Do you concur with any race-based ideas articulated/acted on/held by white supremacist groups? (1 Viewer)

[Xelor]

Simple poll question. Just answer it.

 

[Rexedgar]

Taking the hoods off, eh? Poll lasts eighteen years; do I have that right?

 

[X Factor]

I fully disagree that any race is superior/inferior to any other race. Beyond that, I really don’t know what ideas White supremacists articulate/believe/act upon.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Simple poll question. Just answer it.

I sincerely doubt you will get more than two YES votes, and while I could probably ID the members by name I'll stay silent.
Aside from that, there are a lot more folks who vote YES in their minds but won't vote at all.
Hoods exist for a reason, they know what they're doing is all kinds of wrong.

 

[cpwill]

Simple poll question. Just answer it.

The trick is the totality of the question.

For example, if a white supremacist group believes in subjugating Jews and making them second class citizens, or restricting immigration to white people, I don't hold with any of those positions, and should vote "no", because I cannot vote "yes".

But if one of those groups also believes that universities should not give racial preferences, then neither can I vote "no", because I do think that universities should not judge their applicants based on race.

 

[cpwill]

I sincerely doubt you will get more than two YES votes, and while I could probably ID the members by name I'll stay silent.
Aside from that, there are a lot more folks who vote YES in their minds but won't vote at all.
Hoods exist for a reason, they know what they're doing is all kinds of wrong.

That, at least, is true (though I suspect your second charge is less true than you think). If you have to wear a mask or a hood to engage in expression of your ideological positions, chances are, you know what you are doing is wrong.*




*In free societies. I can understand why someone would not wish to be outed for being a free speech advocate in - say - China

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Probably not. By very nature of being race-based, the idea would be based on a foundation of pseudoscientific idiocy.

But I am not ruling out the possibility. A broken clock can be right twice a day.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

The trick is the totality of the question.

For example, if a white supremacist group believes in subjugating Jews and making them second class citizens, or restricting immigration to white people, I don't hold with any of those positions, and should vote "no", because I cannot vote "yes".

But if one of those groups also believes that universities should not give racial preferences, then neither can I vote "no", because I do think that universities should not judge their applicants based on race.

As a liberal, I am trying to evolve on racial preference programs (so called affirmative action).
Here is where I am at:

Means testing: If people in a class have more than adequate means it is highly unlikely they'd be turned away from any universities. Therefore low income "weighs more" than race or class.

Ability to benefit: Speaks almost entirely for itself. Applicants must demonstrate ATB no matter what group they belong to.

And lastly, they have to have the ambition and the grades.

Put all that together and you still get a sampling from groups and racial classes which deserve a leg up, just apply the above filters so that it makes more sense instead of just handing out preference blindly. Poor and disadvantaged is poor and disadvantaged no matter where they are from.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

That, at least, is true (though I suspect your second charge is less true than you think). If you have to wear a mask or a hood to engage in expression of your ideological positions, chances are, you know what you are doing is wrong.*




*In free societies. I can understand why someone would not wish to be outed for being a free speech advocate in - say - China

In another thread someone asked if "most conservatives are bigots".
I said, "Of course not. Most aren't but it doesn't take 'most' and never has, it just takes enough to make it a serious problem plus enough who stand by silently."

 

[spud_meister]

The very idea that race has a biological basis is wrong, so any ideas drawn from that must also be wrong.

 

[apdst]

I totally oppose socialism.

 

[Xelor]

Probably not. By very nature of being race-based, the idea would be based on a foundation of pseudoscientific idiocy.

But I am not ruling out the possibility. A broken clock can be right twice a day.

The penalty for a long life is increasing resistance to change.
-- Peter F. Hamilton, Manhattan In Reverse
​

Off-Topic:

Obviously, I know exactly what is the point of the "red" statement, but for the sake of jocular pedantry, I'll note too that the "red" maxim really applies only to certain types of analog display clocks.​

This clock (analog display, electric/battery operated and electronic), for example, once it's broken (or loses power) likely isn't accurate at any time of the day.

This clock (analog display, electric/battery operated, not electronic) will be right twice a day.

The point isn't the accuracy of your remark, but rather the thought your comment inspired.

Time and technology catalyze changes on the world around us. Accordingly, one must alter oneself to fit the new realities and paradigms resulting from time's passage and technological flux. That's as so for humans as it is for every other lifeform on the plant, for the consequence of cultural/environmental adamancy is extinction.​

 

[concernedpuma]

The penalty for a long life is increasing resistance to change.
-- Peter F. Hamilton, Manhattan In Reverse
​

Off-Topic:

Obviously, I know exactly what is the point of the "red" statement, but for the sake of jocular pedantry, I'll note too that the "red" maxim really applies only to certain types of analog display clocks.​

This clock (analog display, electric/battery operated and electronic), for example, once it's broken (or loses power) likely isn't accurate at any time of the day. The blanket question of any/I] is a bit leading. Does anyone reject the notion that the NAACP, Negro College Fund, and the Black Congressional caucus are racist? That is part of their grievance. As to whether or not, one race is superior, I don't know how you could conclude that in America, today.
Regards,
CP

This clock (analog display, electric/battery operated, not electronic) will be right twice a day.

The point isn't the accuracy of your remark, but rather the thought your comment inspired.

Time and technology catalyze changes on the world around us. Accordingly, one must alter oneself to fit the new realities and paradigms resulting from time's passage and technological flux. That's as so for humans as it is for every other lifeform on the plant, for the consequence of cultural/environmental adamancy is extinction.​

Where I live, electricity is often out more than once a day, so I'm guessing each time it comes back should be counted as a time it was correct???? The blanket statement that

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

In another thread someone asked if "most conservatives are bigots".
I said, "Of course not. Most aren't but it doesn't take 'most' and never has, it just takes enough to make it a serious problem plus enough who stand by silently."

People always justify the preservation of corrupt institutions by saying the problems are always being caused by a few bad apples. They forget that the saying is "a few bad apples spoil the whole bunch".

 

[Mycroft]

Simple poll question. Just answer it.

I really don't know much about what is held by white supremacists...I just don't give them much of my attention...but since I don't think whites are supreme I answered no.

 

[concernedpuma]

I really don't know much about what is held by white supremacists...I just don't give them much of my attention...but since I don't think whites are supreme I answered no.

Devil's advocate reporting for duty….
Why do you not think that?
Regards,
CP

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

I really don't know much about what is held by white supremacists...I just don't give them much of my attention...but since I don't think whites are supreme I answered no.

Since you like to invest in trollery against people who despise white supremacists, I'd definitely count you as one of their silent supporters.

 

[Mycroft]

Devil's advocate reporting for duty….
Why do you not think that?
Regards,
CP

I agree with Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

"...they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character."

 

[Mycroft]

Since you like to invest in trollery against people who despise white supremacists, I'd definitely count you as one of their silent supporters.

Take your generalizations and stereotyping and shove it.

You are just as despicable as neo-nazis, white supremacists and Antifa.

 

[Checkerboard Strangler]

Take your generalizations and stereotyping and shove it.

You are just as despicable as neo-nazis, white supremacists and Antifa.

:lamo Okay...please keep it up :lamo

 

[Xelor]

Where I live, electricity is often out more than once a day, so I'm guessing each time it comes back should be counted as a time it was correct???? The blanket statement that

Red:
No.

Aside from Beat Haldimann's "metaphorical clocks" (watches really) that measure but don't report time, a clock that continuously displays (reports) a time of day and that isn't otherwise functioning ("ticking," if you will) will, twice each day display the correct time. To wit, twice within each 24 hour period it is 10:10. Or if one prefers, the times of 14:10 and 10:10 each occur once in each 24 hour period, thus twice each day the clock displays the correct time, i.e., "is right."

​

Off Topic:
Strictly in horological terms, a watch is a device that measures time, but reporting of the time measured is not a requirement. Beat Haldimann made two watches that play on that idea. (I get the idea and I think the device is handsome. I even think it cheerfully novel in an artsy way, so the idea of it isn't lost on me. That said, I'm not about to buy a watch that doesn't report time. LOL )

​

And, no, I'm not particularly interested in watches, but my best friend is, so I've picked up a good deal about watches as a result of having listened to him gush over "this or that" watch and from occasionally joining him at various watch events and/or stores. As for BH, well, I wouldn't rule out buying one if the time, need and occasion comes about for me to do so. They make lovely timepieces. I don't imagine, however, that I'll ever have a need to do so. I'm a watch user, not a watch collector.

 

[Waddy]

Well, I voted yes. I think I do have something in common with them. I'm just not violent about it. I like blue eyed blondes. I am one. Green eyes, actually. I would hate to see that disappear, which will happen sooner or later as the human race will eventually homogenize. And several of my black friends feel the same way about their African heritage; they feel it's been diluted too much already by other races. And several Native American writers have addressed the subject; it is of concern to them as well. I don't think blue eyes and blond hair are better than anything else, but the world is a more interesting place with some built in differences. I would hate to see everyone light brown, brown eyes, and all looking like each other. I also like to hear different languages spoken, and I'm fluent in three myself. That diversity is also in danger of disappearing.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Simple poll question. Just answer it.

It's a trap. Anyone who agrees with race based statistic will be labeled a racist by some here.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The trick is the totality of the question.

For example, if a white supremacist group believes in subjugating Jews and making them second class citizens, or restricting immigration to white people, I don't hold with any of those positions, and should vote "no", because I cannot vote "yes".

But if one of those groups also believes that universities should not give racial preferences, then neither can I vote "no", because I do think that universities should not judge their applicants based on race.

That's just it. We already know that many on the left will label an individual a racist if they agree there should be no race based quota systems. I will contend it is those believing in race based quota systems, are the racists, as the bottom line is they don't believe they are equal.

 

[Lord of Planar]

As a liberal, I am trying to evolve on racial preference programs (so called affirmative action).
Here is where I am at:

Means testing: If people in a class have more than adequate means it is highly unlikely they'd be turned away from any universities. Therefore low income "weighs more" than race or class.

Ability to benefit: Speaks almost entirely for itself. Applicants must demonstrate ATB no matter what group they belong to.

And lastly, they have to have the ambition and the grades.

Put all that together and you still get a sampling from groups and racial classes which deserve a leg up, just apply the above filters so that it makes more sense instead of just handing out preference blindly. Poor and disadvantaged is poor and disadvantaged no matter where they are from.

How about treating everyone by merit, and disregard race entirely?