Dehumanization of white men

[uscitizen]

More discrimination is not the antidote to previous discrimination.

Perhaps it is considering what barbaric animals we still are.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

and

Revenge is not a sound basis for public policy, especially when there is a false linkage between past persecutor and present victim.

 

[Damocles]

As I said, I would also prefer complete elimination of the program.

But i see other actions which could eliminate the obvious and intended racial discrimination against white men which is ongoing, namely the inclusion of causcasians and males as protected classes.



Actually, I see adding protected classes as perhaps easier than scrapping the whole program.

You would reject a solution which would eliminate the obvious ongoing discrimination against white males, holding out for your symbol-obsessed purity.

If i were you, i would revisit my notions of reality, justice, and effectiveness.

Again, what they discuss in actual reality is changing the program to no longer be about race and instead making it about economic indicators.

It actually is what they see over the horizon, and IMO it is a step in the right direction rather than one in the wrong one. As well as one that actually stands a chance of happening rather than mythical addition of white guys as a protected class.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Again, what they discuss in actual reality is changing the program to no longer be about race and instead making it about economic indicators.

It actually is what they see over the horizon, and IMO it is a step in the right direction rather than one in the wrong one. As well as one that actually stands a chance of happening rather than mythical addition of white guys as a protected class.

I understand the concept of changing the entire basis of the program. that's one idea. The one THEY discuss. WHoever THEY are.

Im discussing another idea that would eliminate all actual discrimination by protecting all known races and genders.

Can you think outside of what THEY allow, you fucking stump?

 

[uscitizen]

The outcry of discrimination would be tremendous if the affirmative action stuff was done away with.
Kinda like the tax increase cry when a tax break is done away with.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

The outcry of discrimination would be tremendous if the affirmative action stuff was done away with.
Kinda like the tax increase cry when a tax break is done away with.

Yes. Racists often complain when their right to discriminate is taken away.

 

[uscitizen]

Yes. Racists often complain when their right to discriminate is taken away.

Yeah I remember the 60's.
And that is exactly why I am against doing away with the current laws on this.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Yeah I remember the 60's.
And that is exactly why I am against doing away with the current laws on this.

We know, racist, you love racial discrimination.

Why dont you see if you can get even more brainwashed?

 

[uscitizen]

We know, racist, you love racial discrimination.

Why dont you see if you can get even more brainwashed?

sorry, I avoid talk radio.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Perhaps it is considering what barbaric animals we still are.

No. It isn't.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

sorry, I avoid talk radio.

Good one. Did you get that off your enfamil box?

 

[Damocles]

I understand the concept of changing the entire basis of the program. that's one idea. The one THEY discuss. WHoever THEY are.

Im discussing another idea that would eliminate all actual discrimination by protecting all known races and genders.

Can you think outside of what THEY allow, you fucking stump?

You discuss all by yourself, its a dream. "They" are the people I mentioned before. People on the right and left (I even mentioned a specific person on the left) who work to find a working system that is no longer based on race. Many people bring forward this idea, almost nobody speaks about yours and those who do are dismissive.

I thought you said you were "pragmatic"... but really you are just hopeful the government blanket will cover you in its sweet, sweet "security" too. Weak.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

You discuss all by yourself, its a dream. "They" are the people I mentioned before. People on the right and left (I even mentioned a specific person on the left) who work to find a working system that is no longer based on race. Many people bring forward this idea, almost nobody speaks about yours and those who do are dismissive.

I thought you said you were "pragmatic"... but really you are just hopeful the government blanket will cover you in its sweet, sweet "security" too. Weak.

You're here with me. You're discussing it. You have presented no compelling reason why defining all known races and genders wouldn't protect all known individuals. Nor have you presented any strong argument on how it's "so crazy". But still, you act like a jackoffface.

I guess you prefer symbolism over actual elimination of discrimination, and for that reason you are the perfect brainwashed noahide race policy implementor.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Oh yes. The sweet sweet security of equal protection under the law. LOL.

 

[Damocles]

You're here with me. You're discussing it. You have presented no compelling reason why defining all known races and genders wouldn't protect all known individuals. Nor have you presented any strong argument on how it's "so crazy". But still, you act like a jackoffface.

I guess you prefer symbolism over actual elimination of discrimination, and for that reason you are the perfect brainwashed noahide race policy implementor.

I am pointing out that the "pragmatist" would work towards the idea that many people on both sides suggest rather than making up one that they are dismissive of.

I am talking about you, not the "merit" of your idea to include yourself under the blanket of government safety and the comfort of continued separation by "race".

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I am pointing out that the "pragmatist" would work towards the idea that many people on both sides suggest rather than making up one that they are dismissive of.

I am talking about you, not the "merit" of your idea to include yourself under the blanket of government safety.

Pragmatists would accept any solution which would elimanate actual discrimination. That's about you, and what you aren't.

By "blanket of government safety" do you mean equal protection under the law?

 

[Damocles]

Pragmatists would accept any solution which would elimanate actual discrimination. That's about you, and what you aren't.

By "blanket of government safety" do you mean equal protection under the law?

No, I mean government defined "race" divisions that make you feel safe.

And again, the "pragmatist" would work towards a solution that has a possibility of becoming a reality instead of the mythical inclusion and infinite perpetuation of racial division as defined by the all benevolent government.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

No, I mean government defined "race" divisions that make you feel safe.

And again, the "pragmatist" would work towards a solution that has a possibility of coming a reality instead of the mythical inclusion and infinite perpetuation of racial division as defined by the all benevolent government.

Government defines races? I thought they just put them on a list. When did government create asians? Or Caucasians? Or african americans? You seem to have a bizarre notion of the power of government.


A pragmatist would be open to any plan which actually eliminated discrimination.

You don't know the future, you don't know what's possible.

 

[Damocles]

Government defines races? I thought they just put them on a list. When did government create asians? Or Caucasians? Or african americans? You seem to have a bizarre notion of the power of government.


A pragmatist would be open to any plan which actually eliminated discrimination.

You don't know the future, you don't know what's possible.

Defining divisions by race is not the same thing as creating an ethnicity.

This is the weakest strawman I've ever seen. You could at least try to clothe the next one in a pair of boxers to make it somewhat more realistic.

And again, a pragmatist would work towards what is possible not tilt with windmills. It isn't pragmatic to work towards what is not possible to the detriment of that which is. You just left-brain your excuses onto yourself, it doesn't matter that many people put forward the idea that we should make AA about economic indicators rather than perpetuate race barriers, it doesn't matter that people laugh and scoff at the idea of including white men as a protected class, you WANT to believe it is "pragmatic" so you imagine your life under that protective blanket where "race" is still carefully divided as defined by the government and yet you personally are a protected class.

The "pragmatist" you imagine yourself to be doesn't exist, such a creature wouldn't still promote the idea with zero chance of happening while ignoring the one that actually is promoted by some people who are in a position to make it happen.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

Defining divisions by race is not the same thing as creating an ethnicity.

This is the weakest strawman I've ever seen. You could at least try to clothe the next one in a pair of boxers to make it somewhat more realistic.

And again, a pragmatist would work towards what is possible not tilt with windmills. It isn't pragmatic to work towards what is not possible to the detriment of that which is.

Oh I see.

Well. I think adding a couple protected classes would be easier than scrapping the whole thing, though I would prefer that option as well.

You should stay open to all possibilities which would eliminate actual discrimination, instead of pigeonholing yourself into only one possible option, which could also, not happen.

I'm open to both options. you're limited by some unseen idiotic force.