+- Cincinnati Bengals Message Board / Forums - Home of Jungle Noise (http://thebengalsboard.com)
+-- Forum: Off Topic Forums (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Off-Topic-Forums)
+--- Forum: Politics & Religion 2.0 (http://thebengalsboard.com/Forum-Politics-Religion-2-0)
+--- Thread: We are all equal again, right? (/Thread-We-are-all-equal-again-right)
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-03-2023
(07-03-2023, 11:33 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: What? lol. I am an Independent and I am glad AA got struck down because it was racial discrimination. I don't care what percentage of what race makes up a business or a college so long as they were hired/accepted on merit and ability.
I also don't want to see Trump or Biden in 2024.
?? That relates to my post how?
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-03-2023
(07-03-2023, 10:59 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Or, alternatively, and just hear me out on this, people want everyone to be treated fairly. Or is that now a white supremacist value?
Doubtful that the people who have spent decades getting the legal arguments and the court in place to
strike down AA just "want everyone to be treated fairly."
Fighting to retain white dominance in higher ed could have something to do with white supremacy, yes.
If you ask some guy in the street if he thinks merit alone should be the consideration in university admission then
it could very well be that he just wants "everyone to be treated fairly."
If he supports the recent court decision because he thinks whites AREN'T being treated fairly,
then a "white supremacist value" could very well be in play, but also other things, like
too much Tucker and Hannity.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-03-2023
(07-03-2023, 02:42 PM)Dill Wrote: Doubtful that the people who have spent decades getting the legal arguments and the court in place to
strike down AA just "want everyone to be treated fairly."
Fighting to retain white dominance in higher ed could have something to do with white supremacy, yes.
If you ask some guy in the street if he thinks merit alone should be the consideration in university admission then
it could very well be that he just wants "everyone to be treated fairly."
I would think anyone should be given the benefit of that doubt unless they've definitively proven they don't deserve it.
Quote:If he supports the recent court decision because he thinks whites AREN'T being treated fairly,
then a "white supremacist value" could very well be in play, but also other things, like
too much Tucker and Hannity.
Wasn't the SCOTUS decision based on a lawsuit asserting that whites and Asians (odd that you omitted Asians) were being treated unfairly? Based on the results of that case it is legally factual that whites and Asians were being treated unfairly.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - pally - 07-03-2023
(07-02-2023, 09:05 PM)Leon Wrote: if you are a person of God why would you have a problem with baptism. are you trying to be funny. cause that aint something to joke around about
Baptism is a rite of Christianity. A singular God is believed in by numerous religions such as Judaism or Islam. In fact, all 3 religions trace their origins back to Abraham so they all derived from the same root. Therefore many persons of God could have an issue with Christian baptism
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Belsnickel - 07-03-2023
I'm not really upset about an end to AA in college admissions, and I am not against it when it comes to the law. I wish we were all treated equitably and that we lived in a meritocracy, but that just isn't the case. AA wasn't the answer, though. It was a lazy solution to the issue and now I hope we can seek better answers.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-03-2023
(07-03-2023, 06:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not really upset about an end to AA in college admissions, and I am not against it when it comes to the law. I wish we were all treated equitably and that we lived in a meritocracy, but that just isn't the case. AA wasn't the answer, though. It was a lazy solution to the issue and now I hope we can seek better answers.
That's because you're a far right bigot.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Belsnickel - 07-03-2023
(07-03-2023, 07:00 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That's because you're a far right bigot.
I'm confused. I thought I was just a programmed liberal. Today has been confusing.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-03-2023
(07-03-2023, 07:06 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm confused. I thought I was just a programmed liberal. Today has been confusing.
It happens when you let logic and common sense dictate your positions rather than ideology and partisanship. But this also confuses the hell out of a lot of people.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - treee - 07-03-2023
(07-03-2023, 06:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not really upset about an end to AA in college admissions, and I am not against it when it comes to the law. I wish we were all treated equitably and that we lived in a meritocracy, but that just isn't the case. AA wasn't the answer, though. It was a lazy solution to the issue and now I hope we can seek better answers.
The lazy solution is to dismantle it without a plan for something to more effectively serve in its place.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Belsnickel - 07-03-2023
(07-03-2023, 07:13 PM)treee Wrote: The lazy solution is to dismantle it without a plan for something to more effectively serve in its place.
That's not the role of the court, though. This goes back to Congress (like in the other thread) where they haven't done anything to account for this.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - treee - 07-03-2023
(07-03-2023, 07:27 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: That's not the role of the court, though. This goes back to Congress (like in the other thread) where they haven't done anything to account for this.
Right which means nothing meaningful will be done for the foreseeable future. More and more is getting kicked back to congress yet they're growing no less dysfunctional.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-03-2023
(07-03-2023, 06:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I would think anyone should be given the benefit of that doubt unless they've definitively proven they don't deserve it.
Wasn't the SCOTUS decision based on a lawsuit asserting that whites and Asians (odd that you omitted Asians) were being treated unfairly? Based on the results of that case it is legally factual that whites and Asians were being treated unfairly.
Yes, after the first run at AA with a white person failed,
the anti-AA lobby shifted to the Asian angle, led by an RW lobbyist coopting an Asian group.
It is not "factually legal" that whites and Asians were being treated unfairly.
You are confusing judgments of value and fact there.
What happened was that the argument fairness should be based on expanded opportunity and the value of diversity
was rejected by the argument that that expansion and value were not fair.
This was an application of ethical standards, different definitions of common good.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-03-2023
(07-03-2023, 06:53 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not really upset about an end to AA in college admissions, and I am not against it when it comes to the law. I wish we were all treated equitably and that we lived in a meritocracy, but that just isn't the case. AA wasn't the answer, though. It was a lazy solution to the issue and now I hope we can seek better answers.
Well, it's been pretty difficult.
CA ended AA back in 1996, with a consequent 40% drop in Black and Latino admissions at their flagship institution.
In the decades since they have not been able to bring those admissions back to pre-'96 levels, and the
drop has mainly affected top tier public universities in CA.
I'm not wedded to AA as it has existed.
Unless we can base it, or something like it, on wealth and income disparity,
which is linked to academic performance and has been widening over the last 15 years,
there'll eventually be as pushback on any "better answers"
not involving race as there was about race-based AA.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-04-2023
(07-03-2023, 08:55 PM)Dill Wrote: Yes, after the first run at AA with a white person failed,
Interesting. So your point is that it was ok discrimination when it was just whites?
Quote:the anti-AA lobby shifted to the Asian angle, led by an RW lobbyist coopting an Asian group.
Coopting? If only non-white people had any sort of agency, they could stop being manipulated by the all powerful whites. You literally sound like the people who believe The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, except your boogeyman is white people and not Jews. Behind every curtain is a nefarious white man pulling the strings!
Quote:It is not "factually legal" that whites and Asians were being treated unfairly.
Of course it is, our highest court just determined this. There's no room for Dill subjectivity here.
Quote:You are confusing judgments of value and fact there.
No, you're confusing your opinion with actual law as determined by our judicial system.
Quote:What happened was that the argument fairness should be based on expanded opportunity and the value of diversity
was rejected by the argument that that expansion and value were not fair.
This was an application of ethical standards, different definitions of common good.
Which, at the end, have the rule of law. Hence my statement was correct and yours was incorrect. Thank you for agreeing.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Matt_Crimson - 07-04-2023
(07-03-2023, 11:29 AM)Mickeypoo Wrote: Can you elaborate on this please? I am just curious and only because my understanding is that whites are 76% of the population, hispanics 19% and blacks 14%. Others are single digit percentage. Do you or others think whites will be a minority in one generation?
Sure.
So the percentage you cited refers to those who identify as white but also includes Hispanics or Latinos who identify as white.
If you take those who identify as white only (not Hispanic or Latino) that percentage is lower (59%). In 2010 this number was 72%. So that means in 13 years, those who identify as "white only" has dropped 13% (roughly 1% per year).
If the white only population continues on this trajectory for the next 25 years, that would put their percentage at 34%. But most estimates are being more generous than that and it's believed that the percentage will fall roughly to around 45% which is still less than half. That would make whites only a minority in the US in comparison to the rest of the population.
That does not mean however that another race is becoming the majority. It just simply means that all other races combined will out populate whites.
Theres a few reasons why this is happening.
1. Immigration.
As more minorities immigrate to the US, their share of the population increases and the whites only population decreases.
2. Whites have the oldest population.
The baby boomer generation is primarily white. What this means is that the white population is older than the population of minorities. As the older generation. of whites die off, the younger generation of minorities will begin to fill the void, causing a shift in population percentages.
3. The acceptance of interracial relationships
Pretty self explanatory. Less white people having less relationships with their own race means less "white" people being born.
I think it's important to note that that last point is a "consequence" for every race. When people say that whites will become a "minority" that doesn't mean that another race will necessarily take their place (although it is possible). It's to point out that the US has become more diverse and mixed race people will only continue to contribute to a decrease in the whites only population, as well as the population of all other races. At some point we will basically reach an area where the majority of the population is primarily made from parents of two differing races.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-04-2023
(07-04-2023, 02:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting. So your point is that it was ok discrimination when it was just whites?
My point was that it was ok to use race based admissions policies to rectify centuries of race-based exclusion from higher ed.
The goal of that was not to "discriminate against whites" as previous admissions policies had been designed to discriminate against minorities.
Were I to argue SSF style, I'd be asking you if discrimination was ok when it was just against people of color.
But that's the kind of thing that would produce outraged counter-attacks and charges of misrepresentation that take us off track, if I did it to you.
(07-04-2023, 02:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Coopting? If only non-white people had any sort of agency, they could stop being manipulated by the all powerful whites. You literally sound like the people who believe The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, except your boogeyman is white people and not Jews. Behind every curtain is a nefarious white man pulling the strings!
Um sure. Like the protocols. 'cept I'm after "white people." Who have never "manipulated" people of color in the U.S.
Or other white people for that matter, using race to scare them to vote right.
You caught me presuming a historical and continued white dominance of the nation's politics and higher education without a shred of proof.
Lol Dill is "making it about race."
Will there be a counter argument grounded in the actual history of U.S. higher ed and the legal battles involving admissions, or was the "protocols" analogy your limit? Personal attack does not count as grounded argument.
If you can turn to history and legal arguments, demonstrate that you are more informed about this issue than your "boogeyman" argument suggests, then I'll continue responding. Otherwise not.
(07-04-2023, 02:16 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Of course it is, our highest court just determined this. There's no room for Dill subjectivity here.
No, you're confusing your opinion with actual law as determined by our judicial system.
Which, at the end, have the rule of law. Hence my statement was correct and yours was incorrect. Thank you for agreeing.
Helter skelter. I "agree" that a majority of conservative judges has overturned the legal interpretation of past liberal judges.
But I don't agree that that is simply and suddenly our "judicial system" now determining "actual law,"
as opposed to the application of a new set of values and political goals, decades in preparation for this moment.
But you are saying no room for dill "opinion," like distinguishing between facts of the case,
which have been the same for decades,
and the values which have altered with the courts composition.
The "system" just decided. And so we have rule of law. Without "subjectivity."
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-04-2023
(07-04-2023, 01:29 PM)Dill Wrote: My point was that it was ok to use race based admissions policies to rectify centuries of race-based exclusion from higher ed.
The goal of that was not to "discriminate against whites" as previous admissions policies had been designed to discriminate against minorities.
Were I to argue SSF style, I'd be asking you if discrimination was ok when it was just against people of color.
But that's the kind of thing that would produce outraged counter-attacks and charges of misrepresentation that take us off track, if I did it to you.
As I have said in other threads, countering inequality with more inequality is rarely going to achieve the desired result. As to your "SSF style" question, no, it's never ok to discriminate against others. Sometimes it's legal and some times it's not. But it's never "right".
Quote:Um sure. Like the protocols. 'cept I'm after "white people." Who have never "manipulated" people of color in the U.S.
Or other white people for that matter, using race to scare them to vote right.
You caught me presuming a historical and continued white dominance of the nation's politics and higher education without a shred of proof.
Wait, you mean the ethnicity that, until very recently, constituted the vast majority of people in this nation actually held sway over said nation's politics? I am shocked by this revelation. The problem with people who think like you is that they give no credit to the capability and intelligence of those who are apparently being controlled by those dastardly white people. Non-whites are just simple rubes waiting to have their strings pulled by the white puppet masters according to your line of thought. Also, it's interesting that you speak of white people as some absurd monolith of will and intent.
Quote:Lol Dill is "making it about race."
Yeah, who could ever come to that conclusion by reading your points above?
Quote:Will there be a counter argument grounded in the actual history of U.S. higher ed and the legal battles involving admissions, or was the "protocols" analogy your limit? Personal attack does not count as grounded argument.
Was that a personal attack? If so your definition of such seems rather overly broad.
Quote:If you can turn to history and legal arguments, demonstrate that you are more informed about this issue than your "boogeyman" argument suggests,
then I'll continue responding. Otherwise not.
Here's a historical argument, discrimination based on ethnicity is bad as shown through history. Here's a legal argument, discrimination based on race is illegal in the US.
Quote:Helter skelter. I "agree" that a majority of conservative judges, has overturned the legal interpretation of past liberal judges.
I do love when you unwittingly make a point in my favor.
Quote:But I don't agree that that is simply and suddenly our "judicial system" now determining "actual law,"
as opposed to the application of a new set of values and political goals, decades in preparation for this moment.
That's a lot of words to try and avoid saying that this is, in actual fact, the law.
Quote:But you are saying no room for dill "opinion," like distinguishing between facts of the case,
which have been the same for decades,
and the values which have altered with the courts composition.
Yes indeed. Why would Dredd Scott be overturned or Plessy v. Ferguson when the "facts of the case" had been the same for decades plus?
Quote:The "system" just decided. And so we have rule of law. Without "subjectivity."
No, the SCOTUS just decided. Like many leftists you applaud judicial decisions in your favor and decry those against you as unfair or evidence of a broken system. You see it in the news now with alarming frequency, the number of prominent Dems, including the POTUS, carefully crafting a narrative that this SCOTUS is illegitimate and working at cross purposes to its original intent. The purpose of this is a nakedly obvious as it is brazen. To delegitimize the court so that they can swoop in and "save it", by appointing, of course, enough ideological liberal judges to make it "fair" again and working as intended.
I'll reiterate a point from a previous thread, I never thought I'd live to see the day that the "liberal" party became the party of authoritarianism.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-05-2023
(07-04-2023, 01:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Here's a historical argument, discrimination based on ethnicity is bad as shown through history. Here's a legal argument, discrimination based on race is illegal in the US.
Those aren't "arguments." They are just statements. The first is a value judgment, the second a factual judgment.
For future reference, an argument has to have at least three parts--a premise, an inference, and a conclusion. That's the basic unit.
(07-04-2023, 01:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Quote:But I don't agree that that is simply and suddenly our "judicial system" now determining "actual law," as opposed to the application of a new set of values and political goals, decades in preparation for this moment.
That's a lot of words to try and avoid saying that this is, in actual fact, the law.
Nothing I've said denies that any law is a/the law. So it looks like you missed the argument altogether.
I'm saying that to claim the "system" decided on law when your side appointed judges to change the law is to misunderstand how the system works. As if "the system" were NOT deciding law when liberal judges rule in favor of civil rights policy.
The following confirms you've misunderstood, as you provide historical examples of what just happened in the Students for Fair Admission Inc case--i.e., that a change in the social/political make up of the court turned out to be also a change in legal interpretation rooted in different values than those which brought precedent just overturned. That's what I am arguing, and what you apparently missed.
(07-04-2023, 01:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Yes indeed. Why would Dredd Scott be overturned or Plessy v. Ferguson when the "facts of the case" had been the same for decades plus?
No, the SCOTUS just decided. Like many leftists you applaud judicial decisions in your favor and decry those against you as unfair or evidence of a broken system. You see it in the news now with alarming frequency, the number of prominent Dems, including the POTUS, carefully crafting a narrative that this SCOTUS is illegitimate and working at cross purposes to its original intent. The purpose of this is a nakedly obvious as it is brazen. To delegitimize the court so that they can swoop in and "save it", by appointing, of course, enough ideological liberal judges to make it "fair" again and working as intended.
I'll reiterate a point from a previous thread, I never thought I'd live to see the day that the "liberal" party became the party of authoritarianism.
Dred Scott was overturned because enough citizens finally decided that Blacks were citizens with a right to equal participation in government (13-14th Amendments). Taney's ruling, like many of those of today's court, was not even supported by the majority in 1857.
It was a change in values which created a change in law, to make it more consonant with the values of most Americans at the time.
Or if you disagree, then let's hear what pertinent "facts" changed between 1857 and 1865 while legal interpretation remained the same.
Same for overturning Plessy vs Ferguson. There is no reason to suppose the "facts" which helped decide Brown vs Board would have swayed the Brown court, given the legal philosophy of that majority, which protected white majority discrimination/privilege by affirming legal equality despite separation and ruled out government remedy for social inequality--the same assumption grounding current efforts to roll back civil rights advances.
In both cases, at some point "brazen" liberals decried Dredd and Plessy as "unfair or evidence of a broken system," after "carefully crafting a narrative that [the SCOTUS in question was] working at cross purposes to its original intent." And then it was they, not some "system," which changed the law.
So yes, like ALL "leftists" and liberals and "rightists"--like EVERYBODY--I applaud decisions which align with my values. Do you really do otherwise?
You've also supposed the legal neutrality of Trump's Muslim ban and Dobbs. That's a pattern now--just "the law" when your side "carefully crafts a narrative" of grievance and installs judges to make "fair" decisions, but delegitimizing "authoritarianism" when my side does.
The difference between you and me is that I don't mystify court decisions by claiming some "system" made the ones I favor,
rather than judges appointed to that task. I don't write as if only the other side "constructs narratives" while for my side it's "just the (legal) facts, Maam."
RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-05-2023
(07-04-2023, 01:54 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I have said in other threads, countering inequality with more inequality is rarely going to achieve the desired result. As to your "SSF style" question, no, it's never ok to discriminate against others. Sometimes it's legal and some times it's not. But it's never "right".
Quote:Um sure. Like the protocols. 'cept I'm after "white people." Who have never "manipulated" people of color in the U.S.
Or other white people for that matter, using race to scare them to vote right.
You caught me presuming a historical and continued white dominance of the nation's politics and higher education without a shred of proof.
Wait, you mean the ethnicity that, until very recently, constituted the vast majority of people in this nation actually held sway over said nation's politics? I am shocked by this revelation. The problem with people who think like you is that they give no credit to the capability and intelligence of those who are apparently being controlled by those dastardly white people. Non-whites are just simple rubes waiting to have their strings pulled by the white puppet masters according to your line of thought. Also, it's interesting that you speak of white people as some absurd monolith of will and intent.
If AA and racial quotas were "more inquality" then they did, in fact, counter inequality by including heretofore excluded minorities from schools. In your state it raised minority inclusion in the U system to the point it almost reflected CA's actual demographic distribution--until AA was discontinued.
The rest of this post is about the "problem" with "people like me," who has just provided a historical summary which explains how "color blind" admission policies can be and were used to achieve de facto segregation, and referred to the political machine behind the recent decision on AA, which was a confluence not just of Trump's extra court picks but an organized legal effort to stamp out AA and diversity which goes back to the Reagan era, when the drive to roll back of civil rights became tightly organized into a network of think tanks and astroturf organizations and well funded Congressional lobby.
As opposed to "people like you," who counter this history with impressions, vague charges with no examples or proof--i.e., faulty logic. Your implicit premise is that I am separating black and white into "monoliths," which gives no credit to the minorities who have in fact driven civil rights legislation, and assumes no "white" people sided with them or contested white supremacy.
That the people who controlled and still control access to higher ed are predominantly white is just an empirical fact; and my stating that fact that doesn't make "whites" ipso facto a "monolith,"* any more than it simultaneously commits me to a claim minorities had no hand in winning their own civil rights.
E.g., it is in fact Asian-American groups and leaders who have worked against discrimination against Asian Americans in higher ed who are most shocked and angered by the use of an Asian group and Asian faces to represent what is primarily an effort to roll back minority gains in higher ed, to protect the white privilege eroded by civil rights policies. https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc
So the "problem with people like me" just turns out to be an unwarranted inference, anxious projection. That's what's "interesting."
*Especially if I said, as I did, that whites are manipulated too, as they have been since the ante-Bellum days when poor whites confused the slave owners economic interests with their own by defending the slave system. Or even today, as they are whipped into grievance by people who assure them liberal elites are "replacing" them with non-whites.
RE: We are all equal again, right? - michaelsean - 07-05-2023
(07-04-2023, 09:42 AM)Matt_Crimson Wrote: Sure.
So the percentage you cited refers to those who identify as white but also includes Hispanics or Latinos who identify as white.
If you take those who identify as white only (not Hispanic or Latino) that percentage is lower (59%). In 2010 this number was 72%. So that means in 13 years, those who identify as "white only" has dropped 13% (roughly 1% per year).
If the white only population continues on this trajectory for the next 25 years, that would put their percentage at 34%. But most estimates are being more generous than that and it's believed that the percentage will fall roughly to around 45% which is still less than half. That would make whites only a minority in the US in comparison to the rest of the population.
That does not mean however that another race is becoming the majority. It just simply means that all other races combined will out populate whites.
Theres a few reasons why this is happening.
1. Immigration.
As more minorities immigrate to the US, their share of the population increases and the whites only population decreases.
2. Whites have the oldest population.
The baby boomer generation is primarily white. What this means is that the white population is older than the population of minorities. As the older generation. of whites die off, the younger generation of minorities will begin to fill the void, causing a shift in population percentages.
3. The acceptance of interracial relationships
Pretty self explanatory. Less white people having less relationships with their own race means less "white" people being born.
I think it's important to note that that last point is a "consequence" for every race. When people say that whites will become a "minority" that doesn't mean that another race will necessarily take their place (although it is possible). It's to point out that the US has become more diverse and mixed race people will only continue to contribute to a decrease in the whites only population, as well as the population of all other races. At some point we will basically reach an area where the majority of the population is primarily made from parents of two differing races.
It seems with mixed people, they tend to choose to identify as the non-white race. A lot of it probably has to do with how the public will perceive you, but I don't know a single mixed race person who identifies as white. Maybe on the census they identify as mixed. Is there a place on the census to choose black/white etc? I've never really paid attention.