access to good education for generations. (Actually, plenty of "liberals" fall into this group as well. No actual leftists do.) 

The liberal/left argument is that wealth and social placement play a large role in who gets to gain qualifications or not. That's why, e.g., the U of Texas Law School, fanatically segregated before Brown vs Board, could embrace "colorblind" admissions in the late '50s--that would reproduce very nearly the results of segregation, which was now illegal. 

And they could (and did) argue that was fair because it would of course be "discrimination" if a qualified black candidate failed to get in. So no "discrimination" against any race--especially the one producing the vast majority of "qualified" candidates, given Black students' lack of access to the kind of training that makes for qualified students.  

So if today, 10 socially privileged white applicants are matched with 10 Black applicants who never came from private schools with expensive tutors and could not enter Ivy League schools, liberal/leftists wouldn't see colorblind admissions as merely producing "fair" results because "only those qualified" get in. Leftists-without-quotation-marks would see the direct reproduction of class, wealth, and privilege in that "fairness." 

They would also know that most of the minorities now denied access to Harvard, Yale and UNC will not be "significantly less" qualified.  
And some will still be more qualified than legacy admissions. Support for this SCOTUS decision secures that outcome.

This framing is probably very new to you, but it is not to Blum and the Heritage Foundation or the Federalist Society.

[Dill]

(07-11-2023, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: '''Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: "Why would people with a “low opinion” of minorities want to bring them into a top law school?"
To assuage their "white guilt" and make them feel better about themselves.  I see this behavior all the time.

Quote:No "behavior" is described here.  So how are you "seeing" an internal mental state?  
You can't get there just by watching some people you don't like ("LEFTISTS!") help others.

A behavior is absolutely described, when taken in context with what is was responding to.  Also, who said I didn't like those people?  Some of them are well meaning, but they're blind to their prejudices.  Most are not cognizant that what they are doing is as much, if not more, to make themselves feel better about their "privilege", as to help disadvantaged people.  Also, I encounter many "leftists" who are very genuine in their desire and motives in this regard.  They are, unfortunately, a minority, but they certainly exist.

Um, no. "I see this behavior all the time" is not a description, especially you are claiming to just see people assuaging white guilt.
That's not like me just claiming I saw a number of people kayaking down the Madison river last week. It's more like me claiming people go kayaking because they think they are better than people who go rafting, and I've seen HUNDREDS of people kayaking--like that is more proof.

My wife's cousin "sees" messages from Jesus in everything from thunderstorms to a change in grocery prices.
MAGA faithful "saw" election fraud everywhere during 2020. But their examples failed in court because judges could not "see" it too.
For what you "see" to be evidence, you have to 1) describe the behavior in question with enough specificity that others can agree
they are seeing it too. And 2) you have to be able to exclude other possible motivations, if you are trying to connect behavior to internal 
states.

What I am looking for is not what you claim to see inside people's heads, but some type of outward behavior that I could also see if I were standing beside you. Did you hear a "liberal" say that minorities are naturally not as smart as whites, as opposed to merely lacking opportunity? Did one say "I just do this to feel better about myself"? Did you discover a Klan hood in the trunk of liberal during a traffic stop? That could be a basis for claiming liberals are the real racists. From what, specifically, are you deducing such a bleak and negative conclusion about people who help minorities? 

You have said that "leftists" assume minorities have less natural ability, without proof other than just "seeing" it.  That's why I thought you didn't like those people. You've ascribed racist motivations to them.  According to my "tortured logic," people are more likely to want to help minorities if they think they have equal ability but not equal opportunity. How do you deduce from this your claim of "racist" motivation? That they do help minorities doesn't establish anything beyond good will. What can you add to prove nefarious motives beyond the fact that you see them helping? 

(07-11-2023, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:So why are they the villains in your personal civil rights history? Why do you impute to them the belief in minority inferiority traditionally held by those who oppose minority admissions and AA?

Who said they were the villains?  You can do a good thing for a selfish reason and still be doing a good thing.  Of course, selfless motivations are clearly more laudable.  As for your second point, I impute it because I've directly witnessed it, hundreds, if not thousands of times.  Off hand remarks, observations, statements.  I can't tell you how many times I've been at a conference on these types of subjects and heard amazingly racist things come out of leftist's mouths.  It's actually a joke between my best friend in the department (a black woman who went to Howard), and I.  We count how many unintentionally racist things are said by white leftists and then compare our best examples.  We never fail to have numerous ones to choose from.  Sorry though, no scientific study here.  

Racists aren't "villains"? But to continue the call for demonstration--

Instead of just telling me some still unclear phenomenon has happened "hundred, if not thousands of times," provide some of those "offhand remarks, observations, statements" and "amazingly racist things."  The CRT folks have studied liberal racism quite a bit, including the very common "black friend" trope (can't be racist if you have one of those). So establishing that liberals can be racist isn't new, it's already done by the actual left, and isn't clearly connected to a claim that people who work for greater educational access for minorities do so because they think minorities are inferior in ability, i.e., racially inferior.

That's what you claim, right, and without evidence? Those "subtle leftists" in post your #153 think minorities have less NATURAL ability? 

With all those examples between you and your friend, surely I can get something--four examples maybe, racist things that have come out of "leftist" mouths? And are the liberals  you see "at conferences" the same "leftists" educational activists you say think minorities lack natural ability? Otherwise, I really have no idea how you are reaching your conclusion that racism motivates white people to help minorities, especially when better explanations are nearer at hand. I don't know who really counts as a liberal for you, or a "leftist" either, as you deploy the later term Fox-style, expansively and unevenly. 

Examples would go a long way to fixing these unclarities.

[GMDino]

https://www.lgbtqnation.com/2023/07/texas-judge-says-supreme-court-ruling-means-she-doesnt-have-to-officiate-same-sex-weddings/

Quote:Texas judge says Supreme Court ruling means she doesn’t have to officiate same-sex weddings
She was reprimanded for only officiating straight people's marriages. Now she says the Supreme Court supports her.
By Alex Bollinger Thursday, July 13, 2023


Dianne HensleyPhoto: Screenshot/KXXV
A Texas judge who doesn’t want to officiate marriages for same-sex couples has filed a brief saying that the Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative LLC vs. Elenis – the case about the Christian web designer who doesn’t want to make wedding websites for same-sex couples – means that she was illegally punished for refusing to officiate same-sex couples’ weddings.


Ever since marriage equality was legalized in the state of Texas following the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges decision in 2015, McLennan County Justice of the Peace Dianne Hensley ® has refused to officiate same-sex couples’ marriages.


RELATED STORIES
[/url]
Texas Attorney General sides with judge who won’t perform same-sex marriages
He’s not enforcing the law because he believes “religious liberty” means judges don’t have to do their jobs.

Since 2016, she has given same-sex couples who approached her to officiate their marriage a statement: “I’m sorry, but Judge Hensley has a sincerely held religious belief as a Christian, and will not be able to perform any same-sex weddings.”

“So I’m entitled to accommodations just as much as anyone else,” [url=https://www.wacotrib.com/news/crime/no-courthouse-weddings-in-waco-for-same-sex-couples-years/article_20244def-13f3-579f-a0d9-004618c56afb.html]she told the Waco Tribune in 2017. Justices of the peace in Texas don’t have to officiate weddings at all, but Hensley wants to be allowed to officiate only opposite-sex marriages, and she performed 70 such weddings from 2016 to 2019.


In 2019, Hensley was sanctioned by the Texas Commission on Judicial Conduct, receiving an official letter of warning. She was told she violated state rules about judicial impartiality because her refusal to treat LGBTQ+ people equally cast “doubt on her capacity to act impartially to persons appearing before her as a judge due to the person’s sexual orientation.” State code requires that judges’ “extra-judicial activities” be conducted in a way that doesn’t lend itself to accusations of bias.


She filed a lawsuit against the commission with help from the First Liberty Institute, a Texas-based anti-LGBTQ+ legal organization. And this past week her lawyers filed a new brief in that case, saying that the 303 Creative decision – which said that some creative professionals have a free speech right to refuse service in some cases – means that she has a constitutional right to only officiate opposite-sex weddings.

“303 Creative was interpreting the First Amendment’s Speech Clause rather than the Texas Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Its holding is nonetheless instructive because it rejects the idea of a ‘compelling interest’ in forcing wedding vendors to participate in same-sex and opposite-sex marriage ceremonies on equal terms,” the brief says, describing Hensley as a “wedding vendor” instead of a public official.


Southern Methodist University law professor Dale Carpenter told the Texas Tribune that 303 Creative was about a private business and not a government official, so it doesn’t have much to do with Hensley’s case.


“The service in [Henley’s] case is the service of a government official, so if 303 Creative had involved that government denying services to a same-sex couple, then that’d be a very different case,” Carpenter, who agreed with the Supreme Court’s 303 Creative decision, said. “I don’t think 303 helps the judge’s case at all.”

But Carpenter said that there will be a “slew” of cases testing the limits of 303 Creative in attempts to deny LGBTQ+ people services in all sorts of areas.

“The law of the land is marriage equality. It’s as simple as that,” said Johnathan Gooch of the LGBTQ+ organization Equality Texas. “If judges and justices of the peace were empowered to only enforce the laws that they agreed with, we would quickly descend into anarchy.”

[Dill]

(07-11-2023, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:I don't have law school numbers for the 60s-70s. Yale began AA as a formal policy in 1972. But in 1971, the law school had already set a goal of 10% acceptance for blacks. 12 were accepted in Thomas' class. It is not clear that ANY would have been accepted were there not "condescending leftist" students pushing for change from within. At least one law professor at that time was not guilty of "the soft bigotry of low expectations"--he told any who would listen (including black students) that NONE of the 12 Blacks admitted was qualified.

Yeah, you're misusing the term, "soft bigotry of low expectations".  That term is used to describe people who hold minorities to lower standards than whites because they're minorities.  You should be familiar with this.  What you just described is a guy who is either an outright bigot, or was not and this was his personal opinion.  But you're assumption that he said that due to racism is interesting.  Could he have no other basis for coming to this conclusion than bigotry?

And what I just described is a guy who was NOT "holding minorities to lower standards than whites."  

Ergo, NOT guilty of the "soft bigotry of low expectations." 

Someone who assumed that some Blacks might need remedial work to bring them up to speed with their prep school counterparts would be that sort of "soft bigot." 

I'm assuming that racism is why so few Blacks were ever admitted to Yale before AA. This professor is an example of why. Yes.

(07-11-2023, 02:21 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:AA had, in a sense, begun informally when Yale accepted 14 black students to its undergraduate program in 1964,  the year the Civil Rights Act passed. In the class of 1970, 32 Black Americans graduated from a class of about 1,000 undergraduates.
Before that, it appears blacks were in single digits in medicine and law during the 50s--among thousands of white admissions. It appears some years NONE were admitted. Those who were apparently had connections to faculty. 

For this point to fit in with the discussion you'd have to be able to judge whether any of the applicants wouldn't have qualified if they were white.  Can you?

Quote:Chances Thomas could have gotten in without AA help are slimmest possible to none. Yet he could have been more qualified than many legacy white admissions. He also had financial help set aside for minorities. 

So, you admit it's not provable, just probable.  Exactly what I already said.

???      "Just probable" is "provable."  If that weren't the case we'd have no natural/social science.

The question now is, what big point could you be making by insisting no one knows "for sure" whether Thomas owed his degree to AA? 
The Yale Law school acknowledged it was responding to student pressure ("leftist" protests you would call them) when it suddenly admitted the largest mass of Black students ever--12. 

To fit this into the discussion, I need to show that before AA hardly any Blacks and Latinos got into Yale, including its prestigious law school. Then after AA, the number jumped from single to double digits, then doubled within four years. It became hundreds in the 70s. 

So one evaluates the effects of AA by demonstrating that it made a difference in minority admissions. 

If there was 0-3 admissions in 1970, and 12 in '71, the year Thomas showed up, its not clear what is gained by arguing that 
no one can know "for sure" that Thomas got in thanks to the kind of race-based admission he just helped squelch.

[Dill]

(07-14-2023, 03:51 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, I just get tired of having to explain the same thing multiple times while you endlessly state the same position in different, and increasingly wordy, fashion.  You think discrimination is fair because of past wrongs, I do not.  That's pretty much the end of it, thanks.

Stating "the same position in different, and increasingly wordy, fashion" is a manner of adding the knowledge and historical/institutional 
context absent from your pre-judgment of AA, at Yale or elsewhere. Evidence-based arguments are like that.

If you look closely at that "wordiness," you might see that 
the anti-AA issue is NOT about some choice between discrimination and non-discrimination. 

Eliminating the tiny bit of race-based evaluation involved in Harvard and UNC admissions just means a 
default back to white privilege--both in educational background and legacy admissions.

So while I think a measure of discrimination is fair to eliminate past wrongs which continue into the present.

You favor continued "colorblind" discrimination of the type which preceded AA at Yale and Harvard, when the black population
of Yale was roughly 1% of the student body. 

Black admissions won't drop to that level now, but it will likely drop quite a bit,
to line more closely with the number of students from wealthy families with private school straining. 

You think that's "fair" because admissions can't say "race" anymore. I think that just continues "past wrongs." 

[GMDino]

I had a nice dinner with some college friends last night.  As I've said before the are very conservative.  We were joined by another friend who is former teacher and very liberal.

Anyway we were talking politics, as we do, and this ruling about AA came up.  I said this court seems to think we don't need laws/rules to protect minorities because, as the constitution "says" we are all equal.  Now mind you we all know that "all equal" was NOT what they meant when they wrote that but that is where we are today.  And if we remove all the different ways others can get a leg up than we would be.

I mention that because there ARE areas when the SC has tried to "level the playing field"...and it seems that republicans don't respect the SC when they do that nearly as much.

For all the scolding of the left for calling SCOTUS illegitimate (which it is), let the record reflect that the first people to openly defy a ruling by it are…the GOP-controlled state legislatures of Alabama, who are refusing to redraw maps to better represent black constituents pic.twitter.com/WF9JFh6zRn

— Andrew Wortman ? (@AmoneyResists) July 21, 2023