yudantaiteki Wrote:

AussieTrooper Wrote:As to your cartoon, you do realise that the natural course of that is to pay African Americans for what they endured, and return them to Africa. It's a ridiculous notion. Next you'll be wanting the Norwegians to pay the UK damages incurred during Viking raids. Or we could treat everyone equally, and get on with life.
.

People can't "get on with life" when they're born into a fundamentally broken system that discriminates against them from birth because of the color of their skin. "treat everyone equally, and get on with life" is a statement of privilege, telling the less privileged to shut up and take what they're given. It comes from the same source as the idea that anyone can work hard and become rich. Pretending that racial problems don't exist perpetuates racism and discrimination. You're complaining about racial quotas instead of about the societal racism that makes people suggest the quotas in the first place.

Show me one law in 'the broken system' that discriminates against any skin colour besides against a white one.

Nobody here is pretending that racial problems don't exist. Perhaps you are replying to the wrong person.

And as for "You're complaining about racial quotas instead of about the societal racism that makes people suggest the quotas in the first place", what part of "ALL racism is detestable." was it that confused you?

[Zgarbas]

AussieTrooper Wrote:what part of "ALL racism is detestable." was it that confused you?

I would assume that the part where

yudantaiteki Wrote:You're complaining about racial quotas instead of about the societal racism that makes people suggest the quotas in the first place.

Zgarbas Wrote:

AussieTrooper Wrote:what part of "ALL racism is detestable." was it that confused you?

I would assume that the part where

yudantaiteki Wrote:You're complaining about racial quotas instead of about the societal racism that makes people suggest the quotas in the first place.

That statement could not be made any clearer.
If you do not understand something so basic, then that's your problem.

yogert909 Wrote:Well, studies have shown consistently that there IS bias against women and minorities. What is far more interesting and nuanced is that the same biases are exhibited by women and minorities against their own cohort.

This has always stupified me. I've heard stories like this numerous times; one example, someone told me when he was working in an IT shop back in college, his boss, a woman, once told him that she'd never hire a woman because the work was too hard. I guess she was referring to the fact that they have to lift and move computers around the office. This wasn't some old woman either she was in her mid-20s, and this was only 5-7 years ago. Bizarre, truly bizarre.

AussieTrooper Wrote:Show me one law in 'the broken system' that discriminates against any skin colour besides against a white one.

I could be wrong, but yudantaiteki may not be talking only about the justice system, even though the justice system does have some problems. Blacks tend to get heavier sentences than whites for the same crime. Outside the justice system though, theres the fact that a lot of blacks have grown up in impoverished settings. Some argue that this is because the system in the past really held them down and so it wasn't possible for many of them to elevate themselves out of these situations. The schools their kids went to as result weren't nearly as good as the schools that more well off whites went to. This makes it harder for minorities to move out of these situations.

sokino Wrote:

sholum Wrote:RE: affirmative action
I agree with AussieTrooper on this one; when it comes to ensuring a level playing field (equality of opportunity), I'm all for it, but when it's trying to force equality of outcome, it's unjust.

It's never been about equal outcomes, so what's your point? You're tilting at straw-men. And the simple fact is that even with affirmative action minorities and women still aren't getting enough fair opportunities in the employment sector. If it was gone, it'd be even less.

Saying that people should be economically equal no matter their background (personal background, not what they were born as) is saying that we should have equality of outcomes.
There are better ways of solving biases in hiring than blatant discrimination.

sholum Wrote:There are better ways of solving biases in hiring than blatant discrimination.

This.

AussieTrooper Wrote:Show me one law in 'the broken system' that discriminates against any skin colour besides against a white one.

Look it's simple to create freedom and equality in a few generation by eliminating all inherited wealth. Until you do that, it simply does not matter what you do, the the current state is the result of a historically devastating 'racist' system. (But it's not so much racist as classist.)

Anyone who believes in freedom, and equality has to do some work to argue against any inherited wealth.

Parents who pay for their children's educational, health, etc. opportunities can simply not sensibly claim that this support has nothing to do with outcomes. They pay for their children's opportunities not because they want to throw away money, but because they know this system works.

So that is exactly how a system discriminates. Because the laws allows this sort of massive discrimination across generations and generations. Note that this is not in any way specifically racial, except for the historical accident of most poor people having not been white males. Poverty is incredibly strongly inherited in a system that allows inherited wealth.

No one actually believes in "equal opportunity" except those who are already in a favored position.

kapalama Wrote:

AussieTrooper Wrote:Show me one law in 'the broken system' that discriminates against any skin colour besides against a white one.

Look it's simple to create freedom and equality in a few generation by eliminating all inherited wealth. Until you do that, it simply does not matter what you do, the the current state is the result of a historically devastating 'racist' system. (But it's not so much racist as classist.)

Anyone who believes in freedom, and equality has to do some work to argue against any inherited wealth.

Parents who pay for their children's educational, health, etc. opportunities can simply not sensibly claim that this support has nothing to do with outcomes. They pay for their children's opportunities not because they want to throw away money, but because they know this system works.

So that is exactly how a system discriminates. Because the laws allows this sort of massive discrimination across generations and generations. Note that this is not in any way specifically racial, except for the historical accident of most poor people having not been white males. Poverty is incredibly strongly inherited in a system that allows inherited wealth.

No one actually believes in "equal opportunity" except those who are already in a favored position.

So your solution is to steal everyone's money upon their death... Yeah, real nice. You know what, everything will be better if the State has complete control over trade and owns all the resources. While we're at it, let's just eliminate the idea of ownership; I mean, no one actually needs to own a house, or a car, or food, or tools, or clothes...
You know, there's a couple of countries that have tried this before; they all failed miserably at creating a system where the citizens actually got what they needed to be healthy and happy.

The idea of equal opportunity is to allow everyone a fair shot at climbing the social ladder and making a good living and enough to retire on: social independence. If believing that that is the best option to allow free, independent people to make the best of their life makes one rich (or in a favorable position), then I'm missing significant amounts of cash from my bank account and a cushy job that I got from my family connections that makes me several hundreds of thousands of dollars per year.

[ファブリス]

For what it's worth I saw a doc about men looking for love abroad and it changed my perception. There were the various stereotypes you could think of, and there were some genuinely good guys looking for love.

Better yet, there were women in south america, some of them quite successful and making good money (an entrepreneur in this particular doc), who were looking for American men abroad that would respect them.

I think you're going to see a lot of different stories there, depending where the men are from, where the women are from... and in the end what each individual's story is and what they end up looking for.

I know from extended families that these relationships aren't panacea, but they can work.

sholum Wrote:I think I'm old enough to take whatever (...)

Speaking on a very general level here, to explain a little bit my stance on this as an admin : I am well aware that some members enjoy the more heated discussions. However there is something about toxicity online and the way it spreads. As a general rule, when the fun disappears out of a discussion, moderation is required.

Once we move over to MyBB I hope moderation will be easier and also more straightforward. We will issue warnings. It's a point system. We will discuss it more in detail when the forum is upgraded.

sholum Wrote:Did I say more diversity in the work place is bad? No, I said that forcefully inflating the number of particular demographics in the work place is bad.

Making changes to eliminate bias toward women and minorities is not inflating the numbers. On the contrary it's bringing repressed numbers up to par. You're again making the assumption that current demographics in certain fields are "natural", and not the direct and indirect result of a society that has always favored certain people while valuing others as less.

sholum Wrote:Why is it bad? Because it's discrimination based on physical features.

This is a misuse of the word discrimination. Managers looking for a more diverse roster is not "discrimination". It's been shown that diverse teams actually give a competitive edge. You're complaining that you're oppressed because a female might challenge you for your job while there are people out there are actually dealing with real discrimination.

sholum Wrote:but introducing individuals through school or community programs would help spark interest that wouldn't have been there otherwise.

These are exactly the kind of things I like to advocate.

sholum Wrote:There are many whites in poverty (though significantly less than blacks, if I remember correctly) and without access to good education, just like there are blacks and Latinos, but these programs discriminate against them entirely: not only do they not have financial or social means to get out of their position, but the help that is afforded to other groups doesn't extend to them specifically because of their race; furthermore, because they are white, society expects that they don't really need help, they're just lazy.

Nobody has ever denied that poor white people exist. However a poor white person will never be poor and black no matter how poor he is, and that matters. It's been shown that poor white people tend to have higher social mobility than black people due to a lot more opportunities. From your interactions with the police to the way employers look at you things are generally very different if you're white.

The inverse of this is that no amount of money a black person has will change a black person has to deal with being black. Even rich and famous black men are often harassed and pulled over by the cops for driving nice cars.

sholum Wrote:That is actual racism, not only towards whites, but towards the blacks and other races for assuming they can't do anything without help.

You're making the dishonest and racially charged assumption that this is about "helping lazy people, aka black people, when they can do it themselves". Dealing with major problems concerning institutional racism and discrimination in society has nothing to do with things you can "do yourself". These are societal problems that are unfairly affecting a lot of people.

sholum Wrote:What justice is there in discriminating against people that weren't alive in the 60's (or even the '80s) and in favor of others born in the same time? None, it's just as disgusting as any other manifestation of this kind of discrimination.

Changing things from biased to more fair is not discrimination. You perceive a loss of privileged over others as "discrimination".

sholum Wrote:RE: "There are no SJWs, but there is a 'Red pill' section and MRAs"
The lack of self-awareness here is baffling...

You lack it indeed. Redpill is a misogynistic neo-reactionary forum that exists. MRAs are a real group that identify as such, and the acronym is a real acronym that refers to the name that they identify as.

"sjw" is no such thing. It's an exaggerated slur and buzzword used by radical conservatives to group and dismiss anyone who says anything remotely progressive.

sholum Wrote:And don't tell me you don't see what they've done to feminism (radicals have been a problem since its inception, but no where near this level), atheism (they've turned it into an actual 'ism' instead of a plain lack of belief in gods), video games (corruption is okay, because it's a {perceived or actual minority in the games industry}

There is no "they". No headquarters, meetings, army, tactics, plans, or sekrit plans. Far-right conservatives are just often afraid and angry over the fact that the world is moving on without them, so they invent a "they" who is manipulating things behind the scene to rationalize a changing world. Racists and neo-nazis do the same thing; rather than simply accepting that society is vastly less racist than it was they'd rather convince themselves that it's the fault of the Jewish conspiracy which is controlling the media. Not surprisingly the neckbeardy types (not talking about you) immature enough to non-ironically say "sjw" also think their boogeyman controls the media.

And feminism, atheism, and video games are perfectly fine. You really need to stop reading embarrassing neo-reactionary hubs like KiA.

AussieTrooper Wrote:'Anti-racists' - I very much doubt that this title is in anyway appropriate for those who you are trying to refer to.
Every time someone calls themselves 'anti-racist', they seem to be actively pushing for one race to benefit where another does not.

No one is doing this. This is strawman of the same caliber as "Obama hates white people" and is the angle that genuine racists and far-right conservatives often like to push to discredit attempts to make progress. Reminds me of a quote:

"But like all bigotry, the most potent component of racism is frame-flipping -- positioning the bigot as the actual victim. So the gay do not simply want to marry; they want to convert our children into sin. The Jews do not merely want to be left in peace; they actually are plotting world take-over. And the blacks are not actually victims of American power, but beneficiaries of the war against hard-working whites. This is a respectable, more sensible, bigotry, one that does not seek to name-call, preferring instead change the subject and straw man." —Ta-Nehisi Coates

AussieTrooper Wrote:Or we could treat everyone equally, and get on with life.

Bigots be like:
"never forget 9/11"
"just get over slavery and all of the institutional racism that still exists to this very day and is disproportionately affecting minorities. you know that stuff that I dont care about because it doesnt affect me."

AussieTrooper Wrote:We've seen a massive swing from where in the past it was ok to discriminate against women and non-westerners, wheras now it's ok to discriminate against men and westerners.

LOL.

AussieTrooper Wrote:As to your cartoon, you do realise that the natural course of that is to pay African Americans for what they endured, and return them to Africa.

No. If you look at that cartoon the natural course of that would be for him to take his hand. Deportation... has nothing to do with that comic. That sounds more like something that slipped in from your head. Come on now. I know you get excited, but you guys are supposed to speak in code and use dog-whistle politics nowadays. Remember?

AussieTrooper Wrote:You've just described prejudice. Active discrimination by one person in the guise of preventing discrimination from another that hasn't occurred yet.

Making uneven things even isn't discrimination; you just perceive it as discrimination because you're accustomed to the deck being stacked in your favor, and now you feel threatened that a girl might challenge you for your job when she's supposed to be your social inferior.

AussieTrooper Wrote:Show me one law in 'the broken system' that discriminates against any skin colour besides against a white one.

Until 2010 powder cocaine and crack cocaine used to have a 100:1 disparity in sentencing weight (yes you read that correctly; there wasn't even a pretense of hiding what they were going for here) despite these being the same exact drugs (with cocaine actually being faster acting) because one was popular among poor black people and one was popular among rich white men.

john555 Wrote:The USA has a black president who has fanned the flames of racial division rather than help matters.

This is Fox News-tier incorrect.

AussieTrooper Wrote:Show me one law in 'the broken system' that discriminates against any skin colour besides against a white one.

The broken system is one that enslaved blacks, brought them here, then had intense legal discrimination for 100 years after that. You can't just remove all that and suddenly say "OK, we're all equal now, if you mention racism that's 'fanning the flames' and 'reverse racism'." There are still people living who could not vote until they were in their 30s. That kind of societal problem that stacks the deck against minorities from birth cannot be undone just by removing the overtly racist and discriminatory laws and then claiming equality.

(Poverty is a problem that crosses racial lines, but minorities have to deal with the poverty in addition to the racial discrimination.)

Zgarbas Wrote:

aldebrn Wrote:http://www.tofugu.com/2015/09/30/gay-samurai/ A lot of people have looked at this and thought it natural to condemn cultural appropriation.

Keep in mind that homosexuality as was practiced in Edo was a matter of power and restricted to men. Very young acolytes with very old monks, always male, never two adults, unless one was a prostitute. It was also hidden behind the very sexist idea that (as the Tofugu article puts it) women were '“evil and defiling” by nature.' It had little to do with orientation per se, and the younger male had little say in it (all in all it was oddly similar to pederasty in Ancient Greece). Homosexuality was banned only for about 2 years IIRC, and continued to be practiced quite heavily throughout the 20th century. Also, a lot of Western thought which was emerging on the topic made its way into Japanese literature at a rapid pace, starting with the idea of Urning, which was introduced to Japan by Mori Ogai. Homosexuality was never as taboo as in the West, though some blame the passive attitude towards it to blame for the continued ignorance regarding it (Japan is one of the few developed countries without an anti-discrimination law).

Thanks for this, as I was reading the piece I kept thinking, "Well, this is very interesting but even if this culture of homo/bisexuality magically returned to Japan today, I think my gay friends (fifty shades of gay TED talk) would still be marginalized there." And I think what you're saying is that today's understanding of being gay, based on orientation, is orthogonal to that culture, where homosexual activity was based in more cultural, socially-codified terms? I'm afraid I'm not getting the details (or even the generalities) right, but I'll try to understand the differences better. The Tofugu writer (on Twitter) did mention how she/he wasn't aware that this kind of homosexuality was present in many (most?) cultures through time (I was familiar with ancient Sparta) until they researched this piece, but I do think they overlooked the differences between that and today's understanding of being gay. Unfortunately.

[Zgarbas]

I think that one of the most terse texts on the manner is "Homosexuality in Japanese History" by Mark McLelland in an Anthology called Gender and Japanese Society by Dolores Martinez. McLelland's stuff is usually great when it comes to gay history in Japan, though I think that his approach often ignores the more problematic aspects of the practice. If you want to see for yourself, there is an English anthology called Partings at Dawn: An Anthology of Japanese Gay Literature by Stephen Miller which is 80% medieval texts dealing with monk-acolyte texts, and while I was aware of the issue with the practice, reading the actual literature made my perspective a lot darker.

I thought that the Tofugu article was quite well-written, if rudimentary. I always see Tofugu articles as a basic way of introducing certain topics, so i wouldn't expect them to be too comprehensive (they are sometimes, which is always a pleasant surprise).

john555 Wrote:The problem, in the USA anyway, is that no matter how much white people bend over backwards to help blacks (racial preferences in university admissions etc.) they are STILL accused of being racist. The USA has a black president who has fanned the flames of racial division rather than help matters.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

AussieTrooper Wrote:Show me one law in 'the broken system' that discriminates against any skin colour besides against a white one.

The broken system is one that enslaved blacks, brought them here, then had intense legal discrimination for 100 years after that. You can't just remove all that and suddenly say "OK, we're all equal now, if you mention racism that's 'fanning the flames' and 'reverse racism'." There are still people living who could not vote until they were in their 30s. That kind of societal problem that stacks the deck against minorities from birth cannot be undone just by removing the overtly racist and discriminatory laws and then claiming equality.

(Poverty is a problem that crosses racial lines, but minorities have to deal with the poverty in addition to the racial discrimination.)

I was watching this talk from a programming conference by Bryan Liles, a black software engineer, who mentions as an aside one reason why we don't see many black programmers today—well, he says he doesn't know why, but he posits this as a possible reason: I'm heavily paraphrasing:

"Till 1860s we had slavery. Til 1960s we had Jim Crow laws"—you know, making it impossible for black people to vote, to serve on juries or in legislatures, from even marrying white people—"Even after World War II, when the GI Bill helped millions of returning veterans get degrees or buy houses, thereby building personal wealth in real estate, blacks were excluded from that: HUD couldn't discriminate based on race but between realtors and housing associations, white homeowners were effectively forbidden from selling homes to black people. And that's why we have black parts of cities [usually poor]: it's not because black people wanted to live next to other black people—they wanted to live in the nice neighborhoods with nice schools—but they weren't allowed to. So today, getting black people into programming is a pipeline problem, and it's getting better: we're seeing more young blacks getting interested in programming."

What I took away from this is that white people have just started bending over backwards (they're maybe a little tilted right now) to help blacks, in terms of generational and institutional timelines. Fairer laws have, in terms of productive lifespans, recently hit the books, and the beginning of the pipeline is starting to fill up, and there's still plenty of discrimination and "stop blaming me for your problems" attitude around, as magnificently demonstrated for us by john555 and AussieTrooper. Bryan though is hopeful that within a couple of generations, just in terms of population growth, blacks and "underrepresented peoples" will start appearing in larger numbers in underrepresented fields. So your I'm-not-racist-you're-racist racist attitudes will hopefully not be needed by your grandchildren. Hopefully.

Zgarbas Wrote:Why do you think so many Westerners come to Japan in hopes of finding a Japanese girlfriend? It is depressing, and that's the point.How do you feel when it is practiced in everyday life in a manner that does not directly affect you?

If we are to believe that people like Sholum, NinKenDo and AussieTrooper are arguing from a Men Rights Activism (MRA) or RP (Red Pill) point of view and if we are to believe that is to be discouraged (MRA talking points), then careful now, because by this statement, you may risk entering into Feminist Nazi (Feminazi) or Social Justice Warrior (SJW) territory.

Could you clarify your position on this issue? For example, is it morally wrong or is it acceptable to target a particular group (eg. people of Asian appearance, people from a certain country, people of a certain race etc) when it comes to seeking partners? What is "depressing" and why is it depressing?

Your last comment on this issue was as follows:

AussieTrooper Wrote:

Zgarbas Wrote:Did you specifically look for a Japanese wife? Go out of your way with the exact purpose? Have the idea that a Japanese partner would be your ideal before you'd even met one? Was your fiance one of the many Japanese girls that you consistently hit on with little to no regard to their individuality until they responded positively?
If no, then I fail to see why you'd be offended. That is ridiculously common behaviour, and just because you're an exception doesn't mean it doesn't happen.

A person's reason for being attracted to another is none of your business. If two people are happy together, your borderline racist attitude towards it is your problem, not theirs.

Whilst over there, I've met Chinese, Turkish and New Zealanders that have Japanese partners too. Do they fit your standard ok, or is your criticism just reserved for western males?

AussieTrooper's main point in his reply appears to be "if the two people (Japanese female and non-Japanese male) are happy together (then it is not a problem)"

Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

ryuudou Wrote:

sholum Wrote:These are the same idiots that say that white people should give all their money to black people because of the slave trade, because only black people were ever slaves and it was always whities that owned them.

Except... no one ever says this.

No one ever asks for reparations over slavery?

Stansfield123 Wrote:

ryuudou Wrote:

sholum Wrote:These are the same idiots that say that white people should give all their money to black people because of the slave trade, because only black people were ever slaves and it was always whities that owned them.

Except... no one ever says this.

No one ever asks for reparations over slavery?

They do, but it's not the prevailing aim of people working for justice and equality for minorities. Most people don't want some token payout from the government, especially since that would probably allow people to say "See? We gave you something. Now sit down and shut up."

sholum Wrote:

sokino Wrote:

sholum Wrote:RE: affirmative action
I agree with AussieTrooper on this one; when it comes to ensuring a level playing field (equality of opportunity), I'm all for it, but when it's trying to force equality of outcome, it's unjust.

It's never been about equal outcomes, so what's your point? You're tilting at straw-men. And the simple fact is that even with affirmative action minorities and women still aren't getting enough fair opportunities in the employment sector. If it was gone, it'd be even less.

Saying that people should be economically equal no matter their background (personal background, not what they were born as) is saying that we should have equality of outcomes.
There are better ways of solving biases in hiring than blatant discrimination.

No, we're saying people should have the same economic *opportunity* given comparable qualifications.

The better way to solve these biases to have people see the differences in race and learn to appreciate them and not attach a negative stigma to them - not completely ignore that these differences actually exist.

If people are being held back because their race, it'd be silly to ignore that, and say "oh, well, NOW that everyone's equal (not true in any case because there is still a lot of systemic racial discrimination), we won't take race into account." You and AussieTrooper seem to be advocating some sort of colorblind ideology, but it's been shown that doesn't work. In a study, it's shown that taking the "colorblind" approach actually reduces kids' effectiveness in identifying and challenging actual racism.

http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/...16464.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/cul...orm-racism


As the late, great Julian Bond said:

"As quiet as it is kept by those who declare themselves `colorblind' in his name, Martin Luther King supported affirmative action. He said in 1963:
"It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years. How then can he be absorbed into the mainstream of American life if we do not do something special for him now, in order to balance the equation and equip him to compete on a just and equal basis? [v]"

...

"Or, as I like to put it, whether race is a burden or benefit is all the same to these theorists; that is what they mean when they speak about being "colorblind". They are colorblind, all right—blind to the consequences of being the wrong color in America today.

Stansfield123 Wrote:

ryuudou Wrote:

sholum Wrote:These are the same idiots that say that white people should give all their money to black people because of the slave trade, because only black people were ever slaves and it was always whities that owned them.

Except... no one ever says this.

No one ever asks for reparations over slavery?

No one ever says anything as asinine as "white people should give all of their money because of the slave trade because only black people were ever slaves and it was always whities that owned them."

Ever. And that's a silly characterization of the position.

Learning a foreign language is not cultural appropriation. That's near the top of the list of the most idiotic things I've ever heard.

I think the most important thing here is that we have labels to use on people that disagree with us. It's a lot easier when we can just label everyone so we know how much weight their opinions should have.

The funny thing is that blacks were closing the gap with whites on pretty much every measure. Well until the 60's when attitudes went from "frig them let them pull themselves up" to a combination of "blame whitey for everything" and "shut up and take our money/quotas".

Best way to keep any people down forever is to constantly tell them that they have no responsibly for their fate and it is the role of "the man" to fix their problems. If you do it really well you can find 3 generations of families where everyone has spent on a lifetime on the dole like in certain [white] parts of jolly old England.

But silly me, I am one of those racists who think that black people can rise up to the challenge if you don't patronize them. Just a matter of time.



Also the idea that the per capita wealth of the US is due to white people stepping over the blacks is just wishful thinking on so many levels. Much like the wage gap. It was hilarious, McMaster did a study on it, found a difference of about 3500 bucks so they upped female wages by that much. 3500 bucks, at a Canadian university. That's a rounding error. That is an amount that could easily be explained by factors that they couldn't and just didn't consider. Yet everyone was like Fyeah, wage gap, we were right! Over a maybe 5% difference. Bravo... sarcastic clapping.

I also find it interesting that when it comes to payback for slavery it never seems to concern the descendants of the people who actually enslaved those slaves... the blacks of West Africa. Nobody seems to go after say the government of Ghana. Somehow white people even get the blame for that one. Much like how the western world gets all the flack for black slavery when the Arabs were just as significant in the slave trade. West is bad.


As for mail order brides, if I had the resources to pull it off and thought I could be reasonably sure she wouldn't bolt the moment she got permanent residence I'd be so there. I've read on line discussions on the subject that made me absolutely sick. Women who probably never spent more than a month in their lives without a date slagging "losers" really hard with no concept of empathy for those of us who couldn't get laid in the Orange is the New Black prison with a fist full of pardons... even from crazy eyes or the cancer girl. One would think a forever alone brah would be used to getting looked down upon and marginalized after decades of such treatment but nope.

yudantaiteki Wrote:

Stansfield123 Wrote:

ryuudou Wrote:Except... no one ever says this.

No one ever asks for reparations over slavery?

They do, but it's not the prevailing aim of people working for justice and equality for minorities. Most people don't want some token payout from the government, especially since that would probably allow people to say "See? We gave you something. Now sit down and shut up."

That's the thing.
"Nobody ever says this" is wrong. Even you are basically saying so, they just want enough to make it worth while.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reparations_for_slavery

I am not an American and even I knew reparations was thing... even before Family Guy covered it.

Dudeist Wrote:The funny thing is that blacks were closing the gap with whites on pretty much every measure. Well until the 60's when attitudes went from "frig them let them pull themselves up" to a combination of "blame whitey for everything" and "shut up and take our money/quotas".

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that you mentioned "the 60's" as when things started going downhill, and that period that you chose to mention just happened - by historical accident, really - to be when the Civil Rights Movements was in full effect. So strange how that worked out.

Dudeist Wrote:The funny thing is that blacks were closing the gap with whites on pretty much every measure. Well until the 60's when attitudes went from

Actually it had more to do with the the Armed Forces (the original equal opportunity employer) and its post war benefits like the GI Bill having done all it could to give opportunities to minorities.

But the Green Book and red-lining were still being done, so there was only so much difference it could make.

I belonged to a summer swim club that did not allow black members, and attended schools that did not allow blacks, and Tiger Wood still plays at country clubs that do not allow blacks. I am not proud of any of those, and I am disgusted that I was recruited to act as an agent of oppression well before I had my first sexual experience (with a farm animal of course).

But hey them darkies jus' be lazy I guess. It is simpler to think that way.

Just like gay marriage, though, I take comfort in the fact that truth and justice will out eventually. I just wish it would happen sooner, (or that the US would stop its insane immigration policies so I could move to a country where justice and freedom are actual goals of the society.) Either one works for me.