AProudLefty
Banned
- Joined
- Jul 1, 2019
- Messages
- 12,153
- Reaction score
- 3,335
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Why are you so concerned about this?
Why is the state of California so concerned about this?
Do people still say, "hippies"? LOL
From its start the Democratic Party has always been about racism, particularly against black people. It is no surprise that white California Democrats are deeply disturbed that black people, particularly black women, might do their hair like white people's hair. So they passed a law to encourage black people to look as black as possible. That goal comes straight out of the Democratic slave trade in which they urged buying only slaves that were very dark skinned so there was no confusing them with white people and to keep them in the Democratic Party's role as an inferior species.
Without its racism, the Democratic Party is nothing. Other than being the servants of rich people, that's all the Democratic Party is - perpetual ranting and demanding segregation in racial and social divisions. It is the perpetual racist hate mongering party.
Do rightists want to go back to 50's?
Yup. There's still plenty of us oldfarts around.
Of course, dreadlocks are not "natural hair," are they? They are ridiculous.
You mean do I want to go back to an era of relative peace and a good economy and near universal belief in Christianity and very low rate of divorce and before the legal fiction that pornagraphy is protected speech was invented?
Yes, Yes I do.
And all you can criticize about the 50s is segregation, as though that was the only thing that decade was characterized by. The people of that generation ended it.
Does the hair of African American women grow into dreadlocks? If not, then it's not their natural hair.
Yup. There's still plenty of us oldfarts around.
Men also come under grooming standards in the militaryShould be a federal law. African American women especially have complained over this discrimination for decades, even in the US military.
Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk
I've talked to people like you. Still amazing that there are people like you out there.
BTW I would not characterize things like Cuban Missile Crisis and Cold War "relatively peaceful". :lamo
When you compare them to the events of the past 25 years, they are absolutely peaceful....but hey, don't let facts get in your way.
Yeah, let’s go back to the 50s! Jim Crowe. Back of the bus, separate drinking fountains, blacks are forbidden from buying houses in the suburbs. Six-year-old’s watching films in class about how hiding under a desk might save your life from a nuclear blast, paranoia, building bomb shelters, and calling anyone that doesn’t think exactly like you a “communist”, ruining their lives like your alcoholic hero in your avatar. The best things about the 1950s have nothing to do with the repressive political and social situations that you revere. Design, fashion and rock n’ roll were positive aspects of that decade. The latter sparking the civil rights movement 10 years prior because it brought young adults of all ethnicities and social backgrounds together while bucking their parents outdated views.You mean do I want to go back to an era of relative peace and a good economy and near universal belief in Christianity and very low rate of divorce and before the legal fiction that pornagraphy is protected speech was invented?
Yes, Yes I do.
And all you can criticize about the 50s is segregation, as though that was the only thing that decade was characterized by. The people of that generation ended it.
Can not make this up,
CROWN Act: California becomes first state to ban discrimination against natural hair - CBS News
I get the understanding and thought process behind it, but the article is poorly written, so their examples, makes you think there HAS to be more to the story than just what they are saying....
BECAUSE OF THEIR HAIR so black women are not being discriminated against on the basis of being black women, the discrimination is due to deviant visible traits that are not intrinsic to being a black woman.
The preamble to the CROWN Act observes that “[t]he history of our nation is riddled with laws and societal norms that equated ‘blackness’ and the associated physical traits . . . to a badge of inferiority, sometimes subject to separate and unequal treatment.”
It goes on to note that this association came to permeate the workplace, where “professionalism was, and still is, closely linked to European features and mannerisms,” leading some to “alter their appearances, sometimes drastically and permanently, in order to be deemed professional.”
In recognition that “hair today remains a proxy for race” and “a rampant source of racial discrimination . . . , especially for Black individuals,” the CROWN Act aims to eliminate dress code and grooming policies that prohibit natural hair, which are likely to deter Black applicants and burden or punish Black employees.
As amended, California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act now includes in the definition of race “traits historically associated with race, including, but not limited to, hair texture and protective hairstyles,” the latter including “hairstyles [such] as braids, locks, and twists.” Any California employers with grooming policies that prohibit protective hairstyles must amend such policies and train hiring managers about the new law to prevent preconceived biases about natural hairstyles from influencing hiring decisions.
Although California is the first U.S. state to prohibit natural hairstyle discrimination, New York City has adopted a similar standard, expressly protecting employee’s right to maintain “natural hair, treat or untreated . . . such as locks, cornrows, twists, braids, Bantu knots, faces, Afros, and the right to keep hair in an uncut or untrimmed state.”
In addition to California and New York City employers who must review and amend their dress and grooming policies if they currently prohibit or discourage natural hairstyles, all U.S. employers are encouraged to review their policies and proactively eliminate any proxies for race.
noits
the
same
thing
the "deviant visible traits" (jesus christ if that's not a white supremacist phrase i don't know what is) are just an excuse. The real goal is to fire black women.
Ok I'll bite. Which events were worse than a threat of thermonuclear war?
Just as a little input, dreadlocks, cornrows, and ponytails are all allowed in US Navy for female Sailors (I'd honestly have no issue with allowing for male Sailors either but then I'm retiring in about a week, so...).
New Navy grooming standards, and big changes for sailors assigned to Marine units — everything you need to know
Yeah, let’s go back to the 50s! Jim Crowe. Back of the bus, separate drinking fountains, blacks are forbidden from buying houses in the suburbs. Six-year-old’s watching films in class about how hiding under a desk might save your life from a nuclear blast, paranoia, building bomb shelters, and calling anyone that doesn’t think exactly like you a “communist”, ruining their lives like your alcoholic hero in your avatar. The best things about the 1950s have nothing to do with the repressive political and social situations that you revere. Design, fashion and rock n’ roll were positive aspects of that decade. The latter sparking the civil rights movement 10 years prior because it brought young adults of all ethnicities and social backgrounds together while bucking their parents outdated views.
Do leftists believe private businesses should have any rights at all?
Holy ****, you think the "threat" of thermonuclear war is over??
Let's take that CONSTANT out, because now, it's not just countries, it's individuals that you need to worry about,
But prior to what, 1990, how many mass shootings were there? Not war related?
Holy **** you actually thought that I thought the threat is over?? :shock: You need to understand what brinkmanship means.
There were plenty of mass shootings, war or not. I find it interesting that you want to exclude war because the white supremacists consider it a war and its their patriotic duty to do what ever it is needed to defend their country.
There were plenty of mass shootings? Ok, links please, prior to 1990.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?