We are all equal again, right?

[Millhouse]

I agreed with the SCROTUS on they college loans ruling. But not sure about this one just yet. Guess we'll see how it plays out.

EDIT: I thought this was about the other ruling. Umm again not too sure about this ruling just yet either. I do think at some point affirmative action needs to go, even though it definitely served a purpose during a time it needed to be forced in this country. I just don't know if now or in about 20 years or so.

[*pally*]

(07-01-2023, 05:47 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: When the media and politicians prey on your emotions and use fear mongering tactics to make you believe that the white man is getting his whips and chains ready, then yes, you will be up in arms.

The white man says "Never forget 9/11". But I say "Never forget Jussie Smollett".

My thought process veers towards extreme logic vs the emotional. Fear mongering is screaming constantly that drag queens are grooming your child

We have justices on the court that said Roe was a precedent and settled law overturn Roe on a case not even challenging it.

We have justices on the court that have codified discrimination if it violates their sincere religious beliefs.

We have justices on the court that allow public money to be spent on tax-exempt churches

We have justices on the court that have allowed corporations the same rights as individuals

We have justices on the court who have publically stated a willingness to overturn the Griswold and Obergafeld decisions

It's not being fearful...it is reading the writing on the wall and drawing a logical conclusion

[Dill]

(06-30-2023, 01:35 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I like how extreme left people are racist against me because I'm a white, straight male. I've done nothing to them. I've struggled with shit my whole life, but thanks for reminding me how great I've had it and how I want to be supreme again. 

Pathetic!

H-Dog, can you provide a specific example of how and when "left people" did this to you? 

Did a "leftist" actually tell you that you are racially inferior to other races? 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-01-2023, 11:07 AM)Dill Wrote: H-Dog, can you provide a specific example of how and when "left people" did this to you? 

Did a "leftist" actually tell you that you are racially inferior to other races? 

He watched Joy Reid once by accident. 

[Dill]

(07-01-2023, 05:47 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: When the media and politicians prey on your emotions and use fear mongering tactics to make you believe that the white man is getting his whips and chains ready, then yes, you will be up in arms.

The white man says "Never forget 9/11". But I say "Never forget Jussie Smollett".

Can there be "media and politicians" who "prey on your emotions and use fear mongering to make you believe" that 

it's now the white man who's under threat of chains and whips and discriminated against because of his race?

And that all white on black "hate crimes" are hoaxes?

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-01-2023, 12:35 PM)Dill Wrote: Can there be "media and politicians" who "prey on your emotions and use fear mongering to make you believe" that 

it's now the white man who's under threat of chains and whips and discriminated against because of his race?

And that all white on black "hate crimes" are hoaxes?

Yes.

Apparently we agree?

[Dill]

(07-01-2023, 02:08 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Yes.

Apparently we agree?

Hope so. We can continue to sort it out as the posts keep coming

and we examine these issues from different angles.

[Matt_Crimson]

(07-01-2023, 10:43 AM)pally Wrote: My thought process veers towards extreme logic vs the emotional. Fear mongering is screaming constantly that drag queens are grooming your child

We have justices on the court that said Roe was a precedent and settled law overturn Roe on a case not even challenging it.

We have justices on the court that have codified discrimination if it violates their sincere religious beliefs.

We have justices on the court that allow public money to be spent on tax-exempt churches

We have justices on the court that have allowed corporations the same rights as individuals

We have justices on the court who have publically stated a willingness to overturn the Griswold and Obergafeld decisions

It's not being fearful...it is reading the writing on the wall and drawing a logical conclusion

I would say your claim that "They are bound and determined to take this country back to the days when the only people who were truly equal were white, straight, males." seems a bit more emotional than logical.

Nothing you've listed here can bring about that conclusion.

[*pally*]

(07-01-2023, 06:30 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I would say your claim that "They are bound and determined to take this country back to the days when the only people who were truly equal were white, straight, males." seems a bit more emotional than logical.

Nothing you've listed here can bring about that conclusion.

a logical conclusion based on their own decisions and statements.  I hope I'm wrong but I'm not holding out hope

[SunsetBengal]

(07-01-2023, 10:43 AM)pally Wrote: My thought process veers towards extreme logic vs the emotional. Fear mongering is screaming constantly that drag queens are grooming your child

We have justices on the court that said Roe was a precedent and settled law overturn Roe on a case not even challenging it.

We have justices on the court that have codified discrimination if it violates their sincere religious beliefs.

We have justices on the court that allow public money to be spent on tax-exempt churches

We have justices on the court that have allowed corporations the same rights as individuals

We have justices on the court who have publically stated a willingness to overturn the Griswold and Obergafeld decisions

It's not being fearful...it is reading the writing on the wall and drawing a logical conclusion

Is this supposed to be a logical argument, or is it a humorous attempt to imitate a Sally Struthers feed the children piece from back in the 80's?

[Lucidus]

(07-01-2023, 06:30 PM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: I would say your claim that "They are bound and determined to take this country back to the days when the only people who were truly equal were white, straight, males." seems a bit more emotional than logical.

Nothing you've listed here can bring about that conclusion.

I've posted before about the decades long effort by the right and evangelicals to have America be governed by the ideological framework of Christion Nationalism.

A recent poll concerning Christian Nationalism ideology found that 54% of Republicans are at least sympathetic to it, while only 7% reject it. 64% of white evangelical Christians were at least sympathetic and only 3% reject it. Of those that mostly trust far-right news, 79% are at least sympathetic, while only 1% reject it. 

This isn't a desire that's going away of dissipating. Instead, it's gaining steam and becoming much more freely stated. There has been a lot of work done towards this goal behind the scenes for decades. What once seemed a grandiose pipe dream, now has a rather unsettling foundation of support. 

https://www.prri.org/research/a-christian-nation-understanding-the-threat-of-christian-nationalism-to-american-democracy-and-culture/

[SunsetBengal]

(07-01-2023, 07:04 PM)Lucidus Wrote: I've posted before about the decades long effort by the right and evangelicals to have America be governed by the ideological framework of Christion Nationalism.

A recent poll concerning Christian Nationalism ideology found that 54% of Republicans are at least sympathetic to it, while only 7% reject it. 64% of white evangelical Christians were at least sympathetic and only 3% reject it. Of those that mostly trust far-right news, 79% are at least sympathetic, while only 1% reject it. 

This isn't a desire that's going away of dissipating. Instead, it's gaining steam and becoming much more freely stated. There has been a lot of work done towards this goal behind the scenes for decades. What once seemed a grandiose pipe dream, now has a rather unsettling foundation of support. 

https://www.prri.org/research/a-christian-nation-understanding-the-threat-of-christian-nationalism-to-american-democracy-and-culture/

Ok, so assuming that what you say is true, who is the prri?  And what credentials do they have, and why should we trust their statistics?

[Lucidus]

(07-01-2023, 07:21 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: Ok, so assuming that what you say is true, who is the prri?  And what credentials do they have, and why should we trust their statistics?

https://www.prri.org/about/
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/public-religion-research-institute-prri/
https://library.hds.harvard.edu/links/prri-public-religion-research-institute
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/prri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Religion_Research_Institute

[SunsetBengal]

(07-01-2023, 07:53 PM)Lucidus Wrote: https://www.prri.org/about/
https://library.hds.harvard.edu/links/prri-public-religion-research-institute
https://ropercenter.cornell.edu/prri
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_Religion_Research_Institute

Yes, I saw their wiki link and others, tell me with your own words why they should be a trusted source of information when it comes to sensitive matters.  Who are their sponsors?

[HarleyDog]

(07-01-2023, 11:07 AM)Dill Wrote: H-Dog, can you provide a specific example of how and when "left people" did this to you? 

Did a "leftist" actually tell you that you are racially inferior to other races? 

No. You missed what I was saying as I was replying to Pally. However, straight white male has become a target of racial, LGBTQIA’s, or whatever discriminatory discussions are taking place. I’m pretty sure you know this and if you don’t, just google straight white male and read for yourself. Also, I believe I said extreme left, and if I didn’t, I meant to. 

[Dill]

(06-30-2023, 09:45 AM)SunsetBengal Wrote: With the Supreme Court ruling against the use of race as a factor in college admission, essentially striking down affirmative action, nobody will have to endure discrimination based upon their race or ethnic origin or be the beneficiary of special treatment or conditions because of their race or ethnicity, correct?

Looks like we’ve got a good discussion going here, and I’d like to address some specific posts, but before I do, I’d like to drop in a little historical background on race in U.S. education. If the post is too long for anyone, don’t complain—just skip it.
 
In the 1920s, as U.S. educators turned more and more to sociological method, AND absorbed industrial standards of “efficiency,” they adopted prevailing racial theory to conflate biological difference and ethnicity to produce an “efficient” tracking system based on “racial” hierarchy, e.g., high school for northern Europeans, middle school for Eastern and Southern Europeans, full grade school for Hispanics, and the first few grades (or none) for blacks. This was applied largely in urban centers.

By the late 30s and 40s, the aggregate data on students defined by “race” began to produce correlations between student educational attainment and family wealth across race, with two exceptions—children of teachers and children of clergy.

This correlation began the gradual shift from “race” to home/community environment as the prime predictor of educational achievement, and a key to improving educational scores. It was this movement which eventually produced the arguments and data which decided Brown vs. Board in 1954.

This got interesting in the 50s and 60s. As college-level educators in the South saw the end of legal segregation approaching (along with informal segregation in the North), some quickly realized that they could stall or minimize integration by suddenly shifting to merit-based arguments relying on test scores. Given the correlation between wealth and school success, the “color-blind” tests could be expected to produce about the same results as legal segregation. 

By the 80s, while the end of legal segregation and institution of AA greatly helped, the aggregate underperformance of blacks in school continued, and educators continued to address it, rightly seeing it as a product of a legacy of political and economic discrimination—not natural inferiority.

But some right wingers who had opposed equality in the 60s adopted new tactics in the post-segregation era; e.g., Buckleyites gathered around his National Review, began discussing the “problem” of “reverse racism” and falsely claiming that AA perverted MLK’s dream of a color blind America.
Educators who continued to address the racial gap through curricular and policy changes, and support of AA, were accused of “soft” racism--i.e., their continued support for AA and for special classroom considerations for Blacks meant they thought Blacks naturally, biologically inferior to whites. THAT’S why they thought Blacks “needed help.”  So they were the "real" racists now and those Buckley conservatives who wanted a colorblind society were the true heirs of king--even if they had formerly opposed the civil rights movement. People who really believed in equality believed that blacks could make it on their own now, with help from THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. 

This view of AA-supportive educators became widely embraced by the right, and made its way into George W.’s speech to the NAACP about the “soft bigotry of low expectations.”  Current styling of CRT as a new form of racism carries this tendency forward.

Most Americans are still unaware of the correlation between wealth and educational attainment/opportunity, and the historical legacy which deprived an entire race of wealth building for centuries.  And so it would never occur to them that “meritocracy” could be (and once had been) advanced to achieve segregationist goals or to preserve white privilege when the law no longer could. Recalling this history is not intended to link forum members, mostly youngsters to me, to pre-90s politics. You aren’t like a segregationist dean at the U of Texas in 1955 if, in 2023, you affirm merit as a criterion for college admission. And many who once supported the GOP colorblind line have now turned against it, recognizing what it covered.

But those who laid the ground work for the AA ruling were intimately aware of this history--which legal arguments worked and which didn't. And to what purpose. Tomorrow I'll throw out a few words on "diversity," which is also being excluded from education in the Florida Model.

[basballguy]

(06-30-2023, 01:35 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I like how extreme left people are racist against me because I'm a white, straight male. I've done nothing to them. I've struggled with shit my whole life, but thanks for reminding me how great I've had it and how I want to be supreme again. 

Pathetic!

nobody hates white people more than white people

[Dill]

(07-01-2023, 10:42 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: No. You missed what I was saying as I was replying to Pally. However, straight white male has become a target of racial, LGBTQIA’s, or whatever discriminatory discussions are taking place. I’m pretty sure you know this and if you don’t, just google straight white male and read for yourself. Also, I believe I said extreme left, and if I didn’t, I meant to. 

LOL saw the Tom McDonald video. That's what you wanted me to see, right? The poor tatooed white guy in the witness stand defending himself in courtroom full of accusing minorities as he assures us he likes Blacks and gays etc.   

But that looks to me more like an expression of white grievance which is not very well grounded--like all those Blacks and feminists and gays are picking on straight whitey for no good reason. 

Just a quick impression--complaints by the aforementioned groups about very real oppression has made some whites feel like THEY are now the ones oppressed, as if our national and state legislatures were dominated by anything but straight white males. 

This may strike lower or under class white males more deeply, because they correctly don't see themselves in charge of much, or possessing much political power--at least until Trump spoke (ginned up) their grievances for them. I think one can make a case that lower class whites are oppressed, but not by women, gays and blacks. There is a wealth and opportunity gap in the U.S. which is protected by the party which stokes white grievance.

Upper class whites with wealth or professional power don't seem much exercised by criticism of straight white males, because they still have the greater share of power in the U.S. and know it. They didn't get that power by misjudging where the strings are and how they are pulled. And they've got a Supreme Court extending their power now. Most of us middle class whites also don't get much exercised over accusations of white privilege either. 

[HarleyDog]

(07-01-2023, 11:50 PM)Dill Wrote: LOL saw the Tom McDonald video. That's what you wanted me to see, right? The poor tatooed white guy in the witness stand defending himself in courtroom full of accusing minorities as he assures us he likes Blacks and gays etc.   

Sigh. No, not at all.

[Dill]

(07-02-2023, 02:06 AM)HarleyDog Wrote: Sigh. No, not at all.

???  Maybe more precise instructions then? 

I googled "Straight White Male."