A Question for Mr. Obama.

POSTED BY: Wulfenstar
UPDATED: Friday, November 21, 2008 16:37
VIEWED: 8180
PAGE 1 of 2

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, November 6, 2008 2:42 PM

I have a question for Mr. Obama.

With your rhetoric of "Change" and "Hope", and the subsequent weight of your victory; due in large part to the historic nature of said win..

Will you end Affirmative Action and any race-based "initiatives"?

Will you instead focus on the financially indisposed, and work to help those? Not on the basis of race, handicap, sex, or sexual orientation, but rather on simple need?

In my opinion, doing away with said racially divergent funding, will have the positive effect of reminding us the we are one American PEOPLE, not a collection of subsets.

This is an oppurtunity. I pray you do not waste it.

-Wulf

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 6, 2008 4:38 PM

There are many "blinded" studies that show prejudice still exists: testers with the same financial/ personal background calling up about rent, some sounding Anglo, black, or Hispanic, being treated very differently. Testers with the same financial qualifications- some women, black, or hispanic- applying for loans and getting different results. Applications for research grants submitted "blind" being treated worse if a woman's name was attached to it. (Women had to be seven times more productive than men to get the same grant.) What may look like gross "unfairness" to YOU may be simple fairness in reality.

If we could establish a TRUE meritocracy... require that ALL applications for loans, rent, school admission, grants, jobs etc... be evaluated without names or voices attached... that would be a step in the right direction.

Then we could focus on getting the education resources to those who truly need them.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, November 6, 2008 5:56 PM

That is exactly how the housing crisis started however.

Banks were forced to give loans to those who were never going to be able to afford them.

So fair enough.

No names, no voices. Just credit?

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 6, 2008 6:01 PM

Credit history, employment history, family income, down payment. Name, age, sexual orientation, and anything else irrelevant redacted.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

OPPYH

Thursday, November 6, 2008 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
I have a question for Mr. Obama.
Will you end Affirmative Action and any race-based "initiatives"?

It's why I didn't vote for him. He will not. In fact it's probably going to get worse. He, and Michelle are Affirmative action advocates.
His redistribution of wealth plan is also another low blow for hard working Americans.
I like my salary at my job. I don't want to "spread" it around to those too lazy to work.

RUE

Thursday, November 6, 2008 6:26 PM

"I like my salary at my job. I don't want to "spread" it around to those too lazy to work."

Do you make more than $250,000 a year ?

I didn't think so. Don't worry, then. You'll be getting a tax break. And if you don't believe me, just ask Rap. He's got even better news for you. According to him, it's even odds you'll get more from the government than you pay in taxes.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, November 6, 2008 6:34 PM

Why the family income?

Isnt that a bit invasive?

Your family may be multi-trillionairs, but YOU may be a poor working slob because you chose a different path.

Hell, your family may hate you and youll never see a dime of it.

Leave the family income out of it, and I agree with you.

At least in terms of loans.

Now, what about quotas?

KWICKO

Thursday, November 6, 2008 7:21 PM

Quote:
Why the family income?

Isnt that a bit invasive?

Your family may be multi-trillionairs, but YOU may be a poor working slob because you chose a different path.

Which is why I had to work 2 jobs to put myself through school - as an incoming freshman at 28 years old (who'd been living on his own since the age of 16), the school *insisted* on having my parents' wage & earnings statements. And because of what they earned, even though we were estranged, I couldn't qualify for student loans. And as a high-school dropout, I didn't qualify for anything in the way of scholarships. But I still managed to work and pay my way through 3 years of college with a 4.0 average. Maybe before I die I'll have a chance to go finish.

Mike

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 6, 2008 7:32 PM

Oh, I didn't mean "mom and dad". I meant "spouse", as in... a person who ie obligated to you financially.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Thursday, November 6, 2008 7:38 PM

Kwicko

I had the same thing happen to me. And since I was going though school during the 'Reagan revolution' when I went to apply for food stamps, they looked at my income and expenses and said -nobody could possibly be making what you're making and going through school on that money. You MUST be getting help from your parents (with a sneer - literally). Denied. No appeal. Don't come back."

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, November 6, 2008 7:40 PM

Which is WHY using the government to solve soical/cultural problems will NEVER work.

RUE

Thursday, November 6, 2008 7:46 PM

I'm not sure whom you're answering. But I wasn't looking for the government to solve any social/ cultural problems. I just wanted to get food stamps to help with the expenses while I was going through school - something to which I was legally entitled at the time (and which I would have fought for if I wasn't so otherwise busy).

BTW - if the government isn't able to 'solve problems' then I guess the rest of the industrialized world (and much of the non-industrialized world) has healthcare all wrong. I'll just have to let all those long-lived people and healthy babies with socialized medicine know that they too can have the benefits of shorter lives, more dead babies, and more people without health care and with medically-induced bankruptcy if they just get with the program that works, damnit !

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 1:28 AM

Quote:
Banks were forced to give loans to those who were never going to be able to afford them

BTW

This has been disproved over and over and over again, both by "outside" sources AND by peeps here on the board who worked in banks and made mortgage loans. No bank was "forced" to give loans to the poor, so please get that outta your head, 'mkay?

The banks created those loans because they got ultra-greedy. They made the loans, then bundled them into CDOs (which as allowed by deregulation) and sold and re sold them all around the world

What Fannie and Freddie did was to (unwisely) provide a market to which those subprime loans could be sold. Even then, Fannie and Freddie soaked up less than a quarter of the subprimes that were generated, and about half of the loans with toxic features were made to high-income peeps who would have qualified for a traditional loan.

PLEASE PLEASE STOP with the nonsense! Put the blame where it belongs, not where it doesn't!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

FREMDFIRMA

Friday, November 7, 2008 2:09 AM

If *I* ever crack 205k a year, you know what ?

Frankly, the folks in need, down at the bottom end would be WELCOME to that extra 3-5%, if for naught else simple payback to a system that allowed me to climb that high.

Ponder the caste systems of India, Sumptuary laws of england, and all the other stupid bullshit to separate folk into classes over the course of history, and the amount of violence and misery that has resulted.

Sure, I'd still bitch about throwing it away to hostile foreign governments and war toys, needless waste and all that, but to cut a chunk back and toss it down the ladder to help give the folks behind me a leg up ?

Nah, that I wouldn't begrudge so much.

Don't sneer at one of the few things that makes America still a teensy bit better than many other countries.

-F

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 3:37 PM

But getting back tot he point of my little excercise.

To bring this country together, to remind us that we are all "just folks"...

Lets end all of the race base intiatives.

Make it an economic issue, not one of race.

ANTHONYT

Friday, November 7, 2008 3:51 PM

Hello,

I'd be in favor of eliminating any quota systems, if that's what you mean.

I ought not to be hired in favor of a more qualified candidate merely because my parents were born in another country.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

GEEZER

Friday, November 7, 2008 4:02 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
If *I* ever crack 205k a year, you know what ?

Frankly, the folks in need, down at the bottom end would be WELCOME to that extra 3-5%, if for naught else simple payback to a system that allowed me to climb that high.

Rather than let the government decide how to spend your money, contribute to a charity you've researched and are sure will use the money wisely. Not only can you see the good, you'll also (at top rates) reduce your Federal tax by a buck for every three you donate, plus whatever you save on state taxes.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 4:20 PM

Quote:
Lets end all of the race base intiatives. Make it an economic issue, not one of race.

I agree, with one exception... I think white suburban schools need to bring in excellent black teachers and administrators, especially men.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 4:40 PM

Obama has at least adressed that issue in a big way, in his speech about race. He recognized in it that there are many who feel like the system as set up has disenfranchized them, has taken their opportunity and given it to somebody else.

............

Actually, what you're talking about is ideally how we should be looking at the problem Wulf,
if things weren't broken the way they are.

Black families are still significantly disadvantaged in this nation, and sadly that does require a drastic correction. That doesn't mean that there aren't even white families out there that need help, and hopefully a good deal of Obama's Presidency will adress that,

but it does mean that affirmative action, as I see it, is a neccesary redistribution, even if it lowers the bar slightly. And why? Just taking school for example, while some of these kids may be performing at lower grade averages, or with lower standardized test scores, evnironment does matter.

If you've never seen what both teachers and students have to overcome to teach and to learn anything in some inner-city schools, then you should check out The Wire: Season 4(for a fictionalized example) or Hard times at Douglass High(for the documentary of the same school).

There is an institutionalized disadvantage, and it stands to reason to me, that it requires an institutional adjustment. Racially, we are still a segregated United States, and that is an illness that breeds more of the same. Now, while I recognize that affirmative action supposedly stokes that racism, I think that is offset by the matriculation - BECAUSE when blacks associate daily with whites, and whites with blacks, tensions not withstanding, barriers are broken down, stereo-types are eroded, blind hatred is trumped by familiarity.

And frankly, we all need that, and you probably more than most, Wulf.

Is it fair? NO. Are the current imbalances fair? NO. So that's really not a particularly salient point. What we're looking at is a future that will be more even keel. We're looking at the children of blacks who are helped out of bad situations, to be raised in better schools in better neighborhoods, in a more stable home-life. We're looking for that next generation to be a generation that has solid enough a foundation, that it can help out it's own relatives, you know, through all the ways the many white families can....through example, through a degree of nepotism, through just being a beacon of real possibility, something at the level of attainability.

Your hands-off solution is just too slow, and it will continue to result in disenfranchisement of people in this nation, just for the color of their skin. Yes, our solution might close a couple doors for some whites looking for a certain job or a certain school, but lets not pretend that there aren't many doors open. Will it make it harder for some who already had it hard. Admittedly, yes.

I'm willing to admit that that will even be a tragedy. But for most people, it will only be a set-back. They will have been raised with the proper infrastructure, they will have been educated in a better school, they will still go to college, if slightly less in esteem, and they will still have the advantage of color on their side, when they come out and into the workforce, where white skin is still an advantage in hiring(a study was posted and discussed on this board about six months ago which dealt with skin shades directly correlating to hiring practices, all other things being equal).

So yeah, it's an overcorrection, but an overcorrection is needed, and its not just needed for black people, its needed for all of us. For the health of our nation, we need to fix this. It is a crying shame, and it is one that effects how we all look at our nation, and how we look at our fellow Americans, and how we work together as a whole to a common purpose.

Affirmative action won't be the answer, because it does carry with it, its own baggage, but in my idealistic, totally untested future vision, post Affirmative action, when i

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 4:57 PM

The very most basic problem here is shortage and the zero-sum game. If there was a decent-paying job for everyone who wanted to work and a good school for everyone who wanted to be educated, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

But as it is, my gain is your loss. My job, your unemployment. My opportunity, your closed door. My education, your lack. That is the system as capitalists want it and as capitalists have structured it. I lay that directly at the feet of that 0.1% of the population that controls 50% of the wealth. They have set up a nice system where THEY get all the $$$ while WE fight for the crumbs. them!

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 5:06 PM

"There is an institutionalized disadvantage, and it stands to reason to me, that it requires an institutional adjustment. Racially, we are still a segregated United States, and that is an illness that breeds more of the same. Now, while I recognize that affirmative action supposedly stokes that racism, I think that is offset by the matriculation - BECAUSE when blacks associate daily with whites, and whites with blacks, tensions not withstanding, barriers are broken down, stereo-types are eroded, blind hatred is trumped by familiarity

And frankly, we all need that, and you probably more than most, Wulf."

Really? Really, that is what you think?

Righteous, you do not know me. Or my history, or my "familiarity".

I am keeping things civil by stating that you should be carefull with your own "prejudices".(i.e pre-judgements)

The old ideas/beliefs of a "racist" America have been proven dead and buried.

Forcing continued falacies of race being the reason folks fail, will only allow it to continue.

We have a chance here, people. To look/act as one people. Not a collection of different subsets.

The ideology/propoganda of "instituional racism" has been delt a huge blow. Do not try and revive it. Let it die so we can all move ahead.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 5:17 PM

No they haven't dude.

You saying they have doesn't prove it, and Obama's ascendency to Presidency does do a great thing for our country in that regard, and does prove that in this instance, people were willing to take a chance with "the black guy"

and that many wanted to make that leap forward. I'm not going to downplay its significance. It was huge. It in no way proves that race is not a factor in this country.

.................

Sorry for the little jab, and I know I don't know you. That's why I said "probably." I am curious though, about how far off I am.

I just want to know you Wulf...let me know you...

..................

Race does still matter, and the numbers don't lie brother. I'm going to revisit this point, once again.

If race does not matter, then why do more blacks live in poverty? If race doesn't matter, then why are more blacks incarcerated than whites?

If its not systematic disenfranchisement, then your only other choice is to say its a result of inferiority. Otherwise, everything else being equal, everything should be equal, right? Or what am I missing here?

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 5:31 PM

Quote:
The old ideas/beliefs of a "racist" America have been proven dead and buried.

Really?

Prove it. Bring up some studies that peeps are treated fairly no matter their color. If you can find five studies I'd be amazed. Meanwhile, I'll bring a dozen to the table showing otherwise.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 5:34 PM

So your answer is to continue the racism, but in the "other" direction?

I really wonder if you, or anyone else, knows what that will do.

I have seen racism. I have felt its effects. I have known the ugly violence that ensues from it.

I pray that none will know what it is like.

But you will, if you do not let it die.

Make another choice.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 5:41 PM

in my long post, I suggested that this would improve race relations, not aggravate them,

so no, my answer is not to do what you just said.

And I stand by the fact that while it may be an overcorrection,(one that I think is needed), it is a policy that combats racial inequality(and thus racism that builds out of discernable differences).

It enfranchises a populace that has been disenfranchised, and is still being disenfranchised.

.............

Obviously you have an ugly story in your past, and I'm sorry to hear that. You certainly drew your own lessons from the experience. Perhaps I would draw different ones though, as an outsider. Being up close isn't always an advantage for perspective, but it is certainly a powerful lesson, I'm sure.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 5:47 PM

So the failed, divisive, racist get-back-at-em, policies of the baby-Boomers will just continue?

The pendulum needs to swing back and "over-correct"?

No.

Not this time.

Not THIS generation.

We have a chance to stop the cycle. End the endless back-and-forth racism.

I pray that we have the guts to see beyond our indoctrination and make a different choice.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 5:55 PM

do you think less of a black man who was helped by affirmative action? Do you think less of his qualifications if he makes it through college and gets a good job?

If you do, then you're the one allowing yourself to be stoked by the supposed divisiveness of this policy, and are to blame, in your small part for that continued illness in this country.

I only say it is an overcorrection, because I believe that it might affect white families by taking something that seemed wide open to them and closing some of those doors, while opening them to people who only knew a wall existed.

My point was not that we need all black ceo's, and all black Senators and congressmen, and white slavery at some point in the future. The result will hardly be an overcorrection. It will just help to balance things out.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 6:23 PM

We can be a culturally diverse people, and are, without resorting to racism.

End the quotas. End the cycle.

Truly make each person accountable for their own actions.

I question those who call for "balancing" If THEY were the ones who got "balanced", how would they feel?

Some might be fine with it.

But why even bother with "tipping the scales", and "over-correction" when RIGHT NOW, we can equalize everything?

RUE

Friday, November 7, 2008 6:43 PM

"End the quotas. End the cycle."

The problem is, you seem to think once quotas are gone all problems will be over, as if quotas are the only problem left. Sad fact is, racism and sexism are alive and well, even thriving. There are too many studies and statistics showing that to be the case. If you want to close your eyes and plug your ears while singing la la la la la la very loudly - and pretend you live in a fair and unbiased society - that's your choice. But you won't find many people joining you in your private little world, too many people have to live in the real world.

You may have experienced prejudice. I get to 'pass' for a redneck. What people still say when they think they have a safe audience is shocking.

BTW, if Obama had been white it wouldn't have even been a contest. And one milestone can be easily surpassed by another. All it takes is one well-placed bullet.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 7:09 PM

"What people still say when they think they have a safe audience is shocking."

Its called Free Speech. And? It shocks you? Im sorry that are you so delicate that what people say outside of your "safe zone" upsets you so much.

"If you want to close your eyes and plug your ears while singing la la la la la la very loudly - and pretend you live in a fair and unbiased society - that's your choice. But you won't find many people joining you in your private little world, too many people have to live in the real world."

No, I am saying that we open our eyes to reality. End the bias, end the vicious cycle. Choose to be better than our forbears. Choose differently.

"You may have experienced prejudice."

Yes, I have. And racism. The real kind. Not the "they looked at me funny" kind.

"BTW, if Obama had been white it wouldn't have even been a contest. And one milestone can be easily surpassed by another. All it takes is one well-placed bullet."

What does this even mean?

RUE

Friday, November 7, 2008 7:22 PM

"Its called Free Speech. And? It shocks you? Im sorry that are you so delicate that what people say outside of your "safe zone" upsets you so much."

Things like 'we should kill all the niggers and send the Mexicans back to Mexico ... in pieces ... ha ha ha ha ...' I'm not talking about one or two people, I'm talking about whole towns that believe that and talk that way when they think they have your approval. It may be free-speech, but it's still prejudice - you know, that thing that you think has gone away.

"End the bias, end the vicious cycle."

Great idea. Go for it. Just make sure to change the people (above) who still hold their biases in high regard. Then we can talk.

There's been a lot of talk that America has somehow turned a corner with Obama's election. As if, suddenly, prejudice and hate have been magically erased. They haven't. In fact, I guarantee there are some people right now who are really, truly bent about the fact that a black man got elected. Who are really truly serious about erasing that fact. A well-placed bullet would make that little fact undeniable.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 7:29 PM

heh

wulf, how do you seriously miss the point so badly?

this whole thread is not about how people are allowed to talk....good god man, how did you turn it into that?

it's about how they do talk. You claim there's no racism. I don't know where the hell you people who claim that live, because I live in the bay SF bay area, and I can assure you there's plenty of it alive and well even in librul california. I hear racist comments every day, about black people, and jews, and mexicans.

the fact that people say racist things on a daily basis should suggest to you that maybe...just maybe your premise about the issue being settled, is off base.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 7:32 PM

Wulf, if the current set-up has an inherantly racial bias, which the facts suggest, and affirmative action attempts to correct that, then is affirmative action unfair? or is it just an attempt at balancing out an uneven playing field?

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 7:37 PM

"Things like 'we should kill all the niggers and send the Mexicans back to Mexico ... in pieces ... ha ha ha ha ...' I'm not talking about one or two people, I'm talking about whole towns that believe that and talk that way when they think they have your approval. It may be free-speech, but it's still prejudice - you know, that thing that you think has gone away."

So, you have personally spoken to EVERY SINGLE PERSON in these "towns" and they have all said those exact phrases? To the letter?

Do you have proof? That EVERY SINGLE PERSON SAID THIS? Or are you GENERALIZING? Are you being PREJUDICED?

"There's been a lot of talk that America has somehow turned a corner with Obama's election. As if, suddenly, prejudice and hate have been magically erased. They haven't. In fact, I guarantee there are some people right now who are really, truly bent about the fact that a black man got elected. Who are really truly serious about erasing that fact. A well-placed bullet would make that little fact undeniable."

This is exactly what I mean about choosing differently. Some folks LIKE the idea of prejudice, racism, sexism. It is an exscuse for when their lives don't turn out how they would like them to be.

These same folks who preach about ending racism, are the same ones who want it to CONTINUE. For without that psychological safety net, they would have to actually work to prove to themselves that they are worth anything.

True equality, the idea that you are what you make yourself to be, IS SCARY. Without an exscuse to hide behind, we all would have to face ourselves.

But IT IS NECESSARY for our country, our home. This generation must choose differently. It must reject the failed exscuse making of our forbears, and instead EMBRACE TRUE EQUALITY.

The cycle must end. The pendulum must be stopped, AND DESTROYED.

Edit: Do not mistake what I am saying for the idea that racism no longer exists. I am imply saying that we can end it, here and now.

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 7:37 PM

So let's assume there IS racism. And not just the redneck kind. Asians? They can be so VERY aware of exactly WHICH Asian country you come from... There is brown on black racism, and vice versa. There is black racism. And that's not even counting sexism, or religion (which fall under the more general category of "prejudice").

Whites in the country still have an advantage over blacks. Rich, white males most of all. So, how do we best eliminate racism specifically, and prejudice in general?

Or do we just concentrate on making sure that EVERYONE can get a decent-paying job if they choose and are able to work?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Friday, November 7, 2008 7:50 PM

"So, you have personally spoken to EVERY SINGLE PERSON in these "towns" and they have all said those exact phrases? To the letter?
Do you have proof? That EVERY SINGLE PERSON SAID THIS? Or are you GENERALIZING? Are you being PREJUDICED?"

So, this is your reasoning as to why racism doesn't exist ? Lame. You haven't shown that racism is gone, have you ?

No, I didn't speak to every single person. I did have a chance to hear a good cross-section and watch how others reacted. Old, young, well-dressed and men in dusty jeans. No one seemed unconfortable - it was like they were loosening their pants and letting their belts out a bit.

"Some folks LIKE the idea of prejudice, racism, sexism. It is an exscuse for when their lives don't turn out how they would like them to be.
These same folks who preach about ending racism, are the same ones who want it to CONTINUE."

That sounds pretty - racist. But hey, I know a Hispanic who has a thing for Hitler. (He thinks that if he allies with them they'll consider him one of them. What a tool ...) Which just goes to prove you don't have to be white to be racist.

"Edit: Do not mistake what I am saying for the idea that racism no longer exists. I am imply saying that we can end it, here and now."

Good. Then let's GIVE everybody an equal education - no excuses. Let's PAY everybody equal pay for equal work - no excuses. Let's eliminate the prejudice - and not merely the reaction to it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 8:03 PM

BTW, if we go with Wulf's plan... make this all about economic need and not skin color... that would help SOME of the problem.

But racism is more than just economic. Most people think of blacks as either threatening or tragic or (at best) stupid and comedic, thanks to the media's relentless mono-dimesional protrayal. Most people think of Hispanics as lazy and ignorant. And just rubbing shoulders with other racial groups doesn't help: we've had riots among school children here who've had to choose between siding with their best friends or their "race".

That's why I think it's important for white and yellow children to see black and hispanic AUTHORITY FIGURES: teachers, principals, doctors, and lawyers, not just sports figures, entertainers and day-laborers. Thats' why boys need to see women scientists and mathematicians.

It all start with how you FEEL when you see a person of another race, or sex, or religion, or sexual orientation. Do you see them as a threat? Angry? (Perhaps guilt drives that reaction?) As lesser beings?

ETA: So by all means: Let's start with equal education, equal pay, equal loan opportunities, equal rental opportunities, equal treatment by the police, and equal job opportunities. But should we stop there?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 8:10 PM

Sig,

Of course there is racism. There always has, and there always will be. I hesitate to call it "racism" as it is more along the line of "collectivism".

However, to end such things in our country, or at least, to dial them down so that they no longer matter, you must do several things.

1. This generation must reject the idea that thought/ideas/feelings can be regulated through administrative policy/law. It is ludicrous and Nazi-esque.

Thoughts, ideas, feelings will never be regulated, or controlled. Especially not here.

Nor should they ever be.

2. We MUST level the playing field. In all directions. To do so, people must be made accountable for themselves.

They must also be taught responsibility and self-determination. Remember, you are only guaranteed the right to PURSUE happiness.

You must WORK for that car, a Mercedes is not owed to you.

3. End all quotas, and race based initiatives. Instead help those (ALL OF THOSE) in NEED.

4. Lastly, reject the notion that people (Any people) are less, and NEED a hand up. This is classist and contrary to what we, as Americans, stand for.

In essense, this generation must ChOOSE DIFFERENTLY. It/we must choose to reject the notion that your "race" makes or breaks you. But rather, choose to know, that it is you actions AND your RE-actions which determine your life.

Edit: ASLO, we must realize that stereotypes are EARNED. They don not apply to everyone, of course, but there are those out there who fill them.

We must know our own stereotypes, and, if they are negative, never fulfill them.

RUE

Friday, November 7, 2008 8:15 PM

"Blink" had some interesting statistics that I haven't followed up on.

In the chapter that has to do with 'priming' -

Roughly 80% of people (including 50% of blacks) make negative unconscious associations with blacks. It shows up in reaction times when they have to make positive associations between word lists. It takes significantly longer for people to make those positive associations with blacks than whites; and a significantly shorter time to make negative associations with blacks than whites. (Similarly with females and words denoting authority, accomplishment, and intellectualism.)

This, according to the author, is an extremely rugged result that has been duplicated many, many times across many different areas of the country and demographics.

It happens b/c society primes people every day with negative associations.

The author says that this reaction time can't be changed by trying harder, by trying to go faster, or by trying to mentally rehearse ahead of time.

But he says it CAN be changed by consciously changing your subconscious priming - by reading books about George Washington Carver or MLK.

But I haven't followed up on his references, let alone his references' references, so I'm not sure how rugged that statement is.

ETA: Society regulates people's feelings all the time. It's the essence and nature of society to do so. Racism is a prime example of that.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 8:23 PM

Quote:
This generation must reject the idea that thought/ideas/feelings can be regulated through administrative policy/law. It is ludicrous and Nazi-esque

Should we stop teaching patriotism in school? Should we eliminate the Pledge of Allegiance, and all references to "god"? Obviously SOME thoughts and feelings are transmitted by policy.

Quote:
We MUST level the playing field. In all directions. To do so, people must be made accountable for themselves. They must also be taught responsibility and self-determination. Remember, you are only guaranteed the right to PURSUE happiness. You must WORK for that car, a Mercedes is not owed to you.

While I agree with you that peeps SHOULD be taught self-responsibility, that entirely contradicts what you just said about not controlling the feelings and thoughts of others through policy. So if the govt ISN'T doing that "teaching" which you feel is necessary... who is??? Also, I think peeps should be taught compassion and logic... but that's another story.

Quote:
End all quotas, and race based initiatives. Instead help those (ALL OF THOSE) in NEED

No argument from me there! But that seems to be contradicted by...

Quote:
Lastly, reject the notion that people (Any people) are less, and NEED a hand up. This is classist and contrary to what we, as Americans, stand for.

Unless perhaps HELP THOSE IN NEED is different from A HAND UP?

However, I'm gonna say that some peeps are NOT equal. Babies, of course, are helpless. Some peeps are brain damaged, some are physically handicapped, and eventually most of us will get old and feeble. So the notion that we can ALL be self-reliant all of the time is a little sweeping.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 8:37 PM

Wulf,

that's not true that those are the only proponants. There are people who are white and very successful who KNOW that their race helped them. Tom Brokaw said it the other day, that he was given chances he probably didn't deserve, as he put it.

I am not a succesful white man, by any stretch...any stretch, but I know that the opportunity was readily available to me. It was palpable, the road was clear-er than for others. Sadly, when I didn't push for success, I had no nepotism to fall back on and give me numerous legs up, and living in San Ramon now,(a fairly wealthy neighborhood - I'm in an apartment) I know so many kids, real fuckups even who are working good jobs because hteir daddy's got them for them.

Good for them, and hopefully some day they do something with it, and I'm not expecting that that is what we all need. I think I was shown enough of the road through the trees. I think too many people aren't, and blacks are disadvantaged as a group in this regard.

........

personal responsibility is good. Everybody should take responsibility for their actions. Nobody should expect things to just be given to them. They should be instilled with a sense that they are responsible for themselves...but that has to come with real opportunity. That has to come with more than just words about how "you aren't discrimiated against now, so it's all you buddy."

Why? because that abdicates our responsibility. If we care about personal responsibility, then hell, lets take some. We as a society have helped to support a system that has been cruel to black americans, unfair to them, and the results are still with us. we have a personal responsibility, to our country, to help to fix that.

...............

by the way dude, did you really just say some stereotypes are earned, even while you try to tell me that we are all going to treat every body equally? Stereotypes are never for the people exibiting the behavior, Wulf, they are always for the person who comes after, which means that you are saying it is acceptible to judge based upon a preconception...before say...hiring?

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 8:44 PM

Of course, we should help all people in need, just to appreciate Sygm's contribution to the thread,

and simple economic legs up would seem on the surface to help more black families anyway, if they are disproportiately the ones in need, but there is still a problem that is not correctible that way, Sygm. As you suggest, there should be more professional black people working in white schools etc., because people need to see that people are people, but we need more black professionals don't we?

There aren't enough in black communities, or rather there are too many disaffected people that far outnumber them, to be able to make much of a difference even there. What the problem is, and we've already brougth it up, is that even if blacks can afford school, and even if they can get the good grades, all things being equal, quota system in place, they still don't get hired for equal ability, if there is a lighter option.

Which means that quotas seem to be at least the fast-track way of getting to where you are saying we should be, or am I misunderstanding?

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 8:50 PM

"Why? because that abdicates our responsibility. If we care about personal responsibility, then hell, lets take some. We as a society have helped to support a system that has been cruel to black americans, unfair to them, and the results are still with us. we have a personal responsibility, to our country, to help to fix that."

Where does that end or begin?

I never owned slaves, nor killed Native Americans, or Mexicans, or engaged in oppressing women.

However, I did grow up white in a ghetto. Believe me when I tell you that its not all cutesy like 8 Mile. I have the scars to this day from that time.

So, by your sentiment, who owes ME?

Or did I just pay the "debt of my birth and race"?

See? Its got to stop. The endless cycle of who-owes-who-what and get-you-back and all of it.

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 8:57 PM

Quote:
Which means that quotas seem to be at least the fast-track way of getting to where you are saying we should be, or am I misunderstanding?

Not quotas.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 8:58 PM

there is absolutely a responsiblity that we should take for white ghettos. You were certainly disadvantaged.

You are less-so in the workforce, than say a person who came out of a black ghetto, but that is an American problem, one we should all appreciate our part in, however small, even if its just the excessive pride that often accompanies "self-made" men, the memory lapse about how our mom made sure we got the right math tutor to get us through the SAT, or our dad got us that summer job at the law firm.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:00 PM

Sygm, could you ellaborate on an alternative? Because quotas certainly have baggage...if you think there's a better way, I'd be willing to abandon my opinion that we need them.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:08 PM

"there is absolutely a responsiblity that we should take for white ghettos. You were certainly disadvantaged."

You misunderstand. I grew up WHITE, in a BLACK ghetto.

Big difference.

RUE

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:12 PM

My parents came from Poland - I was REALLY out of the loop on slavery. Though as a female I was told there was no place for me in medical school. (Ehh - I was also laughed at after I stood in line for hours to sign up for electrician and pipe-fitter apprenticeships.)

But that doesn't mean that as a white person I wasn't automatically given open doors that a black person wouldn't have. And I do recognize the advantages I had - in terms of the high school I went to, the education level of my parents (no thanks to the US school system), and to the college admission process.

Yes, I worked my way through college. But I understood that once I had my degree(s) there would be a job for me in my field.

A black person can make no such assumptions.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:17 PM

heh...Wulf, you are right. It is a big difference.

that childhood had to be rough, but it was a product of no matriculation, of defacto segregation, aside of the few exceptions, and that made race a big factor.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:20 PM

"(Ehh - I was also laughed at after I stood in line for hours to sign up for electrician and pipe-fitter apprenticeships.)"

Are you sure it wasn't because of the joke, "How many Pollocks does it take to screw in a light-bulb?"

(Just messing with you, Rue.)

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:22 PM

"heh...Wulf, you are right. It is a big difference.

that childhood had to be rough, but it was a product of no matriculation, of defacto segregation, aside of the few exceptions that made race a big factor."

Ahh, I see. But I am still expected to pay for the sins of a few, far in the past?

No. I will not.

As I said, it must end.

Now is the best time. Maybe the ONLY time we can.

Otherwise, it will jsut keep going on forever.

We must choose differently.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:32 PM

I would say you already did pay for it, and should want to change the system so more don't have the same rough experience you did.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:36 PM

The idea is ridiculous.

You don't owe anything to anyone, anymore than I do/did.

Noone does.

It must stop now.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:40 PM

then take responsibility for nothing,

and don't worry about anybody else or how it might affect you in the future, or your children.

Okayyyyy..

does that really make sense to you?

RUE

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:46 PM

"Are you sure it wasn't because of the joke, "How many Pollocks does it take to screw in a light-bulb?""

They told me they only gave those positions to men. It wasn't at all subtle.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:47 PM

I do take responsibility.

FOR MY OWN ACTIONS.

Not for the actions of others. long dead. Or even living.

RUE

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:48 PM

Wulf - the champion of the 'angry white man'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 9:51 PM

You should take responsibility for your inaction as well, as we all should.

that can also be culpable.

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 10:13 PM

I think we all agree that racism exists. (And yes, blacks can be racist too, in violent ways.) And we all want to end racism. The only thing we're arguing about is HOW?. And in fact the ONLY thing we're arguing about is "quotas".

IMHO white peeps in this nation don't "owe" blacks anything for slavery. Most peeps immigrated to this nation after slavery was abolished, or are descended from those. SOME peeps are descended from Union Civil War vets... does that mean that blacks "owe" THEM something? And even if we could find a descendant of a slave-owner, what does that have to do with THIS generation? Aside from recognition that slavery was wrong, there is no debt for the past, and trying to guilt-trip peeps isn't going to work.

What whites owe blacks is the desire to build a fair and better society for everyone.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 10:58 PM

there's always alot of extra running in place to get to the point where we all agree that racism still exists, every time. It's tedious, but somebody is always willing to start up that debate.

How would you go about determining whether or not a company refuses to hire black people based on prejudice, or perceived prejudice of its patrons? There would be no litmus test without some sort of quota system. So long as the company says, "that's not the reason" it could be a 100 percent white, if it so chose. It would be near to a 100 percent unprovable as to the reason why. It would just be a mighty coincidence that certain businesses in certain neighborhoods had no minorities working at them.

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 11:01 PM

Quote:
How would you go about determining whether or not a company refuses to hire black people based on prejudice, or perceived prejudice of its patrons? There would be no litmus test without some sort of quota system. So long as the company says, "that's not the reason" it could be a 100 percent white, if it so chose. It would be near to a 100 percent unprovable as to the reason why. It would just be a mighty coincidence that certain businesses in certain neighborhoods had no minorities working at them.

The same way government does... use objective criteria for hiring and apply them equally. Transparency.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 11:08 PM

k, but how do you make sure a company is doing that. You aren't going to look at numbers that suggest otherwise, right? That would kind of be like a quota.

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 11:09 PM

Quote:
there's always alot of extra running in place to get to the point where we all agree that racism still exists, every time. It's tedious, but somebody is always willing to start up that debate.

Agreed.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Friday, November 7, 2008 11:30 PM

First of all, if anyone thought they had been discriminated against, they should be able to request an investigation. All a company has to do is let the investigator go through the applications and ask for the selection criteria.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RIGHTEOUS9

Friday, November 7, 2008 11:34 PM

Okay, and if the selection criteria says nothing about race even if race is an unspoken factor? No recourse right?

RUE

Friday, November 7, 2008 11:36 PM

"The same way government does... use objective criteria for hiring and apply them equally. Transparency."

Then there is that old issue of who sets up the criteria and which criteria do they set up.

Let's take police. There was the old-boy old-school set of physical requirements which cut out a lot of women. Then someone found out that b/c women don't have as much macho-shit to prove they tended to be better at not escalating situations. But until the first trial run or two, that wasn't in evidence and the old criteria seemed perfectly reasonable.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Saturday, November 8, 2008 12:07 AM

Quote:
Okay, and if the selection criteria says nothing about race even if race is an unspoken factor? No recourse right?

No, if the selction criteria says "years of experience as a fry-cook" and our intrepid job-seeker had more years as a fry-cook than the person who got the job...

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

FREMDFIRMA

Saturday, November 8, 2008 2:32 AM

He's got a point on one thing, ya can't legislate peoples feelings.

One thing is for certain, the way to kill racism, is to simply choose NOT to be - I grew up in a fairly racist family, and it never took, maybe in part cause I have a dim view of humans and little attachment to em as a whole, I dunno, but I always thought the entire concept to be stupid and ridiculous.

No, we're not past it yet, again I raise the issue of social, mental and emotional evolution that hasn't happened and a society designed to prevent it, something that needs to occur in order to put a stake in the heart of this issue, and finally prevent the powers that be from using it to divide us and play us off against each other.

One substantial blessing in this regard has been the internet, when you're discussing items with someone in mere text, unless they tell you, in fact you have no clue what their skin color or ethnicity is, and that's gone quite a ways in putting paid to some of this stupidity - and offered some real hilarity in mocking folks who seek to carry it here, like one white power site unaware for six years that their network admin was a person of color who took the money and laughed up his sleeve the whole time.

I do think we should shift that kind of aid to a purely financial/economic assist, which would help make it so much less of a wedge between us, and would still perform it's primary function quite adequately.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

WULFENSTAR

Saturday, November 8, 2008 4:45 AM

"I do think we should shift that kind of aid to a purely financial/economic assist, which would help make it so much less of a wedge between us, and would still perform it's primary function quite adequately."

Exactly.

WULFENSTAR

Saturday, November 8, 2008 4:51 AM

"Let's take police. There was the old-boy old-school set of physical requirements which cut out a lot of women. Then someone found out that b/c women don't have as much macho-shit to prove they tended to be better at not escalating situations. But until the first trial run or two, that wasn't in evidence and the old criteria seemed perfectly reasonable."

And? It was reasonable. A female is NOT as strong as a male. Biology, Rue.

Which, btw, is why most departments do NOT partner 2 females together on patrol.

Also, a point you forget to mention... a female police officer is much more likely to shoot a suspect if she feels threatend...

KWICKO

Saturday, November 8, 2008 6:07 AM

Quote:

One thing is for certain, the way to kill racism, is to simply choose NOT to be.

Yup. As I've said before, I *DO* have my prejudices. I wrestle with them. I hope I'm winning. The IMPORTANT thing, to my way of thinking, is to realize that MY prejudices are MY problem, not something to be pushed onto others, or bragged about, or even given voice to at all. And certainly not something to be taught and handed down to others.

ANTHONYT

Saturday, November 8, 2008 4:40 PM

"Which, btw, is why most departments do NOT partner 2 females together on patrol."

Hello,

Most departments do not partner 2 of anybody together on patrol. '2 man units' (forgive the sexism) as they were called, are pretty rare. Most patrol units are solo. The reason you see a lot of 2 man units in television and movies is so that the characters can have entertaining dialogue or exposition.

I often wished, as a dispatcher, that more units were 2 man units. But the fact is, most police calls are mop up, not prevention or intervention. Hence, one officer is quite enough. Only when currently active violence was a prospect did a second unit get called in. And that's a second unit, as in a second car with a separate solo officer.

So our female officers were usually not only NOT teamed up with a male, but they were not teamed up with anyone. They were on their own, driving their patrol car. Just like the men.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

WULFENSTAR

Sunday, November 9, 2008 12:35 PM

Fair enough.

WULFENSTAR

Sunday, November 9, 2008 2:24 PM

"Wulf - the champion of the 'angry white man'."

Anyways. I am reminded of when Mal and the rest ran into the Reavers...

To quote:

"So....we'll see what they do.."

I guess we are all waiting to see what Mr. Obama does.

SIGNYM

Sunday, November 9, 2008 4:08 PM

Wulf, Frem... to get back to the nub of the question: "How do you eliminate racism?"

I think it's all great to say "Just don't be one", but the problem is... racism is handed down, like religion, from parent to child, along with the perpetual feeling of victimization. There has to be a counterbalance to that continuing influence. Wulf says that feelings and thoughts can't be controlled by government... and then proceeds to call out for a program of teaching self-responsibility! (Also, I have a feeling he wouldn't quibble with teaching patriotism either.)

One of the big changes has to come from the media. Blacks and hispanics are often portrayed in the most negative stereotypes possible: gang-banging, vicious, lowlife drug-dealers or entertainers and sports figures (at best). The portrayal of blacks as doctors, surgeons, lawyers, teachers, police, and yes- even Oprah- helps diminish that prejudice. But if there is any place where quotas should be met, it's on TV.

Also, I think white schools REALLY need to employ more blacks, if they are equally qualified. It's not enough to toss young kids together by busing and expect they'll grow up colorblind. As far as I can tell, it hasn't worked here: the kids in our "integrated" middle schools and high schools STILL riot over "race", even if individuals have formed friendships across color lines. What white children need to see is black women and black men in position of AUTHORITY. They MUST respond to the teacher, principal. nurse, etc. They CAN'T just quietly segregate themselves on the playground and in the lunchroom, as often happens, to avoid the new and unusual. I don't think quotas work: quotas imply a certain set number of hires no matter what the person's skill level. But if there are peeps of equal qualifications, schools should slant the hiring towards blacks.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

CANTTAKESKY

Sunday, November 9, 2008 6:20 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Though as a female I was told there was no place for me in medical school.

Wow, so both you and SignyM are women.

Why ever did I think you guys were men? I coulda sworn you guys referred to each other as "he." You definitely never corrected me when I did it.

Hmmm. Surprises everyday.

--------------------------
Dr. Horrible Karaoke

FREMDFIRMA

Monday, November 10, 2008 4:03 AM

Siggy, setting an example helps too - don't forget in all those asswipes that demonise, there's also folk who's actions speak every bit as loud if folk only look and listen.

Not sure Gov has a place in this, but if it does, I say tread very lightly.

-F

WULFENSTAR

Monday, November 10, 2008 7:53 PM

As in all things, the government should stay out of it. Let folks figure it out for themselves...

SIGNYM

Monday, November 10, 2008 9:34 PM

What about corporations? Should corporations stay out of it too?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Monday, November 10, 2008 9:53 PM

Thats back to the question of quotas.

Btw, propaganda like you suggest is not right either. Brainwashing folks into accepting what you think is the truth does not help. For any side.

If you can't use straight facts and honesty to win your argument, you should just stop arguing.

I can start a whole 'nother thread on how much propoganda I see everywhere...but thats for another time.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 7:15 PM

The biggest- but not the only- issue with discriminaiton is economic. If businesses are allowed to "express" their prejudice (by example) then they're being allowed the kind of power that you would not allow the government.

Prejudice is a cancer in our society. Businesses LIKE prejudice - just as they LIKE illegal immigration- because it creates a permanent underclass that can be used to threaten everyone else. We have to root out this cancer, and it takes more than individual action to do it because there is a serious and persistent ECONOMIC motivation for it.

I agree with most everything you say on the toic, Wulf: help should be targeted to need, not race. Jobs should be given solely on the basis merit, not quotas. But there IS persistent discrimination, as demonstrated by "blinded" studies, so, to get to the real nub of the problem: How do you propose to ENSURE that discrimination in rentals, leases, credit, jobs, education, arrests, etc doesn't occur?

Also, as I said, I would make an exception on strict meritocracy, one of them to place black teachers and administrators into white schools preferentially in case of equal qualifications.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Tuesday, November 11, 2008 11:50 PM

So, as I asked b4: What are your PLANS for ensuring that decisions are based on merit, and not race (or sex, religion, sexual orientation, age...?)

It's all well and good to say we should have equality... and I agree with you 120%... but how do we make sure that people ARE treated equally?

One idea is to require that ALL applications- school, job, credit card, mortgage, rental - be evaluated "blinded". That is, the application comes in two parts: the top form (with a tracking number, which the applicant keeps) which contains personal information (name, age, gender, city, etc.) and the bottom part which contains the same tracking number with relevant job/ credit/ rental information. Applications are submitted by mail and evaluated w/o personal information.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 7:06 AM

I gather from your lack of reply that you're for equality but not willing to think about how to ensure it for everyone?

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:32 PM

No, Ive been busy.

My grandmother passed away last night.

As to ensuring it for everyone, ok.

So...how would YOU FORCE equality on everyone and everything?

Just curious...

Quotas? Just means that theyll hire whomever of the miniority to fill the role. Which means that the job won't be done by the best person.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:32 PM

No, Ive been busy.

My grandmother passed away last night.

As to ensuring it for everyone, ok.

So...how would YOU FORCE equality on everyone and everything?

Just curious...

Quotas? Just means that theyll hire whomever of the miniority to fill the role. Which means that the job won't be done by the best person.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 4:32 PM

No, Ive been busy.

My grandmother passed away last night.

As to ensuring it for everyone, ok.

So...how would YOU FORCE equality on everyone and everything?

Just curious...

Quotas? Just means that theyll hire whomever of the miniority to fill the role. Which means that the job won't be done by the best person.

SIGNYM

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 5:20 PM

Oh.

I'm so very sorry for you and your family. You have my deepest sympathy.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

RUE

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:02 PM

Something I had saved on ongoing discrimination:

Wash. Times falsely asserted "occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked" are "ignored by those citing the wage gap"
Summary: In an editorial about the pay gap between male and female workers, The Washington Times falsely asserted that "the relevant factors that affect pay -- occupation, experience, seniority, education and hours worked -- are ignored by those citing the wage gap." The editorial also asserted that "women tend to place a higher priority on flexibility and personal fulfillment" than on higher pay. In fact, a GAO study found that a pay gap (between men and women) persists even when controlling for work experience, seniority, education, industry, occupation, race, marital status, and job tenure.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

WULFENSTAR

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:22 PM

Thank you, Sig.

She lived to be 90 years old.

Made it thru the Great Depression, WW2, the Moon Landing, ect. She was a Sufragette, and always believed in the power of people to pull themselves up and through.

She also reminded me of Aunt May.

I will really miss her.

ELVISCHRIST

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 6:54 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
No, Ive been busy.

My grandmother passed away last night.

As to ensuring it for everyone, ok.

So...how would YOU FORCE equality on everyone and everything?

Just curious...

Quotas? Just means that theyll hire whomever of the miniority to fill the role. Which means that the job won't be done by the best person.

Wulf: Sorry for your loss, first of all. Feel better, and take solace in the fact that your grandma lived a long life and saw a lot of amazing things in her lifetime.

Next - Quotas means "they'lll hire whomever of the minority to fill the role", and not the best person?

Tell me, then, if you DON'T have quotas, what's to stop someone from hiring his neighbor or his friend, ALSO ensuring that you don't necessarily get the best guy for the job?

I don't know what "the answer" is, but I don't for a minute believe that we're in a place as a nation where we can all just believe in each other's good will and best wishes. I've seen too much, and still see it every day. The day after the election, another board that I frequent was filled with comments like "I can't believe those fucking liberal retards elected their fucking monkey" and "Everybody run - a n**ger is in charge now!". And this is NOT any kind of neo-nazi white supremacist website, but a freaking firearms website.

Are you actually going to try to convince me that these are the people for whom race is no longer an issue in this country?

EC

KWICKO

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 11:40 PM

Quote:

I don't know what "the answer" is, but I don't for a minute believe that we're in a place as a nation where we can all just believe in each other's good will and best wishes. I've seen too much, and still see it every day. The day after the election, another board that I frequent was filled with comments like "I can't believe those fucking liberal retards elected their fucking monkey" and "Everybody run - a n**ger is in charge now!". And this is NOT any kind of neo-nazi white supremacist website, but a freaking firearms website.

University of Texas head football coach Mack Brown just kicked a backup center off the team for posting on his Facebook page the following headline, on election night:

"Hunters, get your guns, there's a n**ger in the White House."

So.... yeah... It sure seems like we've gotten past the whole racism thing...

Mike

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:05 AM

"University of Texas head football coach Mack Brown just kicked a backup center off the team for posting on his Facebook page the following headline, on election night:

"Hunters, get your guns, there's a n**ger in the White House."

So.... yeah... It sure seems like we've gotten past the whole racism thing..."

So....free speech is no longer a right in this country?

I may find what he wrote as reprehensible, but he has the absolute right to say it and NOT face consequences for it.

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:53 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"University of Texas head football coach Mack Brown just kicked a backup center off the team for posting on his Facebook page the following headline, on election night:

"Hunters, get your guns, there's a n**ger in the White House."

So.... yeah... It sure seems like we've gotten past the whole racism thing..."

So....free speech is no longer a right in this country?

I may find what he wrote as reprehensible, but he has the absolute right to say it and NOT face consequences for it.

He certainly does, but the school that he plays for also has the right to expect a certain level of conduct and it is his problem if he does not comply with the expectation.

If my child said something like that I would smack him right in the mouth - no matter how big he was.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

Trolls Against McCain

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

RUE

Thursday, November 13, 2008 12:57 AM

At some point rhetoric passes out of free speech (a right) and becomes hate speech (illegal). That kind of speech could get you prosecuted.

And, as an employee, you actually have no right to free speech as a condition of employment. The fact that the coach merely fired the player instead of turning over the information to the DA was an act of mercy.

BTW - as an aside, the conservative Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution only protects you from the federal government, not other levels of government, private persons, employers or other entities. So free speech 'rights' vis-a-vis the state or county, or employer, your neighbor, Wal-Mart or anything other than the federal government - don't exist.

And the point still stands - discrimination is alive and well in the US.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

RUE

Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:05 AM

But more than that --- Wulf --- I get the feeling you will defend anyone's right to hate and discriminate no matter how heinous. Largely, I suspect it's b/c you don't want your own 'right to hate' infringed on.

How about this --- anyone can hate whatever group or person they want to hate, they just can't discriminate.

Would that satisfy your need to hate ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

SIGNYM

Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:06 AM

Quote:
So....free speech is no longer a right in this country?

The Supreme Court has long ago decided that certain kinds of speech are not protected... like maliciously yelling Fire! in a crowded theater. Another form of non-free speech is incitement to violence. The player is lucky that getting kicked off the tema is ALL that happened to him. Advocating killing a nigger OR a President can get you investigated by the FBI.

---------------------------------
Let's party like its 1929.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:23 AM

"The Supreme Court has long ago decided that certain kinds of speech are not protected... like maliciously yelling Fire! in a crowded theater. Another form of non-free speech is incitement to violence. The player is lucky that getting kicked off the tema is ALL that happened to him. Advocating killing a nigger OR a President can get you investigated by the FBI."

By that rationale...

- Anyone advocating riots (should their party/person not win) after the election is in trouble.

- The Black Panthers and the N.O.W. is likewise under "investigation".

- Simply stating that child molestors should not be given a trial (and should be summarily executed), could land YOU in jail.

My point is NOT that these words are not hateful, nor that they would not incite violence...but rather.. Where does it end?

I may hate what you say, but I will give my life in defense of your right to say it.

By the way, if these PC laws were in effect back in the 60's/70's MLK (and others) would NOT have been allowed to speak.

The pendulum swings both ways. You MUST have the power to speak your mind, no matter the subject. For, if not, then we are no longer free.

Also, it is NOT the job of government or any body to try and outlaw speech in any form. No matter how heinous.

Learning to control your words (and yourself) is the job of the culture.

So while I may hate Westboro Baptist, they have the right to speak. As stupid and as ignorant as they are.

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:25 AM

"But more than that --- Wulf --- I get the feeling you will defend anyone's right to hate and discriminate no matter how heinous. Largely, I suspect it's b/c you don't want your own 'right to hate' infringed on.

How about this --- anyone can hate whatever group or person they want to hate, they just can't discriminate.

Would that satisfy your need to hate ?"

As I still have breath in my body, and the right to free speech...

AHEM

SHUT UP, Rue

Oh,

And,

ANTHONYT

Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:33 AM

Hello,

I always have trouble with the free speech issue when someone starts to yell, "Kill all n*ggers" or some such nonsense.

My personal threshold is this: If a speech is likely to result in the immediate harm of human beings, I would regretfully make it illegal. So, a command to a frenzied mob to "Go kill some n*ggers" would have to be illegal. So would anything likely to result in a stampede or other dangerous public panic. "There's a bomb in this packed concert hall, so all y'all n*ggers better run!"

However, horribly offensive hate speech should be legal if the immediate threat of harm is not present: "On the whole, I think the nation would be better off if all the n*ggers got killed."

On the other hand, while I don't think most hate speech should be illegal, I think we should apply strong social pressure to deter it. If someone started posting here that "All n*ggers deserve to die" I'd have no problem with suggesting that we block his or her future posts. While everyone should have the right to be offensive, the offended also have the right to boot such individuals from any space they legally control. That includes a University that expects its football players to demonstrate the highest ideals of their fine institution.

Go ahead and start some hate speech in my house, and see how long it takes me to show you the door.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

WULFENSTAR

Thursday, November 13, 2008 1:52 AM

Anthony,

I really agree with you.

"Hate-speech" is a cultural issue, and should be handled by the culture. Not through laws or other nonsense, but by parents teaching their children not to use such language.

1 2 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE