Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 20 Jul '09 15:15
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/16/rachel-maddow-duels-with_n_237036.html

    As Buchanan trumpeted random crap about the myth of "reverse racism," Maddow went right to the point and exposed Buchanan for what he was.

    A racist liar.
  2. 20 Jul '09 15:22
    Here's something I pretty much completely agree with you on

    I find it depressing that people actually respect this guy today.
  3. 20 Jul '09 15:27
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    Here's something I pretty much completely agree with you on

    I find it depressing that people actually respect this guy today.
    So you're pro-affirmative-action and you regard reverse racism as a myth too?

    Then why are you so hostile to Black Power? I'm not saying you have to support it, but to regard it as racist ... that's worthy of Republicanism.
  4. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Jul '09 15:37
    Originally posted by scherzo
    So you're pro-affirmative-action and you regard reverse racism as a myth too?

    Then why are you so hostile to Black Power? I'm not saying you have to support it, but to regard it as racist ... that's worthy of Republicanism.
    How is affirmative action anything but racist? It's a preference based on race. That's the definition of racist.

    Has it been justified in some cases? Yes. Is it still justified in some cases? Maybe.

    But of course it is and always has been racist.
  5. 20 Jul '09 15:42
    Originally posted by sh76
    How is affirmative action anything but racist? It's a preference based on race. That's the definition of racist.

    Has it been justified in some cases? Yes. Is it still justified in some cases? Maybe.

    But of course it is and always has been racist.
    Actually no, it's discrimination. Racism is prejudice based on race, but you need not have any prejudice for affirmative action.
  6. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Jul '09 15:49 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Actually no, it's discrimination. Racism is prejudice based on race, but you need not have any prejudice for affirmative action.
    discrimination based on race is a good enough definition for me. the only difference between what you consider racist prejudice and the basis for affirmative action is that your racist prejudice is based on inherent differences and the basis for affirmative action is based on manufactured differences. That's not much of a difference to me.

    It's interesting that in the US Supreme Court cases on racism and affirmative action, the words "racism" and "prejudice" are rarely used in the decision making components of the cases. The only operative term is "discrimination."

    Yes, "discrimination" is sometimes broken into benign discrimination and malignant discrimination, but the rule is the same: Discrimination is allowable only if it is necessary to achieve a compelling interest.

    Differentiating affirmative action from other discrimination based on anything other than whether it's justified doesn't make much sense to me.
  7. 20 Jul '09 15:51
    Originally posted by sh76
    How is affirmative action anything but racist? It's a preference based on race. That's the definition of racist.

    Has it been justified in some cases? Yes. Is it still justified in some cases? Maybe.

    But of course it is and always has been racist.
    No, not having AA would be racist. To have it means bridging the gap between Blacks and Whites, and thus, it's not racist. If it were arbitrary and not based on history at all, it would be racist. If Blacks were always treated better than Whites since they came here, and AA as we know it was still in place, it would be racist.
  8. 20 Jul '09 17:27 / 1 edit
    The idea behind affirmative action is that blacks (and other minorities) have been severely held back due to a history of discrimination, and something big must be done to offset all of this injustice. There is no doubt that centuries of slavery, and another century of segregation left blacks as a people in terrible shape. It would be foolish to think that all of this could be erased by passing a few laws and telling them "sorry 'bout those last 400 years".

    Affirmative action was probably necessary in the short term to push society away from segregatonist traditions and towards the day when blacks would have the same chance of succeeding as whites in all areas of life. But over the longer term, if the ultimate goal is to have a society where racial discrimination no longer occurs, affirmative action (or any other program that makes racial distinctions) becomes a major problem.

    Affirmative action prevents the wounds from ever healing. Whites feel resentful when they suspect that a lesser qualified black got the job instead. And those blacks that are hired will question whether they were really qualified. I'm sure no one wants to think that they are merely the "the token minority".
  9. 20 Jul '09 17:32
    Originally posted by Melanerpes
    The idea behind affirmative action is that blacks (and other minorities) have been severely held back due to a history of discrimination, and something big must be done to offset all of this injustice. There is no doubt that centuries of slavery, and another century of segregation left blacks as a people in terrible shape. It would be foolish to think tha ...[text shortened]... y qualified. I'm sure no one wants to think that they are merely the "the token minority".
    Do you have a better way?
  10. 20 Jul '09 18:01
    Originally posted by scherzo
    Do you have a better way?
    You could focus on helping ALL people who come from an economically disadvantaged background. As long as blacks are disproportionately poor, this would have the indirect effect of giving blacks a boost without ever having to make specific racial distinctions.

    Another idea would be to do things that make employers more aware of the existence of high quality minority candidatess, but without imposing any requirements on who those employers actually hire. I suspect that this is the idea behind the NFL's requirement that all teams must interview at least one minority applicant before they hire a new coach.

    Areas where affirmative action is still probably needed are those where minorities continue to be completely shut off. An example might be professional male sports teams where you NEVER see women as coaches (or even as assistant coaches).
  11. 20 Jul '09 18:15
    Originally posted by scherzo
    No, not having AA would be racist. To have it means bridging the gap between Blacks and Whites, and thus, it's not racist. If it were arbitrary and not based on history at all, it would be racist. If Blacks were always treated better than Whites since they came here, and AA as we know it was still in place, it would be racist.
    History has nothing to do with the qualifications of someone today. The person that ends up being benefited isn't the one who suffered years ago. By your logic asians should get the same preferential treatment since they were discriminated against when they first came here, or the Irish, or the Jew.. What it does is penalize someone because of their race, thus it's racist.
  12. 20 Jul '09 18:19 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by scherzo
    So you're pro-affirmative-action and you regard reverse racism as a myth too?

    Then why are you so hostile to Black Power? I'm not saying you have to support it, but to regard it as racist ... that's worthy of Republicanism.
    Not completely. I think affirmative action can be implemented in ways that help and hurt. I think there are better ways to help minorities get a better leg up though. I do think Buchanan's just ridiculous in how he is talking about it and he completely ignores the history and reality that is the reason for affirmative action.

    I think reverse racism exists, but for white people to suggest that it's anything close to the systemic problems with racism that african americans have faced is idiocy. When you compare the two then there really is no comparison.

    His idiotic rant about how there have been so many white people on the supreme court is because "100% of the people who signed the declaration of independence....." shows his ridiculous ignorance.

    His rant as a whole shows his ignorance (either willfull or not) of the plight of minorities historically in this nation and his abject refusal and logical gymnastics to avoid giving Sotomayor any credit just shows is bias.

    I'm not hostile to black power. If you think I am then you don't know me at all - as from your responses to my posts you certainly don't seem to.

    It all depends on what you are really referring to as "black power" though.
  13. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Jul '09 20:02
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn

    I'm not hostile to black power.
    Are you hostile to "white power"?
  14. 20 Jul '09 20:56
    Originally posted by sh76
    Are you hostile to "white power"?
    For what "white power" means today 99.9999% of the time.. yes.

    The difference is that usually when the term "black power" is used it's not used as a term defining superiority - but empowerment to attain power that had and has been systematically unavailable to them beforehand.

    White power is most often used as a term to define white people as being inherrently superior and a call to remove rights from people of any other races.

    As I said in my prior post, it depends on really what you mean by the term, but if you define "black power" as being a means to have black people have superiority over white people then of course I am against that.

    I do see the parallel, but you should also note the differences in the contexts.
  15. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    20 Jul '09 21:00
    Originally posted by PsychoPawn
    For what "white power" means today 99.9999% of the time.. yes.

    The difference is that usually when the term "black power" is used it's not used as a term defining superiority - but empowerment to attain power that had and has been systematically unavailable to them beforehand.

    White power is most often used as a term to define white people as bein ...[text shortened]... hat.

    I do see the parallel, but you should also note the differences in the contexts.
    Yes, that is a good explanation.

    However, I would like to point out that there is no inherent difference and that it is all in the context.

    "White power" is not inherently malignant and "black power" is not inherently benign. I also think that if one truly detests the expression "white power," for whatever reason, one should also refrain from using the expression "black power."