Skip to main content

Replies sorted oldest to newest

quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
why would you be against anti-discrimination laws?

discrimination should be illegal, under all circumstances!


These laws can easily be abused and breed resentment when they are. I don't see how they can be justified in the first place, or how they can be properly enforced. (Whose word do you take?)

Of course, the government cannot discriminate because we are all forced to obey it.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

I don't know. That would have to be negotiated.


Your question was contigent upon this...

quote:
I'd like to ask you all whether or not you would support the elimination of affirmitive action and anti-discrimination laws if reparations for slavery were made.


Do you not think it best to clarify the contigency, so that your question can be answered accurately???
zues, i do not think you are being honest...

the fact that a law may breed "resentment" in a particular party (usually the guilty) is none of my concern...

people don't normally take others to court and try to keep them as friends.

your reasoning for not "justifying" the existence of anti-discrimination is pretty wack.

the "whose word do you take" thing can be applied to any "law"..

that is why we take people to court in the 1st place..

the "whose word do you take" is decided when the facts and case is made (due process, ever hear of it?)

zues, you need to pick a smaller title..
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:

Do you not think it best to clarify the contigency, so that your question can be answered accurately???


In other words:

"I'd like to ask you all whether or not you would support the elimination of affirmitive action and anti-discrimination laws if blacks and whites came to a mutual agreement on reparations for slavery."

Or, what kind of reparations, if any, would it take to end AA, anti-discrimination laws?
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
In other words:

"I'd like to ask you all whether or not you would support the elimination of affirmitive action and anti-discrimination laws if blacks and whites came to a mutual agreement on reparations for slavery."

Or, what kind of reparations, if any, would it take to end AA, anti-discrimination laws?


In other words....What I'm really getting from you is that you want Affirmative Action ended and you want to know what we are willing to concede to make that happen.... reparations or no? You offer reparations as a carrot....

hmmm..... then.... Is your point here to argue that you are against affirmative action.... and you want to know who's with you on it?
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
zues, i do not think you are being honest...


About what?

quote:
the fact that a law may breed "resentment" in a particular party (usually the guilty) is none of my concern...

people don't normally take others to court and try to keep them as friends.

your reasoning for not "justifying" the existence of anti-discrimination is pretty wack.

the "whose word do you take" thing can be applied to any "law"..

that is why we take people to court in the 1st place..

the "whose word do you take" is decided when the facts and case is made (due process, ever hear of it?)


You're right about the due process of law part.

However, there's still no justification for anti-discrimination laws. Why should anyone be forced to associate with anyone else?

quote:
zues, you need to pick a smaller title..


what title?
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
In other words....What I'm really getting from you is that you want Affirmative Action ended and you want to know what we are willing to concede to make that happen.... reparations or no? You offer reparations as a carrot....


You can put it that way if you want. The way I would put it is burying the hatchet, making peace.

quote:
hmmm..... then.... Is your point here to argue that you are against affirmative action.... and you want to know who's with you on it?


I suspect that no one here is for just dropping AA outright. AA IS reparations right now. I don't think that's the best way to do it at all.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

You can put it that way if you want.


Why yes, I can.. we are in dialogue... this is the point I interpret from your communication

quote:
The way I would put it is burying the hatchet, making peace.


What hatchet? What is the offense that has occurred that brings you to this offer of peace... on your terms?

quote:

I suspect that no one here is for just dropping AA outright. AA IS reparations right now.


You want to dismantle Affirmative Action... but also see it as reparation's equivalent.... so therefore you really want to end Affirmative Action and reparations..... and you come to a board offering peace among those who you admittedly do not think will take your offer hence why you say "No one here is for just dropping AA outright.."

interesting....

quote:
I don't think that's the best way to do it at all.


What do you see as the best way to bring peace to your unnamed offense?
quote:
I'd like to ask you all whether or not you would support the elimination of affirmitive action and anti-discrimination laws if reparations for slavery were made.


In a word, No. I would not support the elimination of affirmative action or anti-discrimination laws, even if reparations for slavery was to be paid.

Affirmative action serves a two-fold purpose; first, as a remedial measure to address the patterns and practices of racial discrimination that grew out of slavery; but secondly, and just as worthy a goal, Affirmative action is to promote the social ideal of maintaining a diverse workforce. History has shown that when left to its own initiative, decision-makers more often than not hire those that are most like themselves, even when it means disregarding the qualifications of the individual candidates. For example, decision-makers will hire a minimally qualified candidate that is the son/daughter of a fellow country club member, over a highly qualified candidate without the social conection.

Although [largely through Affirmative Action] Black folk have attained decision-maker status, Black folk remain largely mis-represented in decision-maker ranks. Therefore, reparations would address past wrongs for individual Black folk, it would do nothing to address the under-representation/lack of access to social promotions/advantages [as described above] that continue today.

Further, how would the granting of reparations create a need or desire to eliminate anti-discrimination laws. Discrimination continues to this day. Besides, anti-discrimination laws protect everyone, including white males. In fact with the passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA], the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], the Equal Pay Act [EPA], along with the non-race based provisions of Title VII, a little research will show that the number of discrimination claims filed by non-Blacks, far exceeds those filed Black folk.

quote:
These laws can easily be abused and breed resentment when they are.


This is a fallacious argument. Any and all laws "breed resentment" when abused. But that said, the resentment that crops up regarding the application Affirmative Action/Anti-discrimination laws generally evidences the need for such laws, i.e., white priviledge.

For example, in the University of Michigan-Affirmative Action complaints, the plaintiff riles against lower scoring Blacks being admitted; however, a review of the admission records revealed that there were a significant number of lower scoring whites who were offered admission ahead of her, and a significant number of Blacks who scored higher than the plaintiff and were also denied admission.

Further, and on a more personal note, in my job as an Civil Rights Investigator, I frequently investigate claims of white males alleging, in essence, "I applied for a job/promotion. I did not get the job/promotion. The successful candidate is Black [or Hispanic or female]. I was denied because I am a white male." It invaribly turns out that the successful candidate was equally or more qualified, less offensive or a combination of the two. In other words, the "minority" candidate was the more attractive choice, despite their being a "minority." However, the white males since of entitlement tells him, "I am qualified ... the job/promotion should be mine."

quote:
I don't see how they can be justified in the first place, ...


Confused Affirmative Action laws or Anti-discrimination laws? At any rate, see the above.

quote:
... or how they can be properly enforced. (Whose word do you take?)


The same way every other law is enforced. And, "whose word do you take?" The complaining party has the burden of proving his/her case. You take the word of the evidence.
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
What hatchet? What is the offense that has occurred that brings you to this offer of peace...


Slavery and other racist abuse over the years, I'd imagine. Unless there's something else you're upset about that I don't know.

quote:
on your terms?


How can a peace treaty agreed on by both parties be on one party's terms? I'm asking YOU to state YOUR terms right now. If AA is the only thing you'll accept, that's fine. I would just ask why AA and not some sort of reparations that are more comprehensive and not indefinite.

quote:
You want to dismantle Affirmative Action... but also see it as reparation's equivalent....


Partial reparation, not equivalent.

quote:
so therefore you really want to end Affirmative Action and reparations.....


No... I don't think that you would accept terms like that.

quote:
and you come to a board offering peace among those who you admittedly do not think will take your offer hence why you say "No one here is for just dropping AA outright.."

interesting....


Again, AA is not good enough as reparations, or else there wouldn't be so much anger among you.

quote:
What do you see as the best way to bring peace to your unnamed offense?


Reparations. I don't know what, but everyone would have to agree on it.

However, if you don't want to forgive no matter what, that's fine, I can't blame you. Just say so.
i don't think you are being honest about your intentions here...
all of your "questionz" seem loaded ...

quote:
You're right about the due process of law part.

However, there's still no justification for anti-discrimination laws. Why should anyone be forced to associate with anyone else?

That is a gross oversimplification of the intent of anti-discrimination laws...
They are not made to force you to do anything like that, what they are used for is to NOT deny somebody something based on their race.

quote:
what title?


Zues!
You doing 2 much hommie.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:
Slavery and other racist abuse over the years, I'd imagine. Unless there's something else you're upset about that I don't know.


You "imagine" that you are guilty of slavery and abuse but not sure if there's anything else wrong... okay... yes... you do come across as one who is sincere about peace....



quote:


How can a peace treaty agreed on by both parties be on one party's terms? I'm asking YOU to state YOUR terms right now. If AA is the only thing you'll accept, that's fine. I would just ask why AA and not some sort of reparations that are more comprehensive and not indefinite.


You offer peace by being uncertain of what you've done and demanding the offended party to "state their terms"?

quote:

Partial reparation, not equivalent.


It was YOU who said AA is reparations...


quote:

Again, AA is not good enough as reparations, or else there wouldn't be so much anger among you.


You come offering peace while you decide what is good enough for us as you measure our anger level...

What I hear from you is "Geesh, Whadda you guys want???" I hear frustration.... perhaps you cannot offer but so much "peace" eh?

quote:

Reparations. I don't know what, but everyone would have to agree on it.


This is redundant of course peace comes from agreement.... What I would like to know is what is your offer???

quote:
I can't blame you.


You are absolutely right... you are in no position to blame....
This guy is a wacko'...

More of the same ole' "ya'll niggas need to stop begging" stuff.

I am 100% convinced racism will always exist and we will never be equal to white people as long as we try to integrate their system..

this zues guy is a perfect example.

white poeples "idea" of race relations is us agreeing w/ them on everything..

much like watching television w/ your older brother, whose is only happy watching t.v. if he has the remote.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
In a word, No. I would not support the elimination of affirmative action or anti-discrimination laws, even if reparations for slavery was to be paid.

Affirmative action serves a two-fold purpose; first, as a remedial measure to address the patterns and practices of racial discrimination that grew out of slavery; but secondly, and just as worthy a goal, Affirmative action is to promote the social ideal of maintaining a diverse workforce. History has shown that when left to its own initiative, decision-makers more often than not hire those that are most like themselves, even when it means disregarding the qualifications of the individual candidates. For example, decision-makers will hire a minimally qualified candidate that is the son/daughter of a fellow country club member, over a highly qualified candidate without the social conection.

Although [largely through Affirmative Action] Black folk have attained decision-maker status, Black folk remain largely mis-represented in decision-maker ranks. Therefore, reparations would address past wrongs for individual Black folk, it would do nothing to address the under-representation/lack of access to social promotions/advantages [as described above] that continue today.


I don't see the need for diverse workforces. If someone hires inferior workers, then their company will suffer and will lose out to companies that hire the best workers regardless of race.

And I don't understand what you mean by decision-maker status. If a black person owns a company, he/she has 100% decision-maker status.

quote:
Further, how would the granting of reparations create a need or desire to eliminate anti-discrimination laws.


Consider massive reparations. Imagine if black people were given ownership of giant companies that have their roots in slavery. Black people will make the decisions.

quote:
Discrimination continues to this day. Besides, anti-discrimination laws protect everyone, including white males. In fact with the passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA], the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], the Equal Pay Act [EPA], along with the non-race based provisions of Title VII, a little research will show that the number of discrimination claims filed by non-Blacks, far exceeds those filed Black folk.


I'm against that as well. When I get old, I will not expect prefferential treatment over a recent college grad.

quote:
This is a fallacious argument. Any and all laws "breed resentment" when abused.


You're right. I'm really against the laws, period. I don't think they're legitimate.

quote:
But that said, the resentment that crops up regarding the application Affirmative Action/Anti-discrimination laws generally evidences the need for such laws, i.e., white priviledge.

For example, in the University of Michigan-Affirmative Action complaints, the plaintiff riles against lower scoring Blacks being admitted; however, a review of the admission records revealed that there were a significant number of lower scoring whites who were offered admission ahead of her, and a significant number of Blacks who scored higher than the plaintiff and were also denied admission.


Are you talking about AA or just anti-discrimination? They're different.

In any case, I want white priviledge to be corrected with reparations and not AA or anti-disc.

quote:
Further, and on a more personal note, in my job as an Civil Rights Investigator, I frequently investigate claims of white males alleging, in essence, "I applied for a job/promotion. I did not get the job/promotion. The successful candidate is Black [or Hispanic or female]. I was denied because I am a white male." It invaribly turns out that the successful candidate was equally or more qualified, less offensive or a combination of the two. In other words, the "minority" candidate was the more attractive choice, despite their being a "minority." However, the white males since of entitlement tells him, "I am qualified ... the job/promotion should be mine."


Well, if there weren't any laws, these guys would not be able to make these claims.

quote:
Confused Affirmative Action laws or Anti-discrimination laws? At any rate, see the above.


Anti-disc.

quote:
The same way every other law is enforced. And, "whose word do you take?" The complaining party has the burden of proving his/her case. You take the word of the evidence.


You're right.
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
i don't think you are being honest about your intentions here...
all of your "questionz" seem loaded ...


I can't prove my intentions to you. If you don't feel comfortable talking to me, then let's not talk.

I'm going to reply to everything as best I can. If you don't want to talk to me, just don't reply to me, close this window. I'm not going to keep bugging you.

quote:
That is a gross oversimplification of the intent of anti-discrimination laws...
They are not made to force you to do anything like that, what they are used for is to NOT deny somebody something based on their race.


Why must a shopkeep give employment to anyone who asks for it? For example.
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
You "imagine"


"imagine" is a figure of speech. Slavery is not imaginary.

quote:
that you are guilty of slavery and abuse but not sure if there's anything else wrong... okay... yes... you do come across as one who is sincere about peace....


...

quote:
You offer peace by being uncertain of what you've done

Not true.
quote:
and demanding

Asking, not demanding. I can't demand that you like me.
quote:
the offended party to "state their terms"?


If you could make the rules, what would the rules be?

quote:
It was YOU who said AA is reparations...


I meant that AA was part of it.


quote:
You come offering peace while you decide what is good enough for us


No, I'm asking what you want.

quote:
as you measure our anger level...

What I hear from you is "Geesh, Whadda you guys want???" I hear frustration.... perhaps you cannot offer but so much "peace" eh?


I'm more curious than frustrated. There's also something about me that you're probably not aware of that makes things different.

quote:
This is redundant of course peace comes from agreement.... What I would like to know is what is your offer???


Apologies, financial restitution, placement of African Americans in decision-making positions. Probably hand over control of a bunch of major corporations whose history can be traced to slavery. Laws that would prevent anything like this from ever happening again. A lot like the anti-Nazi laws in Germany and anti-Imperialism laws in Japan.

But that's just off the top of my head.
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

"imagine" is a figure of speech.


It is a figure of speech that represents uncertainty...


quote:
quote:
You offer peace by being uncertain of what you've done

Not true.


Yes...

True...
quote:
Asking, not demanding.


No... demanding...

quote:
I can't demand that you like me.


I thought your issue was justice not comraderie...
quote:

If you could make the rules, what would the rules be?


Require you to be more transparent of your real intentions here...

quote:
quote:
You come offering peace while you decide what is good enough for us


No, I'm asking what you want.


You make the request that adults make of children...

"Johnny.... you can either go to bed early.... or eat your spinach... it's your choice.... "

quote:
I'm more curious than frustrated.

Why does your curiosity bring you to message boards?

quote:
Apologies, financial restitution, placement of African Americans in decision-making positions. Probably hand over control of a bunch of major corporations whose history can be traced to slavery. Laws that would prevent anything like this from ever happening again. A lot like the anti-Nazi laws in Germany and anti-Imperialism laws in Japan.

But that's just off the top of my head.


Why?
quote:
Why must a shopkeep give employment to anyone who asks for it? For example.


If you don't have a problem w/ that type of racial discrimination, I guess our conversations will be limited.

no zues, it is not fair and it should be "ill-legal" for anyone to deny employement to somebody else purley on racial, religious, ethnic grounds.

During the height of US racial aparthied, white poeple not only denied black people employement, but in may cases (Rosewood-Florida and Tulsa-Oklahoma) whites attempted to stop black people from forming their own vaible economic resources.

So i am now convinced of your dis-honesty..

Get out & don't come back!
quote:
In any case, I want white priviledge to be corrected with reparations and not AA or anti-disc.


In your statement above, you acknowledge white priviledge, what are you willing to offer and pay that will compensate for white priviledge?

You mention:

quote:
Apologies, financial restitution, placement of African Americans in decision-making positions. Probably hand over control of a bunch of major corporations whose history can be traced to slavery.

Roll Eyes
An apology is not reparations. The rest would be like me answering, "My solution to white priviledge is for all white folk to leave the planet." Your offer is just as empty.

quote:
Laws that would prevent anything like this from ever happening again. A lot like the anti-Nazi laws in Germany and anti-Imperialism laws in Japan.


We have those kind of laws ... but oh, yeah:

quote:
You're right. I'm really against the laws, period.


Why would you respect those laws, when you clearly don't respect these:
quote:
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA], the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], the Equal Pay Act [EPA], along with the non-race based provisions of Title VII


Do you not see the problem with, this:

quote:
don't see the need for diverse workforces.


Relative to this:

quote:
If someone hires inferior workers, then their company will suffer and will lose out to companies that hire the best workers regardless of race.


First, you claim to promote the hiring of the best workers regardless of race; yet you do not see the utility of a diverse workforce. One cannot have a homogenious workforce AND hire the best workers. Unless, of course, you are willing to say that one race is superior [in terms of working] than another.

quote:

And I don't understand what you mean by decision-maker status. If a black person owns a company, he/she has 100% decision-maker status.


Although Black owned businesses are the fastest growing segment of new businesses, how are out there? Clearly, not enough large enough to alleviate the effect of corporate america's race-based decision-making.

And beyond that, Why should I, as a Black man, have to rely on a Black [owned] company [which BTW because of de jure and de facto discrimination will never be way it could have been, but for discrimination] to benefit from fair dealing.

quote:
quote:
Discrimination continues to this day. Besides, anti-discrimination laws protect everyone, including white males. In fact with the passage of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA], the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], the Equal Pay Act [EPA], along with the non-race based provisions of Title VII, a little research will show that the number of discrimination claims filed by non-Blacks, far exceeds those filed Black folk.


I'm against that as well. When I get old, I will not expect prefferential treatment over a recent college grad.


I guess one of the benefits of white priviledge is the ability to extrapolate what you will do in a situation without ever having been in that situation. Roll Eyes

But at any rate, your hood is showing here ... nono
anti-discrimination laws do not provide or promote preferential treatment; they merely promote equal treatment.

I think you would benefit from this thread:

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/1351081904
quote:
Originally posted by virtue:
It is a figure of speech that represents uncertainty...


Uncertainty about what else, other than slavery and subsequent opression that ticks you off. Maybe you don't like the way white people look? Who knows.

quote:
Yes...
True...


I'm pretty sure I know what I, personally, have or have not done and what my ancestors have or have not done.

quote:
No... demanding...


You're telling me what I'm doing?

quote:
I thought your issue was justice not comraderie...


I care about peace, which might not be the same as justice. There's more than one way to peace.

But I'm talking about even having a civil discussion here, on this board.

This might not be a topic that we can discuss at all. It might be too painful for you.

quote:
Require you to be more transparent of your real intentions here...


I want an answer to a question. I think I know what the answer is, but I'm still going to ask it. I want you to say it, either with your words or your actions.

That's it.

quote:
You make the request that adults make of children...

"Johnny.... you can either go to bed early.... or eat your spinach... it's your choice.... "


...

quote:
Why does your curiosity bring you to message boards?


There's a tiny chance that someone here will actually respond to me.

I think I need the message board where Bill Cosby hangs out or something.

quote:
Why?


Which part?
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
If you don't have a problem w/ that type of racial discrimination, I guess our conversations will be limited.


I have a problem with it, but I also have a problem with it being illegal.

I think that everyone should have a right to free speech, even the KKK and NAZIs. Do you?

quote:
no zues, it is not fair and it should be "ill-legal" for anyone to deny employement to somebody else purley on racial, religious, ethnic grounds.


Why?

quote:
During the height of US racial aparthied, white poeple not only denied black people employement, but in may cases (Rosewood-Florida and Tulsa-Oklahoma) whites attempted to stop black people from forming their own vaible economic resources.


That should be illegal. The government should not discriminate based on race, especially the police. And no one should be able to interfere with someone else's private business.

quote:
So i am now convinced of your dis-honesty..

Get out & don't come back!


I wrote my replies as I was reading your post, oh well.
quote:
During the height of US racial aparthied, white poeple not only denied black people employement, but in may cases (Rosewood-Florida and Tulsa-Oklahoma) whites attempted to stop black people from forming their own vaible economic resources.


Blaqfist, why point to Rosewood or Black Wallstreet, when you could point to this more contemporary example: http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/6951019804
quote:
Originally posted by ZeusTKP:

I'm pretty sure I know what I, personally, have or have not done and what my ancestors have or have not done.


quote:

I care about peace, which might not be the same as justice.


quote:

I want an answer to a question. I think I know what the answer is, but I'm still going to ask it. I want you to say it, either with your words or your actions.


quote:

There's a tiny chance that someone here will actually respond to me.


quote:

You're telling me what I'm doing?


Yes....


Thank you for clarifying your intentions...

Good luck with your search...


V
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:


So i am now convinced of your dis-honesty..

Get out & don't come back!


ZeusKTP is here at my suggestion. During a thread on another message board, he inquired what minorities think. In response, I told him he should ask the minorities in question and go from there. Since I have a great deal of respect for the people of this board, I felt that he could find intellectual responses to his questions.

Why is it that we can't attempt a conversation rather than just tell someone who wants our opinions to get lost?

My two cents,
Tannenisis
quote:
I think that everyone should have a right to free speech, even the KKK and NAZIs. Do you?


Yes, I agree that everyone should have the right to free speech. But please explain how a hiring decision is an example of constitutionally protected free speech? Confused

quote:
quote:
During the height of US racial aparthied, white poeple not only denied black people employement, but in may cases (Rosewood-Florida and Tulsa-Oklahoma) whites attempted to stop black people from forming their own vaible economic resources.


That should be illegal. The government should not discriminate based on race, especially the police. And no one should be able to interfere with someone else's private business.


So you're OK with private enterprises engaging in deceptive trade practices? Or, the dumping of toxic waste in streams? Or, restaurants with no health code restrictions? Or is your "interfere[nce] with someone else's private business" concern only related to anti-discrimination provisions?
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
In your statement above, you acknowledge white priviledge, what are you willing to offer and pay that will compensate for white priviledge?


I was going to ask YOU that. Or do you think AA is the best? If you could make the rules, how would you fix things?

quote:
You mention:

quote:
Apologies, financial restitution, placement of African Americans in decision-making positions. Probably hand over control of a bunch of major corporations whose history can be traced to slavery.

Roll Eyes
An apology is not reparations.
All those things were together, not different option.
quote:
The rest would be like me answering, "My solution to white priviledge is for all white folk to leave the planet." Your offer is just as empty.


If that's what it will take for you to forgive white people, then just say so. It might happen eventually, who knows.

quote:
quote:
Laws that would prevent anything like this from ever happening again. A lot like the anti-Nazi laws in Germany and anti-Imperialism laws in Japan.


We have those kind of laws ... but oh, yeah:

quote:
You're right. I'm really against the laws, period.


Why would you respect those laws, when you clearly don't respect these:
quote:
the Age Discrimination in Employment Act [ADEA], the Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], the Equal Pay Act [EPA], along with the non-race based provisions of Title VII


There's a difference between those laws and the laws I'm talking about. I can go into detail if you want.


quote:
Do you not see the problem with, this:

quote:
don't see the need for diverse workforces.


Relative to this:

quote:
If someone hires inferior workers, then their company will suffer and will lose out to companies that hire the best workers regardless of race.


First, you claim to promote the hiring of the best workers regardless of race; yet you do not see the utility of a diverse workforce. One cannot have a homogenious workforce AND hire the best workers. Unless, of course, you are willing to say that one race is superior [in terms of working] than another.


I meant, I don't see a need to force diversity. If I owned a company, I would try my best to hire the best candidates. If that happened to be 100% white males, then so be it. If I passed up better black candidates, then my company will not do as well, true?

quote:
Although Black owned businesses are the fastest growing segment of new businesses, how are out there? Clearly, not enough large enough to alleviate the effect of corporate america's race-based decision-making.


How many would be enough?

quote:
And beyond that, Why should I, as a Black man, have to rely on a Black [owned] company [which BTW because of de jure and de facto discrimination will never be way it could have been, but for discrimination] to benefit from fair dealing.


First of all, you don't. I think that if you're a better candidate you will be hired by the better companies. If this is not the case, how would those companies stay in business?

In the rare case that all white-owned companies are racist, I still don't think that they should be forced to hire you. Can you tell me why they should?

quote:
I guess one of the benefits of white priviledge is the ability to extrapolate what you will do in a situation without ever having been in that situation. Roll Eyes


I'm not saying that I know for a fact what I will do or think in the future, but, right now, I don't see why I wouldn't. I'm a libertarian and there are plenty of older libertarians. I have no reason to think that I would stop being a libertarian.

quote:
But at any rate, your hood is showing here ... nono


If you think I have a hood...

quote:
anti-discrimination laws do not provide or promote preferential treatment; they merely promote equal treatment.


There's a difference between promoting and forcing.

quote:
I think you would benefit from this thread:

http://africanamerica.org/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/79160213/m/1351081904


I'll take a look.
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tannenisis:
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:


So i am now convinced of your dis-honesty..

Get out & don't come back!



Why is it that we can't attempt a conversation rather than just tell someone who wants our opinions to get lost?


Why is it that you ignored all of the other responses to his questions, to focus on this one statement?
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
quote:
I think that everyone should have a right to free speech, even the KKK and NAZIs. Do you?



No i do not.

"free speeach" should never give anyone a liscense to be hateful, tell lies, or be vulgar for starters.

it is illegal to curse and many states have laws against cursing in pulbic.


I consider cursing in public or walking around naked in public to be indecent exposure which is different from free speech. You can make the case that wearing a KKK robe in public is indecent/terroristic threats. I would agree. But I don't think that the KKK website should be shut down. No one is forced to go to the KKK website, but if you're walking around on the street, you should have the expectation of not having people swear or wear KKK robes.
quote:
Originally posted by Kweli4Real:
Yes, I agree that everyone should have the right to free speech. But please explain how a hiring decision is an example of constitutionally protected free speech? Confused


I think that anyone should be able to do anything as long as he/she does not directly harm anyone else. This includes free speech as well as hate speech, and includes discrimination based on talent as well as discrimination based on race.

quote:
So you're OK with private enterprises engaging in deceptive trade practices?


Depends what you mean by that. You can't lie when you sign a contract with someone. That's the same as stealing.

quote:
Or, the dumping of toxic waste in streams?


The environment is a special case because everyone has to share it. The government has to conserve the environment for everyone.

quote:
Or, restaurants with no health code restrictions?


I'd have to elaborate on that, if you want.

quote:
Or is your "interfere[nce] with someone else's private business" concern only related to anti-discrimination provisions?


My anti-anti-discrimination stance is a direct result of my position that everyone should be free to do anything as long as they don't directly harm anyone.
quote:
Originally posted by blaqfist:
the "directly harm" part is where is gets fuzzie...

at this point i will take zues' advice and leave this conversation..

thanx alot tannenisis.. 17

you sure have some neat friends.


And Tannenisis( registered last year with accumulative of 13 posts...) invites a white man who is against AA and admits to coming here with an agenda....

then decides to attack you :
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Tannenisis:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by blaqfist:


So i am now convinced of your dis-honesty..

Get out & don't come back!


And did not answer my question....

quote:
quote:
Why is it that we can't attempt a conversation rather than just tell someone who wants our opinions to get lost?


Why is it that you ignored all of the other responses to his questions, to focus on this one statement?
quote:
I think that anyone should be able to do anything as long as he/she does not directly harm anyone else. This includes free speech as well as hate speech, and includes discrimination based on talent as well as discrimination based on race.


With all due respect, this statement betrays your sophmoronic understanding of constitutionally protected free speech. But that is not unusual for those of your ilk. You latch onto the psuedo-scholarly talking points of "racialists" posing as race-neutral libertarians; but fail to understand/confuse the argument.

While one COULD advance a 1st Amendment association argument for race-based discrimination, the free speech argument doesn't even make sense. Roll Eyes

I see that your objection to interference in private business is merely a picking and choosing of legitimate expressions of the public will, based in white [male] priviledge. Consumer protections, e.g., contracts, environmental protections and health codes, all clearly touch on your life, and upholding them is to your benefit; whereas, your inability to see anti-discrimination laws directly benefiting you prevents your advocacy.

Can one provide a better example of an argument based in white supremacy/priviledge?

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×