We are all equal again, right? - Printable Version +- 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? - pally - 07-12-2023 (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 RE: We are all equal again, right? - BengalYankee - 07-12-2023 (07-12-2023, 01:52 PM)pally Wrote: Never said Never mentioned liberals or conservatives. I did mention OLD DEMOCRATS as in Democrats from yesteryear. As if I said OLD REPUBLICANS freed the slaves. RE: We are all equal again, right? - michaelsean - 07-12-2023 (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. RE: We are all equal again, right? - michaelsean - 07-12-2023 (07-12-2023, 01:52 PM)pally Wrote: The law was written by conservatives, not liberals regardless of party. Good lord take a breather. RE: We are all equal again, right? - HarleyDog - 07-12-2023 (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!" RE: We are all equal again, right? - BengalYankee - 07-12-2023 (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 RE: We are all equal again, right? - GMDino - 07-13-2023 Folks the race problem has been solved. Jesse Waters has an easy, multi-step plan for black people. No more worries!
RE: We are all equal again, right? - HarleyDog - 07-13-2023 (07-13-2023, 01:58 PM)GMDino Wrote: Folks the race problem has been solved. Seems there are a lot of Dems turning Republicans lately. Holy crap, I hope they don't make the GOP look bad. RE: We are all equal again, right? - KillerGoose - 07-13-2023 (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%. RE: We are all equal again, right? - pally - 07-13-2023 (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. RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-14-2023 (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. 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. RE: We are all equal again, right? - Sociopathicsteelerfan - 07-14-2023 (07-14-2023, 03:14 PM)Dill Wrote: That post identifies three definitions of "fair" linked to three possible responses to racial discrimination. 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. RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-15-2023 (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. 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. RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-15-2023 (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?" 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? 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. RE: We are all equal again, right? - GMDino - 07-16-2023 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 RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-16-2023 (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. 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. ??? "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. RE: We are all equal again, right? - Dill - 07-16-2023 (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." RE: We are all equal again, right? - GMDino - 07-22-2023 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.
|