|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On July 18 2019 01:51 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 01:35 semantics wrote:On July 18 2019 01:09 Destructicon wrote:On July 17 2019 22:52 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2019 22:51 Destructicon wrote:On July 17 2019 22:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
"identity politics/... divide and breed hate" is how the right describes trying to return to when marginalized people were unable or unwilling to express their concerns in ways that don't coddle those that exploit them.
Meaning the right will always label marginalized people demanding their rights as being unreasonable, rushing, divisive, etc... in an effort to keep them marginalized. Therefore preserving their own marginally better position as a result of that marginalization of "others". How does that work exactly, I thought all people in the US, barring the illegal immigrants, have equal rights. Like anywhere you go you are not allowed to discriminate based off ethnicity, sex, religion etc. Since when? Since introduced into the US constitution. Amendment 1 protects the people's right to hold whatever religion they want and also protects free speech. Amendment 14 basically says that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment 15 protects the rights of all people regardless of race, color or previous servitude, basically its an extension of the 14th. Amendment 19 was added to also extend the voting rights to women. From all these taken together I can see that no state in the US is allowed to pass any laws which would discriminate against sex, ethnicity, religion of its own citizens. To also present some of my own anecdotal evidence I've also had to do mandatory compliance training for the subsidiaries of the US corporations I worked in, and I know for a fact discrimination based on the above is not allowed. So again, where where is this marginalization manifest? Edit: @ semantics, I saw your post after posting, can you give me an example of this specific circumstance? Sure the problem here is you're assuming the US has blanket laws preventing discrimination. When in fact the US has separated out laws on discrimination, why else would the US have an employment discrimination law, housing discrimination law etc. It's because the laws were crafted only to hit specific instances of discrimination, this has left holes allowing legal discrimination even by the government. The easiest assumption people have is that sexual orientation is protected. It's not federally, it's left to the individual states. Political affiliation isn't protected in just about every state, although funny enough we've federally specified that members of the communist party can be discriminated against, it's part of the civil rights act irrc. Medical conditions aren't exactly covered so if you have say hepatitis that can be a basis of discrimination, although if you lost a leg, no. Gender identity is not covered usually the same states that don't protect sexual orientation. Military discharge status(this is often referring to unfavorable discharge as that's been the basis for people) is a gray area and unprotected. Atheists can be discriminated against depending on state as that's been taken as not a religion and thus can be discriminated against. Height can be used to discriminate(often is a proxy for race when actually used). There is a reason why all the states failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment which is only asking for "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Shouldn't the 10th Amendment protect from this? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This seems to read like if there isn't any specific law for or against something created by the US or its states then that power is reserved to the people. Or, can this be used as a double edge sword for people to discriminate against the characteristics not protected by the constitution?
The language, in my view, seems extremely weak in regard to protecting classes other than those expressly specified in the constitution, and seems to be more a provision of state's rights in the absence of federal stipulation. The mere existence of amendments beyond the 10th that specifically had to call for the rights of blacks and women seems to confirm this. Our history has shown repeatedly that if a class isn't specifically protected by the constitution, it will be discriminated against by those claiming to be under its auspices. Therefore, the fact that it doesn't in fact have blanket protections for things such as sexuality and gender means that they're still fair game.
|
On July 18 2019 02:21 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 01:46 JimmiC wrote:On July 18 2019 01:22 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On July 18 2019 00:47 JimmiC wrote:On July 17 2019 23:51 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
White is not a culture JimmiC.
I am of British culture and practice their cultural traits in a majority British culture. I have wonky yellow teeth and drink tea and I speak in a funny British accent. Somehow I have managed to avoid being drawn to the large loud man telling them they are ok and spews hate.
And reading the link is just awful. It's just dressed up racism repackaged. "White interest" whose interest is for a slower rate of change to absorb those of mixed races. wtf. Well he was born in Hong Kong is a quarter Latino a quarter Chinese and grew up in a Jewish Catholic house. Most of his writings don’t appear to have a right wing bend but his point is the instant you talk white people call it racist. He also goes into more detail. In fact his first answer is about that. “The term “white” can refer to an ethnic majority group like white American , or it can refer to a racial category, which is a piece of the colour spectrum or the phenotype spectrum. Those two are not perfectly aligned right now. They’re not perfectly aligned, but they weren’t very aligned, but they weren’ very aligned in the past. In the future, I don’t think they’ll be that aligned either. He is not left but that does not automatically make him racist. The two others mentioned in the article one is a British conservatives who separated himself from the American right back in the bush era and strongly disagrees with the American right on social issues. And the other is a libertarian economist who is strongly pro choice and wrote on how bigger government can come with progress and that’s ok. Simply calling people racist is a lot easier than trying to understand them but far less effective if the goal is not to simply fight or to make yourself feel somehow superior (not saying this is you just stating as a general rule painting everyone that doesn’t have the same thoughts as you with a broad brush of racism pushes them away. That should be saved for those who say and think things like “go back to your own country” when their skin is darker or last name is not European.) It would be nice if people could say, I’m generally a conservative but what Trump said was racist and I don’t support it. Instead were so tribal that it doesn’t help. I don't care what his ethnicity is. It is irrelevant. I don't care what side of the irrelevant political spectrum he may or may not claim he is. He could be 8 of 1/8 anything and everything for all I care. I care about his words and the argument of the words. Then I suggest you reread them, without the filter of "this guy must be racist let me see how". Don't be like GH. Don't post a link with barely a description and quip that the other guy has to read it. You can do better than that. Rather clearly I have read it as I can identify the problem I have with the article. Now, you have to respond to the problem I have, rather than talk about some cultural artifact that I didn't talk about.
Hey now, other than certain posters I've stopped that. My favorite part from the article was:
“If politics in the West is ever to return to normal rather than becoming even more polarized, white interests will need to be discussed. I realize this is very controversial for left-modernists."
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility.
|
On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility.
Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively?
|
On July 17 2019 22:39 KwarK wrote:
White pride is dumb because we don’t need to celebrate whiteness when we can just do our cultural things. I’m British which means I get to burn an effigy of Guy Fawkes, enjoy strong cheese, have a real preference when it comes to beer, and make everyone speak my language. That’d be what would be on a Brit pride parade. Celebrating whiteness wouldn’t mean anything to me because the parade float would just be me pissing on a manacled black guy and that doesn’t capture who I am.
Replace black man with white man in black leather and you've got a Gay Pride parade. Tier 1 whites always seemed a bit "off" to me as a tier 2-3 white.
As for hispanics being white, no, not in 'Merica. Even official documents that ask about race will almost always have "White (non-hispanic)" as a category and a separate one for "Hispanic/Latino". I'd personally rather see those questions about race stripped off of any official document, but they're still there for the time being and aren't always nefarious.
But really, we're pretty crazy about race and ethnicity in 'Merica. Jewish is often treated like a separate race even though it's a religion. We have a tendency to find any trait as a way to differentiate people and treat them as others. A nice bit from Family Guy in the spoiler that sums it up:
+ Show Spoiler +
"we'll have a happy new life and we'll have equal rights for all. Except blacks, asians, hispanics, jews, gays, women, muslims. Uhmm, everybody who's not a white man. And I mean white white, so no italians, no polish, just people from ireland england and scotland, but only certain parts of scotland and ireland. Just full blooded whites."
|
On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively?
No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's.
|
On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's.
Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard.
|
The "black interest" and the "gay interest" are not to obtain special treatment. It's to obtain normal treatment.
|
On July 18 2019 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
The "black interest" and the "gay interest" are not to obtain special treatment. It's to obtain normal treatment.
Not really. Affirmative action is anything but normal treatment.
|
4713 Posts
On July 18 2019 04:16 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 01:51 Destructicon wrote:On July 18 2019 01:35 semantics wrote:On July 18 2019 01:09 Destructicon wrote:On July 17 2019 22:52 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2019 22:51 Destructicon wrote:On July 17 2019 22:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
"identity politics/... divide and breed hate" is how the right describes trying to return to when marginalized people were unable or unwilling to express their concerns in ways that don't coddle those that exploit them.
Meaning the right will always label marginalized people demanding their rights as being unreasonable, rushing, divisive, etc... in an effort to keep them marginalized. Therefore preserving their own marginally better position as a result of that marginalization of "others". How does that work exactly, I thought all people in the US, barring the illegal immigrants, have equal rights. Like anywhere you go you are not allowed to discriminate based off ethnicity, sex, religion etc. Since when? Since introduced into the US constitution. Amendment 1 protects the people's right to hold whatever religion they want and also protects free speech. Amendment 14 basically says that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment 15 protects the rights of all people regardless of race, color or previous servitude, basically its an extension of the 14th. Amendment 19 was added to also extend the voting rights to women. From all these taken together I can see that no state in the US is allowed to pass any laws which would discriminate against sex, ethnicity, religion of its own citizens. To also present some of my own anecdotal evidence I've also had to do mandatory compliance training for the subsidiaries of the US corporations I worked in, and I know for a fact discrimination based on the above is not allowed. So again, where where is this marginalization manifest? Edit: @ semantics, I saw your post after posting, can you give me an example of this specific circumstance? Sure the problem here is you're assuming the US has blanket laws preventing discrimination. When in fact the US has separated out laws on discrimination, why else would the US have an employment discrimination law, housing discrimination law etc. It's because the laws were crafted only to hit specific instances of discrimination, this has left holes allowing legal discrimination even by the government. The easiest assumption people have is that sexual orientation is protected. It's not federally, it's left to the individual states. Political affiliation isn't protected in just about every state, although funny enough we've federally specified that members of the communist party can be discriminated against, it's part of the civil rights act irrc. Medical conditions aren't exactly covered so if you have say hepatitis that can be a basis of discrimination, although if you lost a leg, no. Gender identity is not covered usually the same states that don't protect sexual orientation. Military discharge status(this is often referring to unfavorable discharge as that's been the basis for people) is a gray area and unprotected. Atheists can be discriminated against depending on state as that's been taken as not a religion and thus can be discriminated against. Height can be used to discriminate(often is a proxy for race when actually used). There is a reason why all the states failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment which is only asking for "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Shouldn't the 10th Amendment protect from this? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This seems to read like if there isn't any specific law for or against something created by the US or its states then that power is reserved to the people. Or, can this be used as a double edge sword for people to discriminate against the characteristics not protected by the constitution? You’ve missed some of the arguments we’ve already had but basically discrimination is still very real. Take voting. The constitution allows states to run their own elections and so in the post civil war years the southern states realized they could pass racist disenfranchisement laws. And because it was 1900 they actually wrote down what they were doing and why which was quite remarkable. “We’re going to abuse this loophole to suppress the negro menace by disenfranchising negroes with bullshit laws”. Those laws are still actually on the books today, even though we know why the laws were written and what they do because it’s the grandkids of the authors in power today and they still feel the exact same way about the negro menace.
I'm not sure giving me an example of discrimination based off color which happened pre civil war is proof of discrimination today, several of the amendments which have been added afterwards where inserted to protect against such discrimination and rightly so.
I do concede that it appears that rights which aren't specifically called out seem to be fair game, but is such discrimination that rampant?
I'll also side with Simbeto's sentiment here, I still think separating people based on color, heritage, ethnicity etc is reductive and divisive as it sort of fosters a us vs them kind of thinking. People are still people no matter where they originate and they have a lot in common, they want a good life which involves a stable job/income, a home, enough free time to enjoy themselves and the possibility to have a family.
|
|
|
United States44121 Posts
On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard.
If I have taken all the pies and you’re asking me for a fair share of the pies then we’re not both equally greedy for wanting pies. Your criticism of me taking all the pies is not hypocritical simply because you would like a pie.
|
On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard.
No, not unless I missed the part of US history where white men weren't the dominant social class exploiting marginalized groups and claiming their demands for the same rights the constitution granted to those white men was divisive and such.
|
On July 18 2019 04:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
The "black interest" and the "gay interest" are not to obtain special treatment. It's to obtain normal treatment. Not really. Affirmative action is anything but normal treatment.
Because they still don't get normal treatment. How'd it go for you the last time you had to interact with police? Pretty well, I'm assuming, since you're here to have this discussion.
|
United States44121 Posts
On July 18 2019 04:50 Destructicon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 18 2019 01:51 Destructicon wrote:On July 18 2019 01:35 semantics wrote:On July 18 2019 01:09 Destructicon wrote:On July 17 2019 22:52 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2019 22:51 Destructicon wrote:On July 17 2019 22:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
"identity politics/... divide and breed hate" is how the right describes trying to return to when marginalized people were unable or unwilling to express their concerns in ways that don't coddle those that exploit them.
Meaning the right will always label marginalized people demanding their rights as being unreasonable, rushing, divisive, etc... in an effort to keep them marginalized. Therefore preserving their own marginally better position as a result of that marginalization of "others". How does that work exactly, I thought all people in the US, barring the illegal immigrants, have equal rights. Like anywhere you go you are not allowed to discriminate based off ethnicity, sex, religion etc. Since when? Since introduced into the US constitution. Amendment 1 protects the people's right to hold whatever religion they want and also protects free speech. Amendment 14 basically says that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment 15 protects the rights of all people regardless of race, color or previous servitude, basically its an extension of the 14th. Amendment 19 was added to also extend the voting rights to women. From all these taken together I can see that no state in the US is allowed to pass any laws which would discriminate against sex, ethnicity, religion of its own citizens. To also present some of my own anecdotal evidence I've also had to do mandatory compliance training for the subsidiaries of the US corporations I worked in, and I know for a fact discrimination based on the above is not allowed. So again, where where is this marginalization manifest? Edit: @ semantics, I saw your post after posting, can you give me an example of this specific circumstance? Sure the problem here is you're assuming the US has blanket laws preventing discrimination. When in fact the US has separated out laws on discrimination, why else would the US have an employment discrimination law, housing discrimination law etc. It's because the laws were crafted only to hit specific instances of discrimination, this has left holes allowing legal discrimination even by the government. The easiest assumption people have is that sexual orientation is protected. It's not federally, it's left to the individual states. Political affiliation isn't protected in just about every state, although funny enough we've federally specified that members of the communist party can be discriminated against, it's part of the civil rights act irrc. Medical conditions aren't exactly covered so if you have say hepatitis that can be a basis of discrimination, although if you lost a leg, no. Gender identity is not covered usually the same states that don't protect sexual orientation. Military discharge status(this is often referring to unfavorable discharge as that's been the basis for people) is a gray area and unprotected. Atheists can be discriminated against depending on state as that's been taken as not a religion and thus can be discriminated against. Height can be used to discriminate(often is a proxy for race when actually used). There is a reason why all the states failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment which is only asking for "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Shouldn't the 10th Amendment protect from this? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This seems to read like if there isn't any specific law for or against something created by the US or its states then that power is reserved to the people. Or, can this be used as a double edge sword for people to discriminate against the characteristics not protected by the constitution? You’ve missed some of the arguments we’ve already had but basically discrimination is still very real. Take voting. The constitution allows states to run their own elections and so in the post civil war years the southern states realized they could pass racist disenfranchisement laws. And because it was 1900 they actually wrote down what they were doing and why which was quite remarkable. “We’re going to abuse this loophole to suppress the negro menace by disenfranchising negroes with bullshit laws”. Those laws are still actually on the books today, even though we know why the laws were written and what they do because it’s the grandkids of the authors in power today and they still feel the exact same way about the negro menace. I'm not sure giving me an example of discrimination based off color which happened pre civil war is proof of discrimination today, several of the amendments which have been added afterwards where inserted to protect against such discrimination and rightly so. I do concede that it appears that rights which aren't specifically called out seem to be fair game, but is such discrimination that rampant? I'll also side with Simbeto's sentiment here, I still think separating people based on color, heritage, ethnicity etc is reductive and divisive as it sort of fosters a us vs them kind of thinking. People are still people no matter where they originate and they have a lot in common, they want a good life which involves a stable job/income, a home, enough free time to enjoy themselves and the possibility to have a family.
1901 was post civil war. Also the laws are still in force so again, post civil war.
The quote below is the preface of the Alabama constitutional congress that imposed Alabama’s current felon disenfranchisement laws.
[In 1861], as now, the negro was the prominent factor in the issue. . . . And what is it that we want to do? Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State. . . . The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. . . . These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition.”—
John B. Knox, president of the Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901, in his opening address
The laws they wrote that day are still enforced today. The idea that the constitution fixed discrimination is both theoretically absurd, see the example of constitutionally legal discrimination above, and actually absurd, see America.
|
On July 18 2019 04:49 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
The "black interest" and the "gay interest" are not to obtain special treatment. It's to obtain normal treatment. Not really. Affirmative action is anything but normal treatment.
Affirmative action is a very tame version of the promotion of mediocrity that is colonialism. US history is literally full of mediocre white men enjoying the "Affirmative action" of colonialism. It's more moderate but definitely in line with "normal" treatment of white men. One big difference is AA legislation doesn't rely on nepotism like colonialism does.
|
|
|
On July 18 2019 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard. No, not unless I missed the part of US history where white men weren't the dominant social class exploiting marginalized groups and claiming their demands for the same rights the constitution granted to those white men was divisive and such.
You can dress up the pig all you want, but the bottom line is that you are discriminating on the basis of race. Last I checked, that's the textbook definition of racism. Just because you believe that there is a legitimate reason for discriminating on the basis of race doesn't mean that you aren't doing it.
|
On July 18 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard. No, not unless I missed the part of US history where white men weren't the dominant social class exploiting marginalized groups and claiming their demands for the same rights the constitution granted to those white men was divisive and such. You can dress up the pig all you want, but the bottom line is that you are discriminating on the basis of race. Last I checked, that's the textbook definition of racism. Just because you believe that there is a legitimate reason for discriminating on the basis of race doesn't mean that you aren't doing it.
No, the textbook definition of racism is prejudice+power but you don't like those textbooks.
Not dressing anything up, as Kwark pointed out your argument is preposterous on it's face.
To kinda wrap this and the tiers of whiteness, think about which slurs have endured in the US, what's the most popular slur for British people?
|
4713 Posts
On July 18 2019 04:51 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:50 Destructicon wrote:On July 18 2019 04:16 KwarK wrote:On July 18 2019 01:51 Destructicon wrote:On July 18 2019 01:35 semantics wrote:On July 18 2019 01:09 Destructicon wrote:On July 17 2019 22:52 KwarK wrote:On July 17 2019 22:51 Destructicon wrote:On July 17 2019 22:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
"identity politics/... divide and breed hate" is how the right describes trying to return to when marginalized people were unable or unwilling to express their concerns in ways that don't coddle those that exploit them.
Meaning the right will always label marginalized people demanding their rights as being unreasonable, rushing, divisive, etc... in an effort to keep them marginalized. Therefore preserving their own marginally better position as a result of that marginalization of "others". How does that work exactly, I thought all people in the US, barring the illegal immigrants, have equal rights. Like anywhere you go you are not allowed to discriminate based off ethnicity, sex, religion etc. Since when? Since introduced into the US constitution. Amendment 1 protects the people's right to hold whatever religion they want and also protects free speech. Amendment 14 basically says that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment 15 protects the rights of all people regardless of race, color or previous servitude, basically its an extension of the 14th. Amendment 19 was added to also extend the voting rights to women. From all these taken together I can see that no state in the US is allowed to pass any laws which would discriminate against sex, ethnicity, religion of its own citizens. To also present some of my own anecdotal evidence I've also had to do mandatory compliance training for the subsidiaries of the US corporations I worked in, and I know for a fact discrimination based on the above is not allowed. So again, where where is this marginalization manifest? Edit: @ semantics, I saw your post after posting, can you give me an example of this specific circumstance? Sure the problem here is you're assuming the US has blanket laws preventing discrimination. When in fact the US has separated out laws on discrimination, why else would the US have an employment discrimination law, housing discrimination law etc. It's because the laws were crafted only to hit specific instances of discrimination, this has left holes allowing legal discrimination even by the government. The easiest assumption people have is that sexual orientation is protected. It's not federally, it's left to the individual states. Political affiliation isn't protected in just about every state, although funny enough we've federally specified that members of the communist party can be discriminated against, it's part of the civil rights act irrc. Medical conditions aren't exactly covered so if you have say hepatitis that can be a basis of discrimination, although if you lost a leg, no. Gender identity is not covered usually the same states that don't protect sexual orientation. Military discharge status(this is often referring to unfavorable discharge as that's been the basis for people) is a gray area and unprotected. Atheists can be discriminated against depending on state as that's been taken as not a religion and thus can be discriminated against. Height can be used to discriminate(often is a proxy for race when actually used). There is a reason why all the states failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment which is only asking for "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Shouldn't the 10th Amendment protect from this? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This seems to read like if there isn't any specific law for or against something created by the US or its states then that power is reserved to the people. Or, can this be used as a double edge sword for people to discriminate against the characteristics not protected by the constitution? You’ve missed some of the arguments we’ve already had but basically discrimination is still very real. Take voting. The constitution allows states to run their own elections and so in the post civil war years the southern states realized they could pass racist disenfranchisement laws. And because it was 1900 they actually wrote down what they were doing and why which was quite remarkable. “We’re going to abuse this loophole to suppress the negro menace by disenfranchising negroes with bullshit laws”. Those laws are still actually on the books today, even though we know why the laws were written and what they do because it’s the grandkids of the authors in power today and they still feel the exact same way about the negro menace. I'm not sure giving me an example of discrimination based off color which happened pre civil war is proof of discrimination today, several of the amendments which have been added afterwards where inserted to protect against such discrimination and rightly so. I do concede that it appears that rights which aren't specifically called out seem to be fair game, but is such discrimination that rampant? I'll also side with Simbeto's sentiment here, I still think separating people based on color, heritage, ethnicity etc is reductive and divisive as it sort of fosters a us vs them kind of thinking. People are still people no matter where they originate and they have a lot in common, they want a good life which involves a stable job/income, a home, enough free time to enjoy themselves and the possibility to have a family. 1901 was post civil war. Also the laws are still in force so again, post civil war. The quote below is the preface of the Alabama constitutional congress that imposed Alabama’s current felon disenfranchisement laws. Show nested quote +[In 1861], as now, the negro was the prominent factor in the issue. . . . And what is it that we want to do? Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State. . . . The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. . . . These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition.”—
John B. Knox, president of the Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901, in his opening address The laws they wrote that day are still enforced today. The idea that the constitution fixed discrimination is both theoretically absurd, see the example of constitutionally legal discrimination above, and actually absurd, see America.
Ok, got it now. If laws such as this are still in vigor they should indeed be repelled as they are clearly against the constitution.
|
On July 18 2019 05:09 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 18 2019 04:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:47 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:46 GreenHorizons wrote:On July 18 2019 04:45 xDaunt wrote:On July 18 2019 04:38 GreenHorizons wrote:
How someone doesn't see the clear white supremacy in that is beyond me. The idea that this is some sort of politics of conciliation is preposterous. It's clearly and obviously white supremacy masked as civility. Do you consider advocacy for "black interests" or for "gay interests" to be advocacy for "black supremacy" or "gay supremacy," respectively? No, that's the argument white supremacists always make when marginalized groups want their interests to have comparable consideration to white men's. Then you're applying a hypocritical double-standard. No, not unless I missed the part of US history where white men weren't the dominant social class exploiting marginalized groups and claiming their demands for the same rights the constitution granted to those white men was divisive and such. You can dress up the pig all you want, but the bottom line is that you are discriminating on the basis of race. Last I checked, that's the textbook definition of racism. Just because you believe that there is a legitimate reason for discriminating on the basis of race doesn't mean that you aren't doing it.
This argument is just patently absurd. Is this the last bastion in defense of racism? That if we tried to make things right, we're stooping to the level of slave owners? Therefore it's better just to not do anything and let the table be tilted against them?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
