Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Fakeedit: ninja'd by metalsluthunt

S-s-s-s-s-empai~

Well now for the court to handle it... and then to let them all off.

Unlikely, while the state of Cook County's judiciary is definitely sub-par, notoriety will ensure procedure is followed.

[Karnewarrior]

That's like a guy blaming some invisible fucking goblin who cast a curse on him for his inability to get dates.

You fool, Goblins have negative modifiers to their INT, WIS, and CHA! They couldn't cast a spell if their lives depended on it!

The reason I can't get dates is because of elves!

[origamiscienceguy]

BLM doesn't want to get involved, so I don't see why the courts wouldn't follow precedure.

[TempAcc]

GOBLINS

[PTTG??]

Also, getting back to the meat of the subject, the torturers have all been charged with hate crimes. Looks like the Chicago Police isn't pants on head retarded.

Fakeedit: ninja'd by metalsluthunt

Bet you a dollar people will keep complaining.

[Rolepgeek]

TempAcc, it's not that employers are openly racist. They don't have to be openly racist for affirmative action to be useful. It can be a small hard-to-notice effect, which can be compensated for by counter-bias. I personally dislike affirmative action because it's treating the symptoms rather than addressing the cause at best, and both costing qualified people jobs while aggravating racial tensions without doing anything beneficial to compensate at worst. But when it's done correctly, it can at least address symptoms. :/ Of course, with something so nebulous, 'correctly' is very hard to find.

In education it's somewhat more justifiable but it becomes a whole mire of studies to try and sort that out. >.>

But there have been studies on the subject, if you care to look. It's not solely based on ideology.

Also, Covenant, systemic bias isn't always encoded explicitly. In large part because that's illegal. But it can be present implicitly, and still need to be dealt with. I know it can seem like it's all a bogeyman used to justify being an asshole, but the Voting Rights Act was only 50 years ago. I would like you to tell me if you honestly believe that racism has been dealt with and that African-Americans face no barriers based on their race in the United States of America.

[Rolan7]

The modern narrative for affirmative action is usualy "POC are disadvantaged because they're amongst the poorest layers of society!", and to that, I answer, why not just focus on affirmative action based on income, instead of race? I've seen plenty of white, black, hispanic and asian people living under the poverty line.

Yeah, really this.  The bigger issue is poverty and cultural isolation, not skin color.  Isolated impoverished groups with an obvious trait to mobilize around become lawless.  Redneck, black, immigrant, whichever.

Nobody is denying that the US has a pretty shitty story in regards to racism,

TBF though, we were only ~30 years behind the British Empire...  Sorta?  It's actually really complicated.  Britain apparently abolished most slavery in 1834.  But a cursory look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
Shows that that was far from absolute, particularly looking at 1838 (apparently there was "forced apprenticeship".)  Which might have been a good idea, considering we did a similar thing but laissez-faire, which basically meant slaves largely became indebted workers.  There was a promise of some acres and a mule, but my impression is that it didn't pan out.

Sidenote, Firefox offered to correct "laissez-faire" into "bouillabaisse".  Dash and all.  Fucking hell.

Also, getting back to the meat of the subject, the torturers have all been charged with hate crimes. Looks like the Chicago Police isn't pants on head retarded.

Fakeedit: ninja'd by metalsluthunt

Bet you a dollar people will keep complaining.

People keep complaining when cops make mistakes and are charged with manslaughter, so why should this be different?

[Rolepgeek]

Nobody is denying that the US has a pretty shitty story in regards to racism,

TBF though, we were only ~30 years behind the British Empire...  Sorta?  It's actually really complicated.  Britain apparently abolished most slavery in 1834.  But a cursory look at this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_slavery_timeline
Shows that that was far from absolute, particularly looking at 1838 (apparently there was "forced apprenticeship".)  Which might have been a good idea, considering we did a similar thing but laissez-faire, which basically meant slaves largely became indebted workers.  There was a promise of some acres and a mule, but my impression is that it didn't pan out.

Sidenote, Firefox offered to correct "laissez-faire" into "bouillabaisse".  Dash and all.  Fucking hell.

Did Britain have to fight a war in order for it to end?

Like I know it sounds short and dismissive, but seriously. Just saying we ended 30 years earlier ignores the 20-30 years it might have continued if the South hadn't tried to secede.

[Rolan7]

Slavery was still just a pretense for the American Civil War.  There were strong, ever-increasing economic reasons for that war.
But we've been over that plenty.  I'm merely saying nobody convinced me otherwise.

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

You say "minor injustice", and that's what it may be on the level of the country overall -- but to the individual getting rejected, I'd argue that it isn't a very minir injustice at all.

And I am in general more interested in the rights of the individual than in the argued welfare of the group.

Being systematically disadvantaged to other people based on the color of your skin isn't a minor injustice either. But apparently that doesn't matter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Proponents of affirmative action keep talking about this systemic disadvantage that minorities face based on the colour of their skin. I'm asking, where is it? Show me the laws and policies that are specifically discriminating against black people.

Pshyeah, because we're totally going to find racists recording their prejudice and turning it into official policy.

And no, 'Well if there's no racism, why aren't more black people at Harvard?' is not an answer. If the system can't be found to be biased, you don't get to make up 'invisible' racism to explain results you don't like.

It's not "invisible," it's just covert.

That's like a guy blaming some invisible fucking goblin who cast a curse on him for his inability to get dates.

Except that it isn't - just because it isn't easily visible doesn't mean we can't find proof.

The only bias in the system I see is the one many people here are defending, where certain minorities are advantaged and others are disadvantaged in order to get the results you believe to be the 'right' results. And this somehow isn't racism. 2+2=5 indeed.

Oh, no! The liberals are going to make it so we don't know truth anymore! They're calling right wrong and left right! This is just like in 1984!*

(Which I didn't actually read but like to quote to sound smart)

[Loud Whispers]

We're sliding down the shitrope, Randy, and when we get to the bottom there's going to be a full-bore Chinese shitnado waiting for us.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

[nenjin]

But we've been over that plenty.  I'm merely saying nobody convinced me otherwise.

Good. I was hoping that pointless argument would not have to be rehashed, regardless of which side of it you fall on.

[Rolan7]

Oh, no! The liberals are going to make it so we don't know truth anymore! They're calling right wrong and left right! This is just like in 1984!*

(Which I didn't actually read but like to quote to sound smart)

Mm.  Did you forget what to quote?  Was it this:

This is awful, I agree. The question is whether it is racism. And that depends on the definition. This is just a question of "this word can be used in subtly different ways," that's all. Prejudice against white people on the part of PoC, and violence based on that prejudice - nobody's denying that this exists, that it is wrong, that the criminals should be punished. It's just that some people don't define that as "racism".

Um...  Really?  Sorry, but I haven't really been exposed to that debate (I don't think I hang in the right circles).
Am I really reading that correctly?  An act that would otherwise be racism, shouldn't be called racism, if it's prejudice from a PoC against a white person?

That's terrifying...  I suppose I don't understand the issue, but what's the point?  Why separate out "Prejudice against white people on the part of PoC"?  Does it even have its own word?
Because saying "That's not racism, that's [long descriptive phrase]" is 1984 newspeak.  Killing an idea (black on white prejudice) by removing the word.

Or was that just a coincidence?

But we've been over that plenty.  I'm merely saying nobody convinced me otherwise.

Good. I was hoping that pointless argument would not have to be rehashed, regardless of which side of it you fall on.

Same, truly.

[Neonivek]

I got the impression he was just strawmanning me, Rolan, rather than referring to your earlier comment.

Yay! it is back to Pro-life versus Pro-Choice mentality

[Dozebôm Lolumzalìs]

I got the impression he was just strawmanning me, Rolan, rather than referring to your earlier comment.

Yep, a shameless strawman. We need more edginess and strife.

(It's a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it. )


All jokes aside, I was being hyperbolic to (poorly) prove my point. I need to get better at spelling an argument out instead of just making jokes and expecting people to think CORRECTLY to fill in the lines.

You can't seriously argue that AA is as harmful to white people as anti-black racism is to African Americans, unless you're a filthy racist bigot who should be EXCLUDED.

Shit, I shifted to sarcasm mid-sentence again. It was inevitable.