Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

"Euqal rights" for minorities is offensive

Page 2 of 2 [ 27 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

Previous topic | Next topic

GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

09 Dec 2014, 10:26 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
[

Because of those left wing/progressive ideas, Jim Crow is a thing of the past, and equal rights are enforced by law, with no one hurt by it but racists who feel set upon for not being able to step on blacks anymore.


I do not agree.

Many who are not racist are hurt when Affirmative Action is forced onto a majority. Be he racist or not, the one who is denied a job because of quotas for a certain minority will feel that he has been hurt by Affirmative action and he will be right. When evil is redressed there is hurt created. That is why it should be removed as soon as possible after an equilibrium is reached and all colors are on an equal footing.

I would agree that it is the racists of the community that have forced that pain onto their own color but that does not mean that all of their color is racist.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

09 Dec 2014, 10:32 am

Magneto wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
K_Kelly wrote:
I think providing "minorities" with special, equal rights are offensive because it charges in my mind images of someone saying "Oh look at the poor [autism, gay, black etc.] welfare recipient he must not have worked hard in his life" and that there is somehow something "wrong" with minorities. I find the special interest "equal rights" and "pride" movements pretty offensive, despite having ASD myself. I'd rather the world was blind to these types of differences in us. The "minority" label applied to my condition makes me feel bad about myself and I don't want to identify as "different" whenever possible. I am actually proud of what I achieved, but we didn't choose these certain qualities. I am not trying to sound ignorant, but this is a very emotional topic for me.


I like the idea of Affirmative Action.

In Canada, if allowed to, business would have stripped our natives of all that we grudgingly gave them in the first place.

Without Affirmative action and yes, even quotas, our natives would have been basically locked into being welfare recipients forever.

It is shameful when a society has to be forced to do the right thing but to not do it when required would be even more shameful.

Regards
DL

How about, instead, you let the natives start their own businesses? Or are they too stupid and childlike to do that, and need Mighty wh***y to employ them?

[/leftlibertarian]


If Mighty wh***y would employ them in proper numbers and thus help them pay for better schools, then they would have the education to start a business. There businesses cannot flourish in an atmosphere where Mighty wh***y will not buy his product because he is the wrong color.

Regards
DL



Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

09 Dec 2014, 10:39 am

Since when did Canada lose it's public education system?

Have you considered the possibility that not every white business owner inherited their business?



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

09 Dec 2014, 12:09 pm

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Because of those left wing/progressive ideas, Jim Crow is a thing of the past, and equal rights are enforced by law, with no one hurt by it but racists who feel set upon for not being able to step on blacks anymore.


Far more were hurt then just some racists. The many crime ridden inner city ghettos were created precisely because of ending segregation i.e., white people fled and poor black people moved in.

Victims: the property destruction, the body toll, the racial strife, the people caught in the cross-hairs of all this racial mess, like kids who were bussed to unfamiliar inner-city schools ...look at Detroit, and think, 'job well done'!


Please don't tell me you're seriously defending Jim Crow and racism.


I only responded to your assertion that only racists were hurt.

Whether segregation was good for blacks is a separate discussion (note: you brought up 'Jim Crow' to discuss). However, people like Phil Robertson (Duck show) maybe right that black people were better off in Jim Crow days verses what the courts did to upend so much, so soon. I don't know the facts on that.



LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

09 Dec 2014, 12:18 pm

GnosticBishop wrote:
If you want an eventual revolution of blacks and Hispanics against the white then do not do Affirmative Action, which is a way to redress the abuse that the whites have done to blacks and Hispanics.


Just to be clear:

-the majority of Hispanics in the U.S. self-identify as white. So, racial preference when given to a Hispanic can be preference to a white person from Latin America over a white person in America.

- And Hispanics as a group did not suffer any abuse.



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

09 Dec 2014, 3:15 pm

Magneto wrote:
Since when did Canada lose it's public education system?

Have you considered the possibility that not every white business owner inherited their business?


We did not to your first and huh to your last.

Regards
DL



ScrewyWabbit
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Oct 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,158

09 Dec 2014, 3:39 pm

K_Kelly wrote:
I think providing "minorities" with special, equal rights are offensive because it charges in my mind images of someone saying "Oh look at the poor [autism, gay, black etc.] welfare recipient he must not have worked hard in his life" and that there is somehow something "wrong" with minorities. I find the special interest "equal rights" and "pride" movements pretty offensive, despite having ASD myself. I'd rather the world was blind to these types of differences in us. The "minority" label applied to my condition makes me feel bad about myself and I don't want to identify as "different" whenever possible. I am actually proud of what I achieved, but we didn't choose these certain qualities. I am not trying to sound ignorant, but this is a very emotional topic for me.


You do realize that in the context of equal rights for minorities, the word "equal" in the phrase "equal rights" denotes that the rights sought for minorities are such that their rights would be *equal* to everyone else, right? It is not a desire to obtain "special" rights for minorities. Special rights and equal rights are mutually exclusive. Most of these "equal rights" movements happen because the members of the minority groups in question feel that they do not enjoy equality with the rest of us - in many instances that is factually supported by the existence of discriminatory laws, or in some cases protective laws that include some groups but exclude others, or by a lack of protective laws altogether.



Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 49,751
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

09 Dec 2014, 3:40 pm

LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Because of those left wing/progressive ideas, Jim Crow is a thing of the past, and equal rights are enforced by law, with no one hurt by it but racists who feel set upon for not being able to step on blacks anymore.


Far more were hurt then just some racists. The many crime ridden inner city ghettos were created precisely because of ending segregation i.e., white people fled and poor black people moved in.

Victims: the property destruction, the body toll, the racial strife, the people caught in the cross-hairs of all this racial mess, like kids who were bussed to unfamiliar inner-city schools ...look at Detroit, and think, 'job well done'!


Please don't tell me you're seriously defending Jim Crow and racism.


I only responded to your assertion that only racists were hurt.

Whether segregation was good for blacks is a separate discussion (note: you brought up 'Jim Crow' to discuss). However, people like Phil Robertson (Duck show) maybe right that black people were better off in Jim Crow days verses what the courts did to upend so much, so soon. I don't know the facts on that.


Ask black people - even those living in slums - if their lives were better under Jim Crow, and I'm absolutely certain you won't get a "yes" by any means. Freedom, even freedom in poverty, is better than living in subhuman status.
And Phil Robertson is a racist and homophobic bigot, so I could care less what he thinks.


_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer


Magneto
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,086
Location: Blighty

09 Dec 2014, 4:13 pm

GnosticBishop wrote:
Magneto wrote:
Since when did Canada lose it's public education system?

Have you considered the possibility that not every white business owner inherited their business?


We did not to your first and huh to your last.

Regards
DL


Quote:
If Mighty wh***y would employ them in proper numbers and thus help them pay for better schools, then they would have the education to start a business. There businesses cannot flourish in an atmosphere where Mighty wh***y will not buy his product because he is the wrong color.

1. The white business owners are already paying for their education, through taxation. Perhaps you should look more at the quality of your education system, rather than putting the blame on alleged racism.

2. Are you sure everyone in Canada is such a racist? Or even most? I doubt most Canadians would refuse to give a business their custom just because the owners aren't white...

In short, rather than forcing businesses to employ people, help the people become both more employable and entrepreneurial, and work to remove the barriers to entry. Just forcing people to give them a job is the lazy option, that helps perpetuate inequality and create racial tension.



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

10 Dec 2014, 11:17 am

ScrewyWabbit wrote:
K_Kelly wrote:
I think providing "minorities" with special, equal rights are offensive because it charges in my mind images of someone saying "Oh look at the poor [autism, gay, black etc.] welfare recipient he must not have worked hard in his life" and that there is somehow something "wrong" with minorities. I find the special interest "equal rights" and "pride" movements pretty offensive, despite having ASD myself. I'd rather the world was blind to these types of differences in us. The "minority" label applied to my condition makes me feel bad about myself and I don't want to identify as "different" whenever possible. I am actually proud of what I achieved, but we didn't choose these certain qualities. I am not trying to sound ignorant, but this is a very emotional topic for me.


You do realize that in the context of equal rights for minorities, the word "equal" in the phrase "equal rights" denotes that the rights sought for minorities are such that their rights would be *equal* to everyone else, right? It is not a desire to obtain "special" rights for minorities. Special rights and equal rights are mutually exclusive. Most of these "equal rights" movements happen because the members of the minority groups in question feel that they do not enjoy equality with the rest of us - in many instances that is factually supported by the existence of discriminatory laws, or in some cases protective laws that include some groups but exclude others, or by a lack of protective laws altogether.


+ 1

Affirmative action is done to level the playing field. Not to skew it to towards a new discrimination.

Regards
DL



GnosticBishop
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Nov 2014
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,686

10 Dec 2014, 11:21 am

Magneto wrote:
GnosticBishop wrote:
Magneto wrote:
Since when did Canada lose it's public education system?

Have you considered the possibility that not every white business owner inherited their business?


We did not to your first and huh to your last.

Regards
DL


Quote:
If Mighty wh***y would employ them in proper numbers and thus help them pay for better schools, then they would have the education to start a business. There businesses cannot flourish in an atmosphere where Mighty wh***y will not buy his product because he is the wrong color.

1. The white business owners are already paying for their education, through taxation. Perhaps you should look more at the quality of your education system, rather than putting the blame on alleged racism.

2. Are you sure everyone in Canada is such a racist? Or even most? I doubt most Canadians would refuse to give a business their custom just because the owners aren't white...

In short, rather than forcing businesses to employ people, help the people become both more employable and entrepreneurial, and work to remove the barriers to entry. Just forcing people to give them a job is the lazy option, that helps perpetuate inequality and create racial tension.


I agree that Affirmative Action should be used to, as you say, help the people become both more employable and entrepreneurial, and work to remove the barriers to entry.

Regards
DL