Dems

[quip]

Are DEI-style preference programs -- once called "Affirmative Action" -- forms of racial discrimination, yes or no?

More deflection?
Just answer post #83 and we'll go from there.

 

[NatMorton]

More deflection?
Just answer post #83 and we'll go from there.

Answer the question or not, I don't care which because your deflection provides an answer.

And to answer your question in post 83, yes, I see an overarching theme. Defenders of DEI, and you seem to be one of them, cannot acknowledge they are proposing racial discrimination as a solution to historical and current-day racism. Your likely (and continued) avoidance to the question above will support this assertion.

 

[quip]

Answer the question or not, I don't care which because your deflection provides an answer.

I did answer, around a couple of posts (#98) back. Seems you didn't like the answer so you typically ignored it.

And to answer your question in post 83, yes, I see an overarching theme. Defenders of DEI, and you seem to be one of them, cannot acknowledge they are proposing racial discrimination as a solution to historical and current-day racism. Your likely (and continued) avoidance to the question above will support this assertion.

Now, propose a solution that sits well with the majority without disadvantaging minorities.
As your current proposal rewinds American racial history by maintaining white privilege at the expense of minorities.
Again, you can't racially discriminate against the empowered race.

Here's your overarching theme Nat, racial partiality. Own it!

Don't whine about accusations of 'racism' when you pit races against one another....while fully knowing which one will prevail.

 

[NatMorton]

I did answer, around a couple of posts (#98) back. Seems you didn't like the answer so you typically ignored it.

I see it now. I lost it through the sarcasm.

You're making a basic logic error. You're saying something isn't what it is because of noble intentions. That you think granting some races preferential treatment over others is justified because of racism does not make the act something other than racial discrimination. You're just hiding behind euphemisms. The act is both a response and racially discriminatory.

I think deep down you know racial discrimination is wrong, which is why you won't use the words, but you've got a touch a cognitive dissonance at work, and it's not letting you reconcile the reality of the situation.

Now, propose a solution that sits well with the majority without disadvantaging minorities.

I propose evaluating candidates based on merit and racially neutral selection practices.

As your current proposal rewinds American racial history by maintaining white privilege at the expense of minorities.
Again, you can't racially discriminate against the empowered race.

That is blithering nonsense. Of course you can. You simply penalize the member of the "empowered race" for the color of their skin and no other reason. Voila, racial discrimination.

Here's your overarching theme Nat, racial partiality. Own it!

Hmm. I call for racially neutral selection processes. You call for sorting and selecting candidates by race, but somehow I'm the one with "racial partiality."

Do you have any idea how foolish that sounds?

Don't whine about accusations of 'racism' when you pit races against one another....while fully knowing which one will prevail.

How do I "pit races against one another?" Be specific. You're the one run the identity politics playbook here, not me.

 

[quip]

I see it now. I lost it through the sarcasm.

You're making a basic logic error. You're saying something isn't what it is because of noble intentions. That you think granting some races preferential treatment over others is justified

Precisely. You called it. It's a preference of one race, sex, identity, sexual orientation or disability over others. (That's exactly why your insistence upon prioritizing it solely on race remains 'racially' suspect.)

because of racism does not make the act something other than racial discrimination. You're just hiding behind euphemisms. The act is both a response and racially discriminatory.

It's simply not systemic racism.....

I think deep down you know racial discrimination is wrong, which is why you won't use the words, but you've got a touch a cognitive dissonance at work, and it's not letting you reconcile the reality of the situation.

Systemic racism involves a use of power from the empowered to oppress the disempowered. By definition, the disempowered hold no such systemic power.

I propose evaluating candidates based on merit and racially neutral selection practices.

Of course, in a perfect world...which I know you're not as naive to believe in such a world. As a matter of fact, you've admitted to the fact of minority discrimination prior in our discussion. Quit being ridiculously disingenuous.

That is blithering nonsense. Of course you can. You simply penalize the member of the "empowered race" for the color of their skin and no other reason. Voila, racial discrimination.

Been discussed. Basic reasoning and a systemic power structure belies your anecdotal evidence.

Hmm. I call for racially neutral selection processes. You call for sorting and selecting candidates by race, but somehow I'm the one with "racial partiality."

You call for nothing of the kind.

Do you have any idea how foolish that sounds?

We've covered your foolish notion of an assumed fair playing field. Your "logic" defies the fundamental reasons DEI was initiated.

How do I "pit races against one another?" Be specific. You're the one run the identity politics playbook here, not me.

How many times must I repeat this until it gets through your thick head? Your proposal of removing DEI serves maintaining white privilege against minorities' access to opportunities.

 

[NatMorton]

Precisely. You called it. It's a preference of one race, sex, identity, sexual orientation or disability over others. (That's exactly why your insistence upon prioritizing it solely on race remains 'racially' suspect.)

Interesting, you seem to forget that race and sex are protected classes. It is illegal to discriminate based on those factors.

It's simply not systemic racism.....

Never said it was. At some point I trust you're going to run out of straw, but will that happen any time soon?

Systemic racism involves a use of power from the empowered to oppress the disempowered. By definition, the disempowered hold no such systemic power.

Of course, in a perfect world...which I know you're not as naive to believe in such a world. As a matter of fact, you've admitted to the fact of minority discrimination prior in our discussion. Quit being ridiculously disingenuous.

How am I being disingenuous? You've acknowledged that I acknowledge there has been and remains racism in America. Are you even listening to yourself?

Been discussed. Basic reasoning and a systemic power structure belies your anecdotal evidence.

You call for nothing of the kind.

We've covered your foolish notion of an assumed fair playing field. Your "logic" defies the fundamental reasons DEI was initiated.

How many times must I repeat this until it gets through your thick head? Your proposal of removing DEI serves maintaining white privilege against minorities' access to opportunities.

Well, that you're now resorting to insults says a great deal more about your argument than it ever will about me.

I leave you with this: I think racial discrimination ultimately serves no one. If you doubt this, ask where we might be today had Joe Biden opted for a VP based on merit rather than on preferred race and gender. Are you feeling well served by last November's election results?

 

[The Brad Dad]

How am I being disingenuous? You've acknowledged that I acknowledge there has been and remains racism in America.

Because all conservatives say this. But what they mean is they believe in it as a concept - like when Sean or Mark yell about "reverse racism", but other than stuff like that does it exist? Nope.

 

[NatMorton]

Because all conservatives say this. But what they mean is they believe in it as a concept - like when Sean or Mark yell about "reverse racism", but other than stuff like that does it exist? Nope.

I am not Sean or Mark, and I have not made an accusation of "reverse racism" in this thread (or that I can recall, anywhere).

I ask again, how am I being disingenuous? Be specific.

 

[The Brad Dad]

I am not Sean or Mark, and I have not made an accusation of "reverse racism" in this thread (or that I can recall, anywhere).

I ask again, how am I being disingenuous? Be specific.

Already explained it.

 

[NatMorton]

Already explained it.

No, you didn't, though I suspect you honestly believe you did.

 

[The Brad Dad]

No, you didn't, though I suspect you honestly believe you did.

I guess you’ll just have to live with never knowing then.

 

[quip]

Interesting, you seem to forget that race and sex are protected classes. It is illegal to discriminate based on those factors.

There's specific laws that need to be adhered to. You can't hire someone simply by sex or race. But you don't care, you just want to whine.

Never said it was. At some point I trust you're going to run out of straw, but will that happen any time soon?

Of course you didn't, you rather imply it. Which leads us to....

How am I being disingenuous? You've acknowledged that I acknowledge there has been and remains racism in America. Are you even listening to yourself?

You're resting your entire argument upon the fantasy of a fair playing field ... Yet, you claim racism still exist. What existing "playing field" are you playing at?

Well, that you're now resorting to insults says a great deal more about your argument than it ever will about me.

I leave you with this: I think racial discrimination ultimately serves no one. If you doubt this, ask where we might be today had Joe Biden opted for a VP based on merit rather than on preferred race and gender. Are you feeling well served by last November's election results?

What does this mess of a non sequitur have to do with anything?

Are you actually leveling a sexual and racial slur in defense of your anti-discrimination proclamation?

Astonishing Nat, truly astonishing.

 

[Parker_Chess]

It seems that EVERYthing that the Dems endorse or "are supporters of", are things that are bad for the country. It almost seems like the Dems want to take America down or bankrupt the country, or? Does anybody have a theory as to why this is? I mean, they like high gas prices, they want "sanctuary cities", criminals, no borders, LBGTQ, men in women's sports, kids having sex changes, and WE should pay for it all! WTF is up with these people? There has to be an agenda. I don't know what it is but I think these are Luciferians. OR?????????

You are deep into Fox and News Max bubble. I'd suggest you listen to outside voices. Because you believe in a caricature of the Democratic Party.

High gas prices - That's absurd neither party wants higher gas prices. There was a brief period during the Biden presidency where gas prices were high but that fell down towards the latter half of his term.

Sanctuary Cities - Do you know why these exist? It's actually to lower crime. Because it makes it so that a person can call and report a crime to the police without having their legal status questioned. Believe it or not, if we eliminate Sanctuary cities the crime rate will increase among border cities.

No Borders - The Democrats actually worked with the Republicans on a border bill which did not pass for political reasons. The bill would have put more border patrols on the southern border and even given funding to portions of Trump's original border wall. Additionally, if you look throughout history the Republican party has done things like grant Amnesty to millions of illegals (during Ronald Reagan) and presided under the biggest illegal immigration era in U.S. history (during the George W. Bush Presidency).

LGBTQ and Men in Women's sports- I actually agree the Democrats are a out of touch here. But also I think this isn't the party at large. There's also a line between protecting people's rights to be whoever they want and also forcing the rest of society to comply to the demands of a few. And the Democratic Party hasn't figured out their messaging on this yet. I fall somewhere in between. But I definitely agree that trans women should not be allowed to play in women's sports this is baffling to me.

I encourage you to step outside your bubble. Talk to some actual Democrats. Because most are more reasonable than you think. I'd recommend watch the Bullwork on YT he's an ex-Republicam who has a conservative friendly show. There's also Kyle Kulinski. He's much more partisan but he provides rational viewpoint of the left. We have strong and real criticisms of what Trump is doing now And shifting the country towards authoritarianism.

 

[trumptman]

It seems that EVERYthing that the Dems endorse or "are supporters of", are things that are bad for the country. It almost seems like the Dems want to take America down or bankrupt the country, or? Does anybody have a theory as to why this is? I mean, they like high gas prices, they want "sanctuary cities", criminals, no borders, LBGTQ, men in women's sports, kids having sex changes, and WE should pay for it all! WTF is up with these people? There has to be an agenda. I don't know what it is but I think these are Luciferians. OR?????????

The Agenda is called COMMUNISM.

 

[soap box]

The Agenda is called COMMUNISM.

That's funny, lots of dems watch the stock market to see how they're doing. They're not very authentic when it comes to communism and all that.

 

[Deuce]

Answer the question or not, I don't care which because your deflection provides an answer.

And to answer your question in post 83, yes, I see an overarching theme. Defenders of DEI, and you seem to be one of them, cannot acknowledge they are proposing racial discrimination as a solution to historical and current-day racism. Your likely (and continued) avoidance to the question above will support this assertion.

That's not what DEI is.

DEI is not promoting less-qualified minorities over better-qualified white people.
DEI is promoting more-qualified minorities who have been overlooked because people believe they are less-qualified.

Hope this helps your racism confusion.