Donald Trump and US politics

"

faerwin wrote:

When everyone stop seeing skin color (and sexual identity/orientation) as a divider, theses favoritism laws will be able to be dropped.

When is that? Are there any publicly-watched metrics that determine that?

Bigotry is awful, and trying to undo the harm of bigotry with more bigotry doesn't work. Favoritism laws enshrine the division.

It never ends unless people take a stance that actually ends it. For example, redirecting funds raised to improve one race to the race-agnostic poor, or the race-agnostic orphaned, or the race-agnostic sickly.

---

I like the Carlin video. I've said it many times in this thread and elsewhere on this board, but my stance is exactly that. Pride (and shame) should be reserved for active choices, never birth qualities.

Race and culture are obviously different things, but are happily (and often) conflated by racists who use that deceit to their advantage.

"

pneuma wrote:

Pride (and shame) should be reserved for active choices, never birth qualities.

Except when birth qualities gives you an edge. Basketball teams do and should discriminate short people and business should discriminate stupid people.

Shade of skin is an irrelevant trait, for most purposes, but something like IQ is not irrelevant. Discriminating against skin color = most likely racism, discriminating against low IQ = smart businessman-ship.

If you can be proud of your culture past achievements, then you can be also proud of your special traits, why not? You didn't contribute to some distant past and you didn't contribute to your good genes. People feel pride about stuff that others have achieved, but which they can now benefit from. Trying to shun this pride is just another tactic designed to conform people into "equality" & relativism.

There is no such thing as equality and discrimination is an inherent natural part of evolution.

As a black person I find the term "african american" way more insulting than just describing my skin color.

So you want to say I come from africa, that I am different than other american. It sound segregationist.

Also I hear many black in the US really taking insults as being called african.

Do you call white in the US " european american"?

Sound to me another way to discreminate Blacks.

My skin is chocolate from my mom, your skin is white or yellow... We all come from africa anyway. Fuck you for not conceiving I am born European or American.

Stop calling me African this is not my nationality.

Also I laugh at those rich nunu talking on behalf of black people.
Black people have lot of advantages in the US, way more than in Europe. Yet black in america always use the race card as an excuse for their shit behaviors.

I kill this guy but it s because I am opressed.
I left school at 13 and can t find a job... White owners must be racist
Cops shoot me while i was handling a gun/knife toward them after driving drunk all day... they must be racist.

Most of the time dindu attitude is what hurt black community the most.
Of course there is true racsim, true racist cops but a lot of time if you were acting like a good citizen this would not happen.

Black conservatives are on the rise and it s because of the bullshit from racist liberals who always categorize us as inferior and needing some babysitting.

I am not a super predator Miss Hillary!

"

morbo wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

Pride (and shame) should be reserved for active choices, never birth qualities.

Except when birth qualities gives you an edge. Basketball teams do and should discriminate short people and business should discriminate stupid people.

Shade of skin is an irrelevant trait, for most purposes, but something like IQ is not irrelevant. Discriminating against skin color = most likely racism, discriminating against low IQ = smart businessman-ship.

If you can be proud of your culture past achievements, then you can be also proud of your special traits, why not? You didn't contribute to some distant past and you didn't contribute to your good genes. People feel pride about stuff that others have achieved, but which they can now benefit from. Trying to shun this pride is just another tactic designed to conform people into "equality" & relativism.

There is no such thing as equality and discrimination is an inherent natural part of evolution.

Italics mine.

I disagree with (only) the italicized portions. Choosing the tall or the smart for the value they can offer is good, but merely being tall or smart, to the extent determined by factors other than one's own choice, is not to be proud of. Essentially, morbo moved the goalposts from "pride-justifying" to "valuable" then answered a different question. By the way, pride in the behavior of anyone you did not first influence yourself is patently ridiculous.

"

pneuma wrote:

"

faerwin wrote:

When everyone stop seeing skin color (and sexual identity/orientation) as a divider, theses favoritism laws will be able to be dropped.

When is that? Are there any publicly-watched metrics that determine that?

Bigotry is awful, and trying to undo the harm of bigotry with more bigotry doesn't work. Favoritism laws enshrine the division.

It never ends unless people take a stance that actually ends it. For example, redirecting funds raised to improve one race to the race-agnostic poor, or the race-agnostic orphaned, or the race-agnostic sickly.

---

I like the Carlin video. I've said it many times in this thread and elsewhere on this board, but my stance is exactly that. Pride (and shame) should be reserved for active choices, never birth qualities.

Race and culture are obviously different things, but are happily (and often) conflated by racists who use that deceit to their advantage.

These laws were not made to divide but to bring people together, it's a very important subtlety of them. They were also done in contrast with past (but recent) events where women and people of colors didn't have equal opportunities/treatment/salary despite doing the same work (often doing more). The laws were meant to fix that problem, even if it introduced another (smaller) problem.

Let me give you an example.

During the segregation, black people had to go to the back of the bus.

A law that would enshrine the division is if blacks got their own buses in which white had to go to the back.

A law that wouldn't promote division would be one that force people to spread ratio of white/black person across the bus.

Eventually, the second example could be dropped as it would be seen as normal that black and white people are mixed together in a bus. The first one wouldn't promote that.


It's a step in the right direction, one that will eventually allow the situation to be normalized and then drop that quota entirely.

Gorge Carlin is the man. When I was kid I didnt understand him but now hes my fav. Along with Bill Burr.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

By the way, pride in the behavior of anyone you did not first influence yourself is patently ridiculous.

I disagree, because this would mean you can't be proud of your country's achievements, your culture's achievements, your sports team, etc... Or even being proud of your parents, grandparents, since you didn't influence their stuff (not willingly).

If some smart mofo can be a chess grandmaster, then he should be proud of his ability. Training and effort counts, but without the biologic prerequisite, the effort alone would not be enough to achieve it. Same goes for the basketball player. Therefore you cannot be proud of your achievements and disregard your genes at the same time.

"

morbo wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

Pride (and shame) should be reserved for active choices, never birth qualities.

Except when birth qualities gives you an edge. Basketball teams do and should discriminate short people and business should discriminate stupid people.

Shade of skin is an irrelevant trait, for most purposes, but something like IQ is not irrelevant. Discriminating against skin color = most likely racism, discriminating against low IQ = smart businessman-ship.

If you can be proud of your culture past achievements, then you can be also proud of your special traits, why not? You didn't contribute to some distant past and you didn't contribute to your good genes. People feel pride about stuff that others have achieved, but which they can now benefit from. Trying to shun this pride is just another tactic designed to conform people into "equality" & relativism.

There is no such thing as equality and discrimination is an inherent natural part of evolution.

Pride and shame are completely secondary to the realities of the world. It is not shameful that people born with incurable illnesses die of those illnesses, and it is not prideful that people born to wealthy parents can go their entire life without worrying about how to get their next meal.

Pride and shame are layers on top of reality that talk about what direction we should be going in, and what choices we should be making. When you link those to birth qualities, you create an undue momentum which steamrolls the unlucky more than they are already unlucky, and rewards the lucky more than they are already rewarded.

---

"Being tall" isn't a culture, just like "being smart" or "being white" aren't cultures.

You can't be "proud" of your culture's past achievements -- you weren't there. You can actively decide to involve yourself in the culture that you were raised in and you can celebrate its successes and feel shame for its failures or you can find a new culture by taking another active choice.

I'm promoting egalitarianism. I'm about as opposed to "equality of outcome" as is possible, so I'm very confused about how you got that out of what I wrote.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

morbo wrote:

"

pneuma wrote:

Pride (and shame) should be reserved for active choices, never birth qualities.

Except when birth qualities gives you an edge. Basketball teams do and should discriminate short people and business should discriminate stupid people.

Shade of skin is an irrelevant trait, for most purposes, but something like IQ is not irrelevant. Discriminating against skin color = most likely racism, discriminating against low IQ = smart businessman-ship.

If you can be proud of your culture past achievements, then you can be also proud of your special traits, why not? You didn't contribute to some distant past and you didn't contribute to your good genes. People feel pride about stuff that others have achieved, but which they can now benefit from. Trying to shun this pride is just another tactic designed to conform people into "equality" & relativism.

There is no such thing as equality and discrimination is an inherent natural part of evolution.

Italics mine.

I disagree with (only) the italicized portions. Choosing the tall or the smart for the value they can offer is good, but merely being tall or smart, to the extent determined by factors other than one's own choice, is not to be proud of. Essentially, morbo moved the goalposts from "pride-justifying" to "valuable" then answered a different question. By the way, pride in the behavior of anyone you did not first influence yourself is patently ridiculous.

For pride, it depends. You can be proud of a nation for doing something you judge right (an example is feeling proud of your military that defend your country with their life). Misplaced pride would be to be proud of yourself because your military defend your country with their life. You know, appropriating the actions of others for yourself, which is honestly, just pathetic.

"

faerwin wrote:

It's a step in the right direction, one that will eventually allow the situation to be normalized and then drop that quota entirely.

There is nothing to normalize, because those racial laws from 80 years ago don't exist anymore. A 20 yo person today did not benefit anything from those past racial laws, so he should not bear any burden. Positive discrimination should not exist anymore, because those who benefited from racial laws are mostly already dead or out of the job market.

The problem is with leftist, who assume that in their "perfect" society every race or gender would have a 50%/50% distribution everywhere. So until we achieve this equality of outcome, we must force discriminate against the successful to prop up the not-so-successful. Which is just another communistic utopian idea.

Also, ideologies like feminism have become a lobby and a racket. So, even if there are now more women in college in US than men, you still have feminist lobby pushing for privileges for women. It's not about equality anymore.