Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

My thoughts on Conservative Racism Exactly

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:03:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 9:20:55 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
The last video is on conservatives in general.
So....no thoughts of your own, huh?

And, if the videos are about how racists tend to be conservative, that is nothing new.
Racists want the freedom to be racists, thus flock to the party who are more likely to give it to them (the party that is associated with individual freedom, even though they clearly fall short)

Why do business owners flock to the GOP, too?
Is that because all conservatives are business owners, too?
My work here is, finally, done.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:08:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:03:29 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 9:20:55 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
The last video is on conservatives in general.
So....no thoughts of your own, huh?

And, if the videos are about how racists tend to be conservative, that is nothing new.
Racists want the freedom to be racists, thus flock to the party who are more likely to give it to them (the party that is associated with individual freedom, even though they clearly fall short)

Why do business owners flock to the GOP, too?
Is that because all conservatives are business owners, too?

I was talking more along the lines of the GOP in general, but hey, feel free to hate on the messenger.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:17:34 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:08:19 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:03:29 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 9:20:55 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
The last video is on conservatives in general.
So....no thoughts of your own, huh?

And, if the videos are about how racists tend to be conservative, that is nothing new.
Racists want the freedom to be racists, thus flock to the party who are more likely to give it to them (the party that is associated with individual freedom, even though they clearly fall short)

Why do business owners flock to the GOP, too?
Is that because all conservatives are business owners, too?

I was talking more along the lines of the GOP in general, but hey, feel free to hate on the messenger.

Again, why is the GOP X, simply because X flock to them?
My work here is, finally, done.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:19:04 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:17:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:08:19 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:03:29 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 9:20:55 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
The last video is on conservatives in general.
So....no thoughts of your own, huh?

And, if the videos are about how racists tend to be conservative, that is nothing new.
Racists want the freedom to be racists, thus flock to the party who are more likely to give it to them (the party that is associated with individual freedom, even though they clearly fall short)

Why do business owners flock to the GOP, too?
Is that because all conservatives are business owners, too?

I was talking more along the lines of the GOP in general, but hey, feel free to hate on the messenger.

Again, why is the GOP X, simply because X flock to them?

Its their policies. All of which are racist inclined. Did you watch the first video? Again, don't project the anger the videos stimulate at me.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:21:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:19:04 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:17:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:08:19 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:03:29 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 9:20:55 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
The last video is on conservatives in general.
So....no thoughts of your own, huh?

And, if the videos are about how racists tend to be conservative, that is nothing new.
Racists want the freedom to be racists, thus flock to the party who are more likely to give it to them (the party that is associated with individual freedom, even though they clearly fall short)

Why do business owners flock to the GOP, too?
Is that because all conservatives are business owners, too?

I was talking more along the lines of the GOP in general, but hey, feel free to hate on the messenger.

Again, why is the GOP X, simply because X flock to them?

Its their policies. All of which are racist inclined. Did you watch the first video? Again, don't project the anger the videos stimulate at me.

So, a policy is racist simply because racists approve?
You are aware of how stupid that generalization is, right?
My work here is, finally, done.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:28:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:21:12 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:19:04 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:17:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:08:19 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:03:29 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 9:20:55 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
The last video is on conservatives in general.
So....no thoughts of your own, huh?

And, if the videos are about how racists tend to be conservative, that is nothing new.
Racists want the freedom to be racists, thus flock to the party who are more likely to give it to them (the party that is associated with individual freedom, even though they clearly fall short)

Why do business owners flock to the GOP, too?
Is that because all conservatives are business owners, too?

I was talking more along the lines of the GOP in general, but hey, feel free to hate on the messenger.

Again, why is the GOP X, simply because X flock to them?

Its their policies. All of which are racist inclined. Did you watch the first video? Again, don't project the anger the videos stimulate at me.

So, a policy is racist simply because racists approve?
You are aware of how stupid that generalization is, right?

No its immigration, gerrymandering, affirmative action, voter rights limitations, support of the electoral college, making states control senatorial elections, abstaining from the Puerto Rican vote.

All of these things suppress minorities from voting, so a feeble minority can stay in power. This is exactly what racism was. People didn't start out racist, but they defended necessity with control. Example? Slavery. A thing that was evidently wrong, but the southern right wing defended it because it suited their needs.

Believe me. We live in a country where we hold over 50 votes to repeal obamacare, but refuse to vote on things that have 80% margins in popularity. Republicans are not in power fairly. They abuse the system to justify their existence from an inevitable outcome of becoming a minority.
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 10:44:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:28:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:

No its immigration,
So, controlling who comes into a country so it is not flooded with unskilled workers is racist? Most countries have some sort of immigration policy.

gerrymandering,
Because this is based solely on race.
It is an abuse of power to maintain it. It has nothing to do with race per se. (screwing over white democrats would have the same effect)

affirmative action,
Is a stupid law that grows government, and doesn't apply to most businesses anyway

voter rights limitations,
Because, having an ID to vote is racist why? Because only poor people are minorities?
Tell me, is it then equally racist that I cannot buy Sudafed or Nyquil without an ID. Are the politicians in my state so racist that they want to make minorities suffer?

support of the electoral college,
How is this racist?

making states control senatorial elections,
Oh, you mean the way it used to be...
So, we elect a representative, and they elect the Senator.

abstaining from the Puerto Rican vote.
There are many possible defenses to this, though I don't know if any are true.
Do the PR's want to be a state? By including them as a state, would that cost more money (more welfare if they are poor).

All of these things suppress minorities from voting, so a feeble minority can stay in power.
Every law has an effect.
Can you definitively say that the sole reason for these laws is to prevent minorities from voting, even though, most don't even deal with voting at all. How does affirmative action or immigration prevent minorities from voting, exactly?

This is exactly what racism was. People didn't start out racist, but they defended necessity with control. Example? Slavery. A thing that was evidently wrong, but the southern right wing defended it because it suited their needs.
Yeah...it was so hated by the northern states, that slavery was still allowed there.
So, state's having rights = racism.
Got it.

So, can we just get rid of the states, then.


Believe me. We live in a country where we hold over 50 votes to repeal obamacare, but refuse to vote on things that have 80% margins in popularity. Republicans are not in power fairly. They abuse the system to justify their existence from an inevitable outcome of becoming a minority.

So, party politics is your evidence of racism?
My work here is, finally, done.
Jifpop09
Posts: 2,243
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 11:04:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:44:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:28:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:

No its immigration,
So, controlling who comes into a country so it is not flooded with unskilled workers is racist? Most countries have some sort of immigration policy.

Yeah, because when 80% of the country wants immigration reform, the GOP refuses to take it. I'll tell you why, because they are scared of the majority. Immigrants vote liberal, and the GOP is already outnumbered.

gerrymandering,
Because this is based solely on race.
It is an abuse of power to maintain it. It has nothing to do with race per se. (screwing over white democrats would have the same effect)

Gerrymandering keeps them in power. Don't deny its substantial advantage to southern republicans, and its ability to "skip" black communities. The democrats have been trying to remove it for a long time, and the fact that you admitted its an abuse of power, means were on the same page.

affirmative action,
Is a stupid law that grows government, and doesn't apply to most businesses anyway

Why is it stupid? Minority groups start miles behind your average citizen. I'll grant you it needs reform, but its another way the GOP tries to suppress minorities from becoming educated or successful.

voter rights limitations,
Because, having an ID to vote is racist why? Because only poor people are minorities?
Tell me, is it then equally racist that I cannot buy Sudafed or Nyquil without an ID. Are the politicians in my state so racist that they want to make minorities suffer?

Voter right limitations were developed in the same way they were in post reconstruction. To restrict blacks (The target audience) from having a choice in voting. Its funny watching republicans defend these laws also, as they usually fall short in powerful speeches on the topic.

support of the electoral college,
How is this racist?

The majority of the country wants the electoral college gone, including democrats. Its a way for the republicans to stay in power. ALL hopes of winning the presidential election are thrown out in a direct system. Republicans only represent 1/3 of the country.

The underlying cause is the black, arab, and mexican vote.

making states control senatorial elections,
Oh, you mean the way it used to be...
So, we elect a representative, and they elect the Senator.

Yeah, states like Texas, New Orleans, and South Caroline keep advocating for this. Its little more then a blatant way to stop minority groups from casting cotes, as coupled with gerrymandering, makes minority votes ineffective to begin with.

abstaining from the Puerto Rican vote.
There are many possible defenses to this, though I don't know if any are true.
Do the PR's want to be a state? By including them as a state, would that cost more money (more welfare if they are poor).

65% of Puerto Ricans prefer statehood over the status quo or indepence. That's not the point though. Its the fact, that after running a 2 year long fundraising campaign to raise a vote in congress, the GOP refused to take action.

Like everything else that goes through congress. A overwhelming majority wants gun control (70%), but it goes through the senate, and using filibusters and other tactics, never come to a vote.

The reason I call the Puerto Rican Policy extremely unfair, is that the republicans know that the moment the nation becomes a state, is the moment they lose the house majority (Permanently), the presidential elections, and any other federal election.

All of these things suppress minorities from voting, so a feeble minority can stay in power.
Every law has an effect.
Can you definitively say that the sole reason for these laws is to prevent minorities from voting, even though, most don't even deal with voting at all. How does affirmative action or immigration prevent minorities from voting, exactly?

The reason is the underlying logic behind all these laws. You can cover it up in whatever filler you want, but these are indeed the reasons why progress is being hindered. The majority wants something, the GOP doesn't, so they use ploy tactics to make sure the majority doesn't get its ways.

Their defense, they don't want america becoming a state of "mob rule". How pathetic -_-

This is exactly what racism was. People didn't start out racist, but they defended necessity with control. Example? Slavery. A thing that was evidently wrong, but the southern right wing defended it because it suited their needs.
Yeah...it was so hated by the northern states, that slavery was still allowed there.
So, state's having rights = racism.
Got it.

Don't play the states rights card. And slavery was all but abolished in every northern state, besides Maryland by 1803.

So, can we just get rid of the states, then.


Believe me. We live in a country where we hold over 50 votes to repeal obamacare, but refuse to vote on things that have 80% margins in popularity. Republicans are not in power fairly. They abuse the system to justify their existence from an inevitable outcome of becoming a minority.

So, party politics is your evidence of racism?
Leader of the DDO Revolution Party
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 11:31:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, I watched the first video. It gave pretty much zero evidence of racism, and pretty much just linked random things to racism. For example, instead of thinking that the increase in militia groups is due to the rhetoric spewed out by the right about Obama being the most anti-gun president ever, they link it to racism somehow. Sorry, but compared to the idea that Obama is antigun, a idea that's been propagated since he first ran for office, the hypothesis that this is due to race seems like a terrible explanation.

I liked how Charles Murray was there as the voice of reason.

I read a good article yesterday about why liberals think conservatives are racist. The article attributes the difference to basic difference in thought patterns between the ideologies. http://thefederalist.com...

Empirically, Republicans *are* more racist than Democrats, but by a relatively small margin. Empirically as well, racism has risen among Republicans since Obama was in office, but again by a very very small amount. The good news is, racist people are a minority in both parties. http://fivethirtyeight.com...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 11:34:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 10:44:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:28:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:

No its immigration,
So, controlling who comes into a country so it is not flooded with unskilled workers is racist? Most countries have some sort of immigration policy.

gerrymandering,
Because this is based solely on race.
It is an abuse of power to maintain it. It has nothing to do with race per se. (screwing over white democrats would have the same effect)

affirmative action,
Is a stupid law that grows government, and doesn't apply to most businesses anyway

voter rights limitations,
Because, having an ID to vote is racist why? Because only poor people are minorities?
Tell me, is it then equally racist that I cannot buy Sudafed or Nyquil without an ID. Are the politicians in my state so racist that they want to make minorities suffer?

support of the electoral college,
How is this racist?

making states control senatorial elections,
Oh, you mean the way it used to be...
So, we elect a representative, and they elect the Senator.

abstaining from the Puerto Rican vote.
There are many possible defenses to this, though I don't know if any are true.
Do the PR's want to be a state? By including them as a state, would that cost more money (more welfare if they are poor).

All of these things suppress minorities from voting, so a feeble minority can stay in power.
Every law has an effect.
Can you definitively say that the sole reason for these laws is to prevent minorities from voting, even though, most don't even deal with voting at all. How does affirmative action or immigration prevent minorities from voting, exactly?

This is exactly what racism was. People didn't start out racist, but they defended necessity with control. Example? Slavery. A thing that was evidently wrong, but the southern right wing defended it because it suited their needs.
Yeah...it was so hated by the northern states, that slavery was still allowed there.
So, state's having rights = racism.
Got it.

So, can we just get rid of the states, then.


Believe me. We live in a country where we hold over 50 votes to repeal obamacare, but refuse to vote on things that have 80% margins in popularity. Republicans are not in power fairly. They abuse the system to justify their existence from an inevitable outcome of becoming a minority.

So, party politics is your evidence of racism?

You're consistent kayawss, always taking the side that tries to rebut the racism charges.

The southern states are more racist than the northern and the southern states are more Republican. But the northern states have their share of racists and they're more Democrat. No party has a monopoly on racism but the US has a higher incidence of racism than all other first world countries.

They just can't get over that civil war.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 11:53:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 11:04:11 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:44:07 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/4/2014 10:28:58 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:

No its immigration,
So, controlling who comes into a country so it is not flooded with unskilled workers is racist? Most countries have some sort of immigration policy.

Yeah, because when 80% of the country wants immigration reform, the GOP refuses to take it. I'll tell you why, because they are scared of the majority. Immigrants vote liberal, and the GOP is already outnumbered.

80% want immigration reform. Do 80% want the specific immigration reform that was denied?
Don't conflate the two.
I highly doubt 80% of Americans agree on the issue of granting amnesty to the illegals here currently.

gerrymandering,
Because this is based solely on race.
It is an abuse of power to maintain it. It has nothing to do with race per se. (screwing over white democrats would have the same effect)

Gerrymandering keeps them in power. Don't deny its substantial advantage to southern republicans, and its ability to "skip" black communities. The democrats have been trying to remove it for a long time, and the fact that you admitted its an abuse of power, means were on the same page.
An abuse of power, yes. (and don't think the Dems don't to do it, the exact same argument could be made that this is why they want popular vote, to stay in power. Why assume one is benevolent?)
Racially motivated, no. It is political. It has nothing to do with race.
Do you think, if blacks voted for the GOP, they would be doing this not in their favor?

affirmative action,
Is a stupid law that grows government, and doesn't apply to most businesses anyway

Why is it stupid? Minority groups start miles behind your average citizen. I'll grant you it needs reform, but its another way the GOP tries to suppress minorities from becoming educated or successful.
1. It applies only to those businesses that receive federal aid (grants, contracts, etc.)
2. It is overseen by the very government that you are implying is racist.
3. It is 100% subjective, as as long as a business/school is making a "good faith" attempt, it's all good if they fail.

voter rights limitations,
Because, having an ID to vote is racist why? Because only poor people are minorities?
Tell me, is it then equally racist that I cannot buy Sudafed or Nyquil without an ID. Are the politicians in my state so racist that they want to make minorities suffer?

Voter right limitations were developed in the same way they were in post reconstruction. To restrict blacks (The target audience) from having a choice in voting. Its funny watching republicans defend these laws also, as they usually fall short in powerful speeches on the topic.
So, blacks don't have IDs or drivers licenses?
Let's be racist here, and ask how they buy their liquor or cash their welfare check. (you are aware you are implying blacks don't drive or are too poor for an ID, right)

Again, this isn't about race. If anything, it is about the poor, who happen to be minorities disproportionately, because they tend to vote more liberally.
I wasn't aware that this law only affected minorities.

support of the electoral college,
How is this racist?

The majority of the country wants the electoral college gone, including democrats. Its a way for the republicans to stay in power. ALL hopes of winning the presidential election are thrown out in a direct system. Republicans only represent 1/3 of the country.
Democrats also are only 1/3, the other third are independent.
So, the GOP is racist because they don't want a popular vote.
Then, I guess the DFL is in favor of disenfranchising farmers, since their votes will count very little. Ironic, given the F in DFL is for "farm".

The underlying cause is the black, arab, and mexican vote.
You are aware that if the 18-24 group actually voted in bigger numbers, the GOP would likely lose more elections than it does now.
But, sure, the swing is in the minorities.

making states control senatorial elections,
Oh, you mean the way it used to be...
So, we elect a representative, and they elect the Senator.

Yeah, states like Texas, New Orleans, and South Caroline keep advocating for this. Its little more then a blatant way to stop minority groups from casting cotes, as coupled with gerrymandering, makes minority votes ineffective to begin with.

Yep, because the Constitution is inherently racist.
Also, who does this help the lower populated areas of the state.
Take MN, we have 8 congress folks. 2 of them represent about 1/3 of the population.
So, a direct Senate vote gives the mining counties LESS influence.

Like everything else that goes through congress. A overwhelming majority wants gun control (70%), but it goes through the senate, and using filibusters and other tactics, never come to a vote.
Again, gun control is a vague term.
Do you think 70% of Americans would agree that only the police should legally have guns? I'll bet you those that do, are DFL, therefore, the DFL are clearly anti-2nd amendment. Right?

The reason I call the Puerto Rican Policy extremely unfair, is that the republicans know that the moment the nation becomes a state, is the moment they lose the house majority (Permanently), the presidential elections, and any other federal election.
How is that even possible?
PR would have probably 3 votes.
3 votes aren't going to turn the tide in the presidential election.
1 congressman isn't going to lose the GOP the house permanently.
You are blinding by your zealotry, you know that?


All of these things suppress minorities from voting, so a feeble minority can stay in power.
Every law has an effect.
Can you definitively say that the sole reason for these laws is to prevent minorities from voting, even though, most don't even deal with voting at all. How does affirmative action or immigration prevent minorities from voting, exactly?

The reason is the underlying logic behind all these laws. You can cover it up in whatever filler you want, but these are indeed the reasons why progress is being hindered. The majority wants something, the GOP doesn't, so they use ploy tactics to make sure the majority doesn't get its ways.
Actually, you can find whatever specter you want in any law.

Their defense, they don't want america becoming a state of "mob rule". How pathetic -_-
Why is mod rule good?
Take MN, where we built a new baseball stadium (yeah, corporate welfare!!!)
Guess who is paying for it.
A sales tax that only largely only applies to three districts. (yeah, mob rule forced someone else to pay for something!!!!!)

Don't play the states rights card. And slavery was all but abolished in every northern state, besides Maryland by 1803.
Not federally it wasn't.
And, tell me, the Fugitive Slave Act. How did that work? Oh, yeah, a slave in the north would be returned. It must have worked, since the North were so not racist.


So, party politics is your evidence of racism?
Answer this.
Your argument is GOP is racist and counter-productive because of racism, when the clear answer is: it's because they don't want the DFL to win.

If the GOP is so racist, and minorities are so poor, then why did the Bush Tax cuts help them so much? Why are the DFL not accused of being racist for trying to repeal the Bush tax cuts?
My work here is, finally, done.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/4/2014 11:55:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 11:04:11 AM, Jifpop09 wrote:


Yeah, states like Texas, New Orleans, and South Caroline keep advocating for this.

Didn't know New Orleans was a state
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 4:30:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/4/2014 11:53:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
An abuse of power, yes. (and don't think the Dems don't to do it, the exact same argument could be made that this is why they want popular vote, to stay in power. Why assume one is benevolent?)
Racially motivated, no. It is political. It has nothing to do with race.
Do you think, if blacks voted for the GOP, they would be doing this not in their favor?

Wouldn't matter--it's still racist, precisely because it disproportionately affects minority groups. Not to mention that gerrymandering can be influenced by unconscious racism.

So, blacks don't have IDs or drivers licenses?
Let's be racist here, and ask how they buy their liquor or cash their welfare check. (you are aware you are implying blacks don't drive or are too poor for an ID, right)

Again, this isn't about race. If anything, it is about the poor, who happen to be minorities disproportionately, because they tend to vote more liberally.
I wasn't aware that this law only affected minorities.

Translation: Due to institutionalized racism, minorities tend to be poorer. They usually vote Democrat. Therefore, if we prevent them from voting, we can claim that we're definitely not racist!

Also this guy would like a word: http://gawker.com...

Answer this.
Your argument is GOP is racist and counter-productive because of racism, when the clear answer is: it's because they don't want the DFL to win.

If the GOP is so racist, and minorities are so poor, then why did the Bush Tax cuts help them so much? Why are the DFL not accused of being racist for trying to repeal the Bush tax cuts?

In case you haven't noticed we've been in favor of keeping them on the lower income groups, as well as not gutting Medicaid and social support networks.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 5:32:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 4:30:18 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:53:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
An abuse of power, yes. (and don't think the Dems don't to do it, the exact same argument could be made that this is why they want popular vote, to stay in power. Why assume one is benevolent?)
Racially motivated, no. It is political. It has nothing to do with race.
Do you think, if blacks voted for the GOP, they would be doing this not in their favor?

Wouldn't matter--it's still racist, precisely because it disproportionately affects minority groups. Not to mention that gerrymandering can be influenced by unconscious racism.
So, everything that disproportionately affects minority groups is racist, huh?
So, by that logic, any law designed to aid minorities specifically, is also racist, right?
But, it's never called out as such. Why is that?

Obviously, the criteria is more than a disproportion in effect.

So, blacks don't have IDs or drivers licenses?
Let's be racist here, and ask how they buy their liquor or cash their welfare check. (you are aware you are implying blacks don't drive or are too poor for an ID, right)

Again, this isn't about race. If anything, it is about the poor, who happen to be minorities disproportionately, because they tend to vote more liberally.
I wasn't aware that this law only affected minorities.

Translation: Due to institutionalized racism, minorities tend to be poorer. They usually vote Democrat. Therefore, if we prevent them from voting, we can claim that we're definitely not racist!

Translation: I don't have to prove intent.


Also this guy would like a word: http://gawker.com...
GOP does not speak of all conservatives, as the OP took issue with the latter; an idea.
Yes, there are racists in the GOP and in other conservative camps.
So what? It proves nothing, except they exist.

Show me the intent of legislation is to hurt minorities, not because they are Democrats, but because they are minorities, and I'll buy your racist charge.

Answer this.
Your argument is GOP is racist and counter-productive because of racism, when the clear answer is: it's because they don't want the DFL to win.

If the GOP is so racist, and minorities are so poor, then why did the Bush Tax cuts help them so much? Why are the DFL not accused of being racist for trying to repeal the Bush tax cuts?

In case you haven't noticed we've been in favor of keeping them on the lower income groups, as well as not gutting Medicaid and social support networks.

You appear to have a knack for missing the point of arguments.
Take a step back, and re-approach with objectivity.
Why does the GOP not get props for doing things that disproportionately positively affect minorities, like tax cuts?
My work here is, finally, done.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 6:56:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 5:32:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/6/2014 4:30:18 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/4/2014 11:53:17 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
An abuse of power, yes. (and don't think the Dems don't to do it, the exact same argument could be made that this is why they want popular vote, to stay in power. Why assume one is benevolent?)
Racially motivated, no. It is political. It has nothing to do with race.
Do you think, if blacks voted for the GOP, they would be doing this not in their favor?

Wouldn't matter--it's still racist, precisely because it disproportionately affects minority groups. Not to mention that gerrymandering can be influenced by unconscious racism.
So, everything that disproportionately affects minority groups is racist, huh?
So, by that logic, any law designed to aid minorities specifically, is also racist, right?
But, it's never called out as such. Why is that?

Obviously, the criteria is more than a disproportion in effect.

Except that such laws are specifically designed to remedy the lingering and current effects of racism.


So, blacks don't have IDs or drivers licenses?
Let's be racist here, and ask how they buy their liquor or cash their welfare check. (you are aware you are implying blacks don't drive or are too poor for an ID, right)

Again, this isn't about race. If anything, it is about the poor, who happen to be minorities disproportionately, because they tend to vote more liberally.
I wasn't aware that this law only affected minorities.

Translation: Due to institutionalized racism, minorities tend to be poorer. They usually vote Democrat. Therefore, if we prevent them from voting, we can claim that we're definitely not racist!

Translation: I don't have to prove intent.


Also this guy would like a word: http://gawker.com...
GOP does not speak of all conservatives, as the OP took issue with the latter; an idea.
Yes, there are racists in the GOP and in other conservative camps.
So what? It proves nothing, except they exist.

Show me the intent of legislation is to hurt minorities, not because they are Democrats, but because they are minorities, and I'll buy your racist charge.

Again: Racist legislation does not have to be made with the specific intention of hurting minorities.


Answer this.
Your argument is GOP is racist and counter-productive because of racism, when the clear answer is: it's because they don't want the DFL to win.

If the GOP is so racist, and minorities are so poor, then why did the Bush Tax cuts help them so much? Why are the DFL not accused of being racist for trying to repeal the Bush tax cuts?

In case you haven't noticed we've been in favor of keeping them on the lower income groups, as well as not gutting Medicaid and social support networks.

You appear to have a knack for missing the point of arguments.
Take a step back, and re-approach with objectivity.
Why does the GOP not get props for doing things that disproportionately positively affect minorities, like tax cuts?

Well I imagine that their own rhetoric and policies eliminated any props they might have been given.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 7:21:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 6:56:49 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:32:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


Obviously, the criteria is more than a disproportion in effect.

Except that such laws are specifically designed to remedy the lingering and current effects of racism.

Ahhh, so there is "good" racism and "bad" racism.
Racism can be used to "help" or "hurt", and is seen differently.
Okay, that makes me feel better that individuals are being seen for nothing more than their skin color.

Also, there are policies that help a disproportionate number of minorities (like increasing welfare), and there are those that directly affect minorities (like affirmative action).
So, a law can be explicitly racist, and be a good thing, but a law is racist simply because a disproportionate number of X are affected, even though the transparent reason for a law is Y.



Again: Racist legislation does not have to be made with the specific intention of hurting minorities.

And laws that specifically intend to affect minorities are what, if not racist?


Well I imagine that their own rhetoric and policies eliminated any props they might have been given.

Perhaps.
Or it is political bias.

Obama wanted to raise the tax on cigerettes.
Poor people are more likely to smoke.
Minorities are more likely to be poor.
Ergo, this proposal was racist.
Yet, no outrage....
http://money.cnn.com...
My work here is, finally, done.
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 7:58:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Seriously, Jifpoop; stop making generalizations about Republicans. I wasn't able to see the video because I'm using a Kindle Fire, but nothing you said proved conservatives were racist, or even Right-Wing.
Also, could you give an up to date example of conservative gerrymandering?
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 8:34:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 7:58:43 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Seriously, Jifpoop; stop making generalizations about Republicans. I wasn't able to see the video because I'm using a Kindle Fire, but nothing you said proved conservatives were racist, or even Right-Wing.
Also, could you give an up to date example of conservative gerrymandering?

2010, the accusation flew, from both sides.
My work here is, finally, done.
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 9:33:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 7:58:43 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Seriously, Jifpoop; stop making generalizations about Republicans. I wasn't able to see the video because I'm using a Kindle Fire, but nothing you said proved conservatives were racist, or even Right-Wing.
Also, could you give an up to date example of conservative gerrymandering?

Are you serious?
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Crescendo
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 9:46:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 9:33:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 7:58:43 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Seriously, Jifpoop; stop making generalizations about Republicans. I wasn't able to see the video because I'm using a Kindle Fire, but nothing you said proved conservatives were racist, or even Right-Wing.
Also, could you give an up to date example of conservative gerrymandering?

Are you serious?

Yeah, I happen to be one of those people who would appreciate evidence.
My View of the World:
http://www.debate.org...

My Greatest Debate (As of so far):
http://www.debate.org...
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 9:54:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 9:46:42 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 5/6/2014 9:33:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 7:58:43 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Seriously, Jifpoop; stop making generalizations about Republicans. I wasn't able to see the video because I'm using a Kindle Fire, but nothing you said proved conservatives were racist, or even Right-Wing.
Also, could you give an up to date example of conservative gerrymandering?

Are you serious?

Yeah, I happen to be one of those people who would appreciate evidence.

The fact that Democratic house candidates got 1.4 million more votes than Republicans but didn't even come close to getting the house should tell you something.

Republicans were blessed with a wave election that put them in control of many statehouses in 2010, meaning they got to redistrict with the results of the 2010 census. Many blueish states that voted Obama such as Michigan and Pennsylvania have Republican majorities in their house delegations. New Jersey is extremely blue and their house delegation is evenly split.

Here's a NYT article on it. http://www.nytimes.com...
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 9:54:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 9:54:07 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 9:46:42 PM, Crescendo wrote:
At 5/6/2014 9:33:36 PM, thett3 wrote:
At 5/6/2014 7:58:43 PM, Crescendo wrote:
Seriously, Jifpoop; stop making generalizations about Republicans. I wasn't able to see the video because I'm using a Kindle Fire, but nothing you said proved conservatives were racist, or even Right-Wing.
Also, could you give an up to date example of conservative gerrymandering?

Are you serious?

Yeah, I happen to be one of those people who would appreciate evidence.

The fact that Democratic house candidates got 1.4 million more votes than Republicans in 2012 but didn't even come close to getting the house should tell you something.

Republicans were blessed with a wave election that put them in control of many statehouses in 2010, meaning they got to redistrict with the results of the 2010 census. Many blueish states that voted Obama such as Michigan and Pennsylvania have Republican majorities in their house delegations. New Jersey is extremely blue and their house delegation is evenly split.

Here's a NYT article on it. http://www.nytimes.com...

fixed
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/6/2014 11:34:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 7:21:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:56:49 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:32:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


Obviously, the criteria is more than a disproportion in effect.

Except that such laws are specifically designed to remedy the lingering and current effects of racism.

Ahhh, so there is "good" racism and "bad" racism.
Racism can be used to "help" or "hurt", and is seen differently.
Okay, that makes me feel better that individuals are being seen for nothing more than their skin color.

That isn't what I said.

And laws that specifically intend to affect minorities are what, if not racist?

Not racist?

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Well I imagine that their own rhetoric and policies eliminated any props they might have been given.

Perhaps.
Or it is political bias.

Obama wanted to raise the tax on cigerettes.
Poor people are more likely to smoke.
Minorities are more likely to be poor.
Ergo, this proposal was racist.
Yet, no outrage....
http://money.cnn.com...

1. One policy is designed to keep people from getting addicted and killing themselves. The other is not.
2. Did I mention that there's sociological research demonstrating that it isn't just about poverty? http://journals.cambridge.org...

Similarly, using your logic one could argue that poll taxes and the like weren't racist.
Objectivity
Posts: 1,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 11:57:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:34:25 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/6/2014 7:21:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:56:49 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:32:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


Obviously, the criteria is more than a disproportion in effect.

Except that such laws are specifically designed to remedy the lingering and current effects of racism.

Ahhh, so there is "good" racism and "bad" racism.
Racism can be used to "help" or "hurt", and is seen differently.
Okay, that makes me feel better that individuals are being seen for nothing more than their skin color.

That isn't what I said.

And laws that specifically intend to affect minorities are what, if not racist?

Not racist?

Racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

I don't see how passing laws that disproportionately effect minorities are objectively racist unless the intent was to maintain a position of disparity that the majority benefits from, once again, just because they do doesn't make it racist, the intent is what matters. Simply because you make a law that benefits one group more than the other doesn't mean your intent is to maintain a position of disparity or superiority.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Well I imagine that their own rhetoric and policies eliminated any props they might have been given.

Perhaps.
Or it is political bias.

Obama wanted to raise the tax on cigerettes.
Poor people are more likely to smoke.
Minorities are more likely to be poor.
Ergo, this proposal was racist.
Yet, no outrage....
http://money.cnn.com...

1. One policy is designed to keep people from getting addicted and killing themselves. The other is not.
2. Did I mention that there's sociological research demonstrating that it isn't just about poverty? http://journals.cambridge.org...

You're missing the point, it could be argued that the ideas and legislation above weren't intended to be racist, but because they hurt minorities they must be racist, you are using the same argument Khaos is, which is "If the intent isn't racist, it isn't racist" Him and I agree, and it seems like you do too and just aren't admitting it.

Similarly, using your logic one could argue that poll taxes and the like weren't racist.
monty1
Posts: 1,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 12:01:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 11:57:47 AM, Objectivity wrote:
At 5/6/2014 11:34:25 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/6/2014 7:21:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:56:49 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:32:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


Obviously, the criteria is more than a disproportion in effect.

Except that such laws are specifically designed to remedy the lingering and current effects of racism.

Ahhh, so there is "good" racism and "bad" racism.
Racism can be used to "help" or "hurt", and is seen differently.
Okay, that makes me feel better that individuals are being seen for nothing more than their skin color.

That isn't what I said.

And laws that specifically intend to affect minorities are what, if not racist?

Not racist?

Racist: a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

I don't see how passing laws that disproportionately effect minorities are objectively racist unless the intent was to maintain a position of disparity that the majority benefits from, once again, just because they do doesn't make it racist, the intent is what matters. Simply because you make a law that benefits one group more than the other doesn't mean your intent is to maintain a position of disparity or superiority.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...

Well I imagine that their own rhetoric and policies eliminated any props they might have been given.

Perhaps.
Or it is political bias.

Obama wanted to raise the tax on cigerettes.
Poor people are more likely to smoke.
Minorities are more likely to be poor.
Ergo, this proposal was racist.
Yet, no outrage....
http://money.cnn.com...

1. One policy is designed to keep people from getting addicted and killing themselves. The other is not.
2. Did I mention that there's sociological research demonstrating that it isn't just about poverty? http://journals.cambridge.org...

You're missing the point, it could be argued that the ideas and legislation above weren't intended to be racist, but because they hurt minorities they must be racist, you are using the same argument Khaos is, which is "If the intent isn't racist, it isn't racist" Him and I agree, and it seems like you do too and just aren't admitting it.

Similarly, using your logic one could argue that poll taxes and the like weren't racist.

That's it! You've got it! All you need to do is hide the intent. But don't hide it too well because you want the real intent to seep through to the surface so your sympathizers can smell the stink.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 1:57:36 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/6/2014 11:34:25 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/6/2014 7:21:55 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 5/6/2014 6:56:49 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/6/2014 5:32:09 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


Obviously, the criteria is more than a disproportion in effect.

Except that such laws are specifically designed to remedy the lingering and current effects of racism.

Ahhh, so there is "good" racism and "bad" racism.
Racism can be used to "help" or "hurt", and is seen differently.
Okay, that makes me feel better that individuals are being seen for nothing more than their skin color.

That isn't what I said.
But, that is what you mean, isn't it.
Or, given the definition you sited, a disproportionate impact is NOT racist, and you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.
Doing something to the poor, is NOT racist, since it isn't based on race.

So, exactly, what is your definition of racism, since you cannot prove that any modern particular policy was created to be racist, even if it is supported by racists.

Again, prove that gerrymandering is racist, and not manipulation based on political leanings. Again, I submit, that if there were white Dems in the same districts, it would be gerrymandered as well.


And laws that specifically intend to affect minorities are what, if not racist?

Not racist?

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Because, benefiting one race at the expense of another doesn't hurt the other?
They are both racist.
One is "good" racism, since it aims to aid those that need it, caused by "bad" racism.
To suggest otherwise is disengenious.

Well I imagine that their own rhetoric and policies eliminated any props they might have been given.

Perhaps.
Or it is political bias.

Obama wanted to raise the tax on cigerettes.
Poor people are more likely to smoke.
Minorities are more likely to be poor.
Ergo, this proposal was racist.
Yet, no outrage....
http://money.cnn.com...

1. One policy is designed to keep people from getting addicted and killing themselves. The other is not.
Like getting addicted to welfare?
If disproportionate impact is the metric for racist policies, then cutting welfare and raising cigarette taxes are equally racist.
If that is not the metric, then you must prove that racist motivation are the sole reason for cutting welfare.
2. Did I mention that there's sociological research demonstrating that it isn't just about poverty? http://journals.cambridge.org...
Yeah...reading the abstract, it appears they target African Americans. I am not sure anyone wholly denies this. I haven't.

Race a factor for their decisions, because it is a subgroup of Dems (I think they vote 90+%), so they target them.
Again, prove they target them because they are black, not because they are Democrat.

That is the charge. The policy is racist because it affects blacks, because they are black, and nothing more. I don't believe it is.
Are there some that will support policies like this because they are racist? Yes.
Does it mean that one is racist for supporting a policy like this? No.


Similarly, using your logic one could argue that poll taxes and the like weren't racist.
Modern poll taxes, like voter ID, I would say is not racist.
Historically, poll taxes and the like, were specifically designed to keep blacks from voting. So, no, I don't think the logic would stand.
Especially the grandfather clause would not.

You reek of confirmation bias.
You believe everything the GOP/conservatives is designed to be racist, simply because their policies effect minorities more. You need to show that that is indeed the cause of their policies.
My work here is, finally, done.
Citrakayah
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/7/2014 2:44:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 1:57:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
But, that is what you mean, isn't it.

No, it isn't.

Or, given the definition you sited, a disproportionate impact is NOT racist, and you are talking out of both sides of your mouth.

The point (and effect) of such laws are to remove the effects of lingering/present-day racism.

Doing something to the poor, is NOT racist, since it isn't based on race.

If large percentages of the poor are minorities due to racism, and you are perpetuating the institutionalized racism in American power structures, I would call that racist.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Because, benefiting one race at the expense of another doesn't hurt the other?
They are both racist.
One is "good" racism, since it aims to aid those that need it, caused by "bad" racism.
To suggest otherwise is disengenious.

No... benefiting one race at the expense of another would be racist, yes, but that isn't what is happening here.

Like getting addicted to welfare?

Ah yes, the libertarian canard of "welfare addiction."

2. Did I mention that there's sociological research demonstrating that it isn't just about poverty? http://journals.cambridge.org...
Yeah...reading the abstract, it appears they target African Americans. I am not sure anyone wholly denies this. I haven't.

Race a factor for their decisions, because it is a subgroup of Dems (I think they vote 90+%), so they target them.
Again, prove they target them because they are black, not because they are Democrat.

That is the charge. The policy is racist because it affects blacks, because they are black, and nothing more. I don't believe it is.
Are there some that will support policies like this because they are racist? Yes.
Does it mean that one is racist for supporting a policy like this? No.

Translation: We're deliberately targeting blacks to disenfranchise them, but we aren't supporting a racist law!

It doesn't matter if you are consciously (note consciously: pretty much all Americans are unconsciously racist, as repeated research has proven) being racist. That's not the point. The point is that the law is racist.

Modern poll taxes, like voter ID, I would say is not racist.
Historically, poll taxes and the like, were specifically designed to keep blacks from voting. So, no, I don't think the logic would stand.

And they denied that they were trying to keep blacks from voting.

You believe everything the GOP/conservatives is designed to be racist, simply because their policies effect minorities more. You need to show that that is indeed the cause of their policies.

No... I believe that a specific law is racist.

At 5/7/2014 11:57:47 AM, Objectivity wrote:
I don't see how passing laws that disproportionately effect minorities are objectively racist unless the intent was to maintain a position of disparity that the majority benefits from, once again, just because they do doesn't make it racist, the intent is what matters. Simply because you make a law that benefits one group more than the other doesn't mean your intent is to maintain a position of disparity or superiority.

1. It is important to keep in mind that not every intent will be on a conscious level. There are unconscious prejudices shaping how people act.
2. Intent does not matter. What matters is effect. This is what the legal doctrine of disparate impact refers to.

You're missing the point, it could be argued that the ideas and legislation above weren't intended to be racist, but because they hurt minorities they must be racist, you are using the same argument Khaos is, which is "If the intent isn't racist, it isn't racist" Him and I agree, and it seems like you do too and just aren't admitting it.

It could be equally argued that not increasing taxes on cigarettes is hurting minorities. For that matter, does such a law actually cause more harm to minorities? Yes, they have to pay (slightly more) taxes, which can add up, but does it discourage the use of tobacco products, thus saving lives and money spent on medical bills?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/8/2014 8:51:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/7/2014 2:44:16 PM, Citrakayah wrote:
At 5/7/2014 1:57:36 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
The point (and effect) of such laws are to remove the effects of lingering/present-day racism.
So, one can be wholly racist in an attempt to reverse past effects of racism, and that law isn't racist?

Doing something to the poor, is NOT racist, since it isn't based on race.

If large percentages of the poor are minorities due to racism, and you are perpetuating the institutionalized racism in American power structures, I would call that racist.
Do you see the issue here?
You equate a law, with non-racial motives, to be racist, thus conclude it is institutionalizing racism. More on this later.

http://www.merriam-webster.com...
Because, benefiting one race at the expense of another doesn't hurt the other?
They are both racist.
One is "good" racism, since it aims to aid those that need it, caused by "bad" racism.
To suggest otherwise is disengenious.

No... benefiting one race at the expense of another would be racist, yes, but that isn't what is happening here.
Define "expense of another"?
By promoting diversity as a higher value than productivity or ability, you are promoting one over another, thus there is an expense.

Like getting addicted to welfare?

Ah yes, the libertarian canard of "welfare addiction."
This isn't an answer.


I know see the issue, I think.
You claim the law is racist (not the people) because of the disparate impact. You, I assume, refer to the legal doctrine of disparate impact = discrimination.

First, a law isn't racist, it is discriminatory if it has a disparate impact. Or rather, the effect is discriminatory in the sense that it violates Title VII.
Are you really going to have the law define the intent and motivations for you?

If so, let me ask you these things:
Is a 20 year old a rapist for having consensual sex with a 17 year old? It is not rape had he been 19.

Assume a man has a highly sexual and established relationship with a woman, as in every time they meet they have sex, and there is no signs of trouble after 1 year. Is the man a rapist for having sex with her, after she had too much to drink?

Is a man a murderer if he kills someone in cold blood, but due to police not having a warrant, he is acquitted?

Second, I fully disagree with that doctrine.
If a policy or law has a legitimate purpose, and it has a disparate impact, I do not see it as wrong and it should not be illegal. If there is no legitimate purpose, then it should not be law, at all.
Racism is not a legitimate purpose.
My work here is, finally, done.