Documented: dmarks (AKA Dennis Marks) argues with John Myste about Affirmative Action. Martin Luther King believed "whenever the issue of compensatory treatment for the Negro is raised, some of our friends recoil in horror. The Negro should be granted equality, they agree; but he should ask nothing more". Dennis is one of those who believe that African Americans "should ask for nothing more". However, in regards to this sentiment Mr. King wrote "on the surface, this appears reasonable, but it is not realistic".
John Myste said: "or are they offended on behalf of the GOP that refuses to represent them?"
The GOP is not racist, and as such represents no "race" any more or any less than the other "Race". The Democratic Party, in contrast, represents Blacks by offering them special advantage. With affirmative action quotas, goals, preference, the Dems tell Blacks they don't have to try as hard. they can just coast and get ahead not by hard work, but by the color of their skin. This appeals to the worst in anyone: laziness and expecting a free ride.
It is also quite illegitimate, destructive, and socially responsible to offer one "Race" special advantage over the other. Sure, the Dems "represent" blacks better than the GOP does, just as Assad represents the Alawites in Syria. In either case, it is not a good thing. Equal treatment, representing all races equally, is the best.
John Myste said: "The GOP...They represent the wealthy and privileged first"
If this were true, they would not be so popular among the non-rich. And they are very popular among the non-rich.
[John Myste said] "You don't understand affirmative action."
I understand it completely. And I support the part of it that involves outreach and inclusion. I oppose the goals/preferences part, which is the part I am condeming.
[John Myste said] "Those who benefit from it are the "winners".
Yes, and they are given unfair advantage by the playing field being tilted by quota policies.
[John Myste said] "It gives a race pushed down by former oppression the opportunity to stand back up".
Since these policies are blindly racist, they boost rich blacks and blacks of means who are already standing tall... as well as those who are "down". And also, due to the racist nature, the policies ignore whites in poverty.
[John Myste said] "As we pushed them, it could be construed that we owe them that".
Speak for yourself. I am not one of those who pushed anyone down".
[John Myste said] "However, you clearly don't understand them. That is not OK, if you are going to have an opinion about the issue".
When I point out that they are racist, I am speaking of facts. my "opinion" in this is that racism is bad.
[John Myste said] "This is generally false. Again, you don’t understand the AF issue".
It is generally true. If a policy says that a black person does not have to try as hard, it encourages them to not try as hard. Again, I understand it completely.
[John Myste said] "Your version of it would, were it a real thing".
It's real, and it is the rule rather than the exception.
"You spent a whole comment trying to renounce policies I generally reject".
Yet, John, you did a lot to defend them. Even repeatedly saying I was wrong and did not understand, when it is clear I do.
[John Myste said] "You reject with bogus rhetoric".
I stick to the facts.
[John Myste said] "I am not saying Affirmative Action was wrong in first place. It was very very right".
The quota/goals part was never right, never. It is racist (in fact) and unjust (in my opinion).
[John Myste said] "We caused the problem and it was our responsibility to correct it".
And the way to correct it is with equal opportunity.
[John Myste said] "In most cases, now blacks can succeed. Affirmative action largely did that".
No, not at all. Blacks can succeed because (1) they work hard and (2) discrimination against them is largely removed. In an environment with no AA quotas/etc, and with no discrimination, African-Americans will succeed on their merit.
[John Myste said] "You need to understand Affirmative Action if you are going to call it bad names, sir".
Sorry, I detest racism in all its forms. I refuse to accept policies designed to punish and reward people on their skin color.
John: No, affirmative action is a racist policy that gives people special advantage and beneficial treatment entirely without any regard to whether or not the recipients of it had any "damage on the past", and without regard to whether or not the individuals punished by it are guilty of anything.
Helping one race while punishing another is destructive any way you look at it. And yes the policies being discussed offer special advantage due to skin color instead of merit any time they are implimented. Affirmative action was and is the wrong thing to do. And you assume that blacks are inferior or feeble with your claim that they cannot "compete" without it, and will only fail on a level playing field. While some racism is worse than other racism, it is always wrong. Always an injustice.
You are right: we don't punish races. But through affirmative action quotas, we punish and deny opportunity to individuals solely because they are of the "wrong" race. [in response to JM saying "I agree with this! We should not punish races. Thank God we don't"].
Less educated, etc? Some are, some are not. Why not judge on individual situations and real merit, instead of skin color? As for the "racist" thing, you are supporting policies designed to punish and reward and deny equal opportunity due to skin color. That does fit in within the definition. I apparently have a lot less tolerance for racism here, so I strongly oppose any racial discrimination. No, I don't make any assumption that anyone is less successful to to the color of their skin. However, if affirmative action is in place, you do have unqualified failures present who can't cut it otherwise.
John, what is so wrong about having no racism at all, and using real merit in considerations, instead of the 'irrational' policy of hiring unqualified people that happen to have the 'right' skin color? Again, I am not a racist, so I find all racism to be irrational, counterproductive, and destructive.
I understand it [Affirmative Action] completely, and also understand that punishing and rewarding individuals due to ignorant racial generalizations is injust, and racism. Motive and purpose do not matter in this regard, as there is no such thing as good racism, no matter how supposedly ill intended.
[John Myste said] "Obama earned his position. It was not donated via AF. However, if not for policies like AF, neither he, nor any in his race, would likely be able to compete,"
I strongly disagree. Without AF, they would be able to complete. On a lavel playing field. Yes, I believe black people are very bit as good as whites.
[John Myste said] "AF undoes that damage".
IT does not undo anything. Because it rewards blacks of privilege and power along with the downtrodden ones. And it punishes whites at the bottom of poverty along with the powerful ones. All done without regard to whether or not the individuals being punished or rewarded were ever involved.
[John Myste said] "We robbed blacks of education".
Giving a special consideration/advantage to badly educated blacks is not a solution. Fix the education system to solve real problems.
[John Myste said] "Replacing what we robbed is not racism".
It is definitely racism if it involves judging individuals by skin color. And that is what you appear to be doing. It is not my lack of "understanding". It is your support of racism, poorly worded points, or a combination thereof.
[John Myste said] "Saying that blacks were unable to compete with whites merely because for other reasons is racist".
I never said this. I was only referring to unqualified blacks (the ones boosted by AA. Because these policies specifically bypass real qualifications in favor of skin color.
[John Myste said] "Either DMarks is ignorant, racist or both".
I am well informed on these policies, and dislike ALL forms of racism. Unlike you. I never see any need to punish individuals for having the wrong skin color.
[John Myste said] "I probably should not have been so hard on him".
You are being dishonest if you claim I am racist. Especially considering that I oppose all [racism].
[John Myste said] "I think he does not comprehend AF or the problem it solved".
I fully comprehend it. And the quota/goals part of it solved nothing, since it only added new instances of racial injustice against individuals.
[John Myste said] "and I think he took a position long ago".
Yes, true. I was brought up to support justice, equal opportunity, and due process. And also to oppose racism.
[John Myste said] "and now must defend it".
I don't find it difficult to defend a position against racism, especially against someone who outed himself as a racist several comments ago.
[John Myste said] "because to deny his former position in favor of reason".
I am sticking with reason. You are sticking with the idea that it is a good idea to inflict racial injustice against individuals. Your "reason" is similar to that of Jim Crow. Not as bad, but similar.
[John Myste said] "If DMarks says we should rid ourselves of most AF policies today".
Of course We should never have had them, since they are a form of racism, by definition.
[John Myste said] "Instead he proved that he did not even comprehend AF".
I proved that I comprehended it. You seem unable to look beneath the surface, and appear to believe that supposed good intentions justifies racist acts.
[John Myste said] "a position that he cannot let go of now".
Yup. I am consistently against racism in all its forms. I will not let go of that.
[John Myste said] "because of the cognitive dissonant agony such a thing would cause".
Well, for one, you got that right. To agree with your oft-repeated demand to punish innocent individuals based on their skin color for "historic" wrongs would be dissonance indeed.
One missed point: "Saying that we insult blacks when we say they were unable to compete...".
Quite true. It is condescending, racist, and demeaning of you to insist that these people are unable to complete on a level playing field.
Will, About the black West Indians, when I checked this stat a while ago, it showed that they did better economically than the average white in the US.
John said: "Equality would not have happened without AF".
Equality does not exist when AF is present, because AF tilts the playing field and explicitly adds racism.
[John Myste said] "Without AF, Obama would not the president".
Now you are asserting that Obama was not qualified. How insulting.
[John Myste said] "Without AF we would still speak of Niggers when outside our homes".
Not in the least. You are linking two entirely unrelated things.
[John Myste said] "This proves that the whole issue is completely over your head".
I understand it a lot more than you do. The elephant in the room is the blatant racism of this policy. You refuse to see it.
[John Myste said] "You are still focuses on an individual getting rewarded whether or not damage was done to him".
Of course. Because, like any policy, it always ends up affecting individuals.
[John Myste said] "His race was consider undesirable because the majority of his race were uneducated and in the slums".
Which is an ignorant generalization, and of course results in white individuals who are in the slums being kicked in the teeth, and black individuals of middle class or better being rewarded.
[John Myste said] "It is about a race being uneducated and consider disrespectable".
Every race is made of individuals with marked differences.
[John Myste said] "You keep worrying about why this individual or that is “rewarded or punished".
Yes. Because justice is based on what happens to people based on their own situations. Injustice is based on what you demand in which you punish people for their skin color.
[John Myste said] "You don’t understand AF".
I understand it completely. You keep insisting that we should ignore how it affects people.
[John Myste said] "and now you can't because you are too committed to your position formed without understanding".
My position is formed with a complete understanding, and commitment to justice.
[John Myste said] "Therefore, there is no reason to discuss this any further".
Good cop out, rather than you getting past your blinders of ignorance.
[John Myste said] "This topic is beyond your comprehension. No offense intended".
It is hard to take any from someone who is refusing to even consider the ramifications to policies on the lives of the individuals affected.
[John Myste said] "You are being dishonest if you claim I am racist".
I am being quite honest, because again and again you defend a racist policy, and insist that it is OK for policies to punish individuals for their skin color.
[John Myste said] "I was not, but I don’t think you are racist, per se".
There is no evidence of my being racist. Especially in this discussion.
On education: [John Myste said] "The fastest way to undo the denial of education (and therefore respect) was AF".
It did not undo the denial of education at all. It just covered it over, and even encouraged people to ignore it. The fact is, people who are poorly educated, black or white, and much less qualified and much less prepared. The racist policy known as AF gives unqualified uneducated blacks a special boost, and leaves unqualified uneducated whites in the dust. Of course, the answer to this is to improve education for all.
[John Myste said] "Your argument suggests that even without AF, they would have become educated and respected".
Without AF, you have nothing but qualified people in positions. With AF, you have even less respect, because of all the unqualified people present who are there only due to skin color.
[John Myste said] "even though vastly fewer of them would have been accepted to good colleges or allowed into the White man's workforce".
Only because the individuals in question were not qualified. Even with AF, they are still not qualified, but thanks to AF they are there where they don't belong. Why not fix the problem at the start to ensure that they are qualified to begin with?
[John Myste said] "Educate fewer blacks and you will have a more uneducated black race".
I have seen AF work at the university level. In particular, one policy that assumed that black people were intellectually inferior. All blacks at this college got given an extra 0.5 GPA, while whites had to earn it.
And finally back to an earlier paragraph:
John said: "Dmarks, they were not "treated like everyone else" and had "special advantages".
Exactly: under AF, blacks are not treated like anyone else, and have a special advantage.
[John Myste said] "... to try to undo the damage of them not being treated like everyone else in the past".
This is untrue, as AF policies give no consideration at all to whether or not the individuals given special advantage were treated badly in the past.
[John Myste said] "If not for Affirmative Action, they would not be as able to compete as they are today".
It actually makes them less competitive, as it tells them they don't have to try as hard, but instead just be black.
[John Myste said] "It was the right thing to do".
Racial discrimination is always the wrong thing to do.
John, Again, about the matter of Obama. If he was indeed a beneficiary of affirmative action, not only does this mean you are saying he wasn't really qualified, but there is a major problem with applying AA to him at all. There is no evidence that Barack Obama suffered in any way from the racist Jim Crow, etc slavery system of the US. Nor did any of his ancestors. In fact, Barack Obama led a relatively privileged upbringing, with above average education and wealth. Since you brought it up by defending the idea of Obama getting affirmative action, why in hell does he deserve it?
[John Myste said] "DMarks, you are playing stupid".
Please stick with the facts, rather than hollow insults.
[John Myste said] "I am saying that Obama is qualified and would not have been given the opportunity".
If he really were qualified (and yes I think he is, he would get opportunities without any AA at all. This assumes that Obama is te uneducated social cripple that you argue that blacks tend to be. We all know he is not, so again, why should AA apply to him at all?
[John Myste said] "Mischaracterizing my position does not inject reason to yours".
I described it rather accurately. It is not my problem that you use careless wording, or rely on wild assumptions that are not implied by anything you say.
[John Myste said] "Since you don't understand AF,"
I understand it completely. In how it impacts groups, and in how it impacts individuals. You insist again and again that the latter does not matter. I refuse to accept your insistence that when we talk about policies, we have to ignore how it affects people.
[John Myste said] "I think we should no longer discuss it. There is no point".
Not until you close major logic holes, and stop saying that I don't understand AF, when I understand a lot more about it than you.
[John Myste said] "... to try to undo the damage of them not being treated like everyone else in the past". "You don't understand AF, as I noted a number of times. AF is not about helping an individual. It is about restoring a damaged race".
I know, I know. And by punishing and rewarding by race, it is racist in general. And the major point you forget again and again is that such policies affect individual human beings. Whether or not it is about individuals, it ends up impacting them. I am willing to look at this dimension and see how it affects people's lives.
[John Myste said] "and the race was damaged and this is considered".
If one gives just one bit of thought to this idea, it is saying that all members of this race are damaged.
Now, to address this concept. No race can be "damaged". Individuals, some of them anyway, can be damaged. The example Barack Obama is proof of this. He has black skin, so he is elligible to get special advantage conferred upon him as a black individual, by many institutions. However, Barack Obama has not been damaged at all by the past racism of the US. He and his ancestors did not experience Jim Crow or slavery in the old South. Yet, under the assumption you stick by that every black individual is damaged, he gets special treatment. It actually makes them less competitive, as it tells them they don't have to try as hard, but instead just be black.
[John Myste said] "That statement is insincere and dishonest, thus requires no rebuttal".
My statement that the racism you favor actually makes blacks less competitive, as it tells them they don't have to try as hard, but instead just be black is sincere, honest, and accurate. Fine with me if you realize this and completely weasel out of it. The "logic" of racists is an ugly thing. Even of mild racists like you, John, who insisted that all black individuals are "damaged" and deserve special treatment, and that they would have no opportunity given a level playing field.
As for this, "Your imperatives do not add reason to your argument. Any imperative used to substantiate a philosophical position weakens the position, not strengthens it".
Yes, I believe racism is wrong. The same as how I believe rape and other forms of injustice are wrong. Sorry if I stick to my principles, and keep my "imperatives". It's easy. Your arguments that racism is sometimes good have major logic holes and "don't go there's", such as the thing you keep bringing up how we must only look at policies in the general, and never at how they affect people.
John said: I have explained this repeatedly, but you don’t understand race vs. individual".
Repeating something that is invalid does not make it any more valid. You should know by now that there is no "race vs individual": these policies impact individuals despite your denial of it.
[John Myste said] "so I am content to say that the AF is over your head entirely and leave it at that".
You are content to lie in this matter, as it is clear that I am looking way beyond the surface on AA and understand it in ways you refuse to understand.
[John Myste said] "It's about race..."
If it is about race, and ignores individual differences, it is racist. By definition, and in fact in a very similar way to how "racial profiling" is racist.
[John Myste said] and you have no idea what you are talking about".
I have complete knowledge of what I am talking about, as you will find out again shortly.
[John Myste said] "You have no idea what Obama or his ancestors went through".
I know for a FACT that Obama and his ancestors did not go through the American scandal of lynchings, slavery, and Jim Crow. The evils that AA is supposed to counteract. If you are not aware of this, you are apparently too lazy to research it.
[John Myste said] "but I suspect it is much less than it would have been for Obama if not for AF".
Unlike you, I believe Obama is qualified for his positions.
[John Myste said] "Again, if blacks were not respected as educated and capable, he could not have become president".
That is one of my points. Without Aa, you have a level playing field, where blacks are respected for their education and capable. With AA, you have unqualified individuals boosted into high places, which demeans any respect for all.
[John Myste said] "I never once stated that Obama got AF".
Actually, you did. You said he would not be anywhere if not for it. Thus insulting him as someone who could not make it if there were equality.
[John Myste said] "You don't understand AF".
I understand it in more dimensions than you do. It was the race that AF was for.
[John Myste said] "but about individual equality through race equality".
That's like having sex for virginity. Treating people due to race instead of as individuals negates any individual equality. Completely.
[John Myste said] "you sound like a babbling idiot in your rebuttals (no offense intended)".
Sorry, you are like a babbling idiot when you refuse to acknowledge that punishing and rewarding people for skin color instead of individual merit is counterproductive, unjust, and by definition racist.
[John Myste said] "DMarks, you are playing stupid".
If I were being stupid, I would forget the facts and become a racist like you.
[John Myste said] "You claim the facts are over your head".
I have proven that I have much more of a sound factual basis on this subject.
[John Myste said] "I tried educating you about what AF is".
You said something that simply was not true. The only thing I have learned is how deluded racists like you can be.
[John Myste said] "but you instead insist it is what you need it to be: oppression of whites".
AA quotas, where they insist that individuals be denied jobs because of skin color, is indeed that. It meets it by definition, not because "I need it to be".
[John Myste said] "You don't even understand its core purpose".
I do understand it completely. But unlike you, I remember that a racist policy is still racist despite its "purpose".
[John Myste said] "You continue to rebut something it is not about".
I have stuck to the core.
[John Myste said] Again, you don't understand AF. AF is not about rewards and punishment".
AA explicitly rewards and punishes individuals due to their skin color. You would realize this if you looked into the people affected by it.
[John Myste said] "but equality of race".
It is about less equality, because it injects more racism into the picture.
[John Myste said] "I have never met someone with such a strong philosophical opinion about something whose philosophy is something they have never considered".
I did consider it. And yes, I have a strong opinion that ALL racial injustice is wrong.
[John Myste said] "It's ridiculous, my friend".
Sorry. It is racism, in ANY form, that is ridiculous.
[John Myste said] "I know they affect individual human beings".
Yet your rebuttals sweep it under the rug. Again and again.
[John Myste said] "That is what AF was all about".
No, it is not. It explicitly demands inequality.
[John Myste said] "all individuals having an equal chance regardless of race".
Any AA policy in place explicitly prohibits equal chance.
[John Myste said] "To you equality is defined as the crippled race, the race we crippled".
What a load of racist crap. Excuse me. I did not cripple anyone. And black individuals are strong, proud, smart, and capabie. Not the cripples you accuse them of being..
[John Myste said] "competing with the educated and respected race".
There is no such thing. Such a concept is intellectually invalid.
[John Myste said] "If I admit that the race was crippled".
"Admitting" a mindless generalization is not something to be proud of.
[John Myste said] "something the race itself admits".
No race can ever say anything.
"you rebut that by saying I think the race is inferior".
Your claiming that individuals of the Black race are crippled is pretty close to calling them inferior.
[John Myste said] "and your rejection of AF would have kept it that way for a long time, which is what you call equality".
Hahaha. I am so glad we have AF, and the education of black schoolchildren is as good as that of whites.
[John Myste said] "AF is about race equality".
No, it is about inequality. The policies demand that individuals of one race be giving a better treatment than individuals of another race. How is that equal?
[John Myste said] "I think there are many milestones you must reach before you can have a reasonable discussion about this".
No, I won't go there. As your milestone is one of my wanting people to be punished for having the wrong skin color, I will never go there. Sorry, I am too smart, and believe in equal justice.
[John Myste said] "This is another statement that shows you don’t understand. You argue that a race cannot be damaged and as proof you cite the excellence of a specific individual".
It shows I do understand. People are individuals, not races. Please let go of the bigotry.
[John Myste said] "If not for AF, I strongly doubt that Obama could have been president".
Again with your argument that he is inferior, and could not succeed on a level playing field.
[John Myste said] "You assume that AF was not needed".
OF course. No injustice is needed. Jim Crow wasn't needed either. John.
[John Myste said] "...and without it Obama would still be as successful".
Yes, because I assume Obama is capable. You think he is inferior due to his skin color.
[John Myste said] "and as evidence you cite the fact that Obama is successful".
Of course. It's REAL EVIDENCE about an actual person.
[John Myste said] "I don't have that opinion".
You have again and again said that.
[John Myste said] you continue to attempt to rebut a position I don’t hold.
By saying all Black individuals are damaged and can't cut it if they have a level playing field, you are saying this of OBama. He is one of the subset of blacks.
[John Myste said] "Just being black has not been made anyone especially successful'.
Actually, any time AA policies are adhered to, it does.
[John Myste said] "You don't understand, sir. Go to almost any American big city and you will find that you were mistaken. Oops".
It only shows how AA, being so destructive in many ways, does not accomplish what it sets out to do for the group.
[John Myste said] "You don’t understand AF and you also don't understand racism".
I understand racism. Check the definition.
[John Myste said] "You cannot concede a point you cannot follow".
I follow your point. But I do not accept it, as I lack any sort of racial bias.
[John Myste said] "I only ask that you stop talking".
We'd be better off without your voice of bigotry. No, I will not shut up and stop saying that black individuals are not crippled or inferior.
[John Myste said] "I find myself repeating myself and you continually debating someone else who does not think the way I do".
You got that right. I believe in equality.
[John Myste said] "and who also does not understand AF, but is for it".
I understand it, but do not accept and approve.
[John Myste said] "Please leave me out of that debate. I find it silly".
Was this even a debate? you came to it rather uninformed.
John said: "At least DMarks can claim he doesn't get AF as a defense".
I completely understand it. But I believe that adding new instances of racial injustice helps nothing.
John said: "DMarks, you are waste of time".
Yes, you won't get anywhere with me, because I refuse to accept your assertion that some racism is OK.
[John Myste said] "You continue to make the same debunked arguments".
You have not debunked any of my arguments. Perhaps this is why they get phrased different ways.
[John Myste said] "This discussion has not only made me weary of this discussion with you".
Good. Then come back when you have learned to let go of the racism and the resulting ludicrous ideas such as that Obama is damaged.
[John Myste said] "I have to believe you are not trying to be analytical".
Only if you are an uninformed boob with poor reading skills. I have been very analytical.
[John Myste said] "This is boring repetition".
Yeah, starting with your idea that all black people are damaged and deserve a special advantage. You blew it on this one, like you did with the argument at Heathen about Obama's choices to make trillions of dollars in purchases which caused the debt to go so much higher. Anyway, learn some critical thinking. And when discussing political issues, some day realize that it's not taboo to discuss how policies affect individuals.
John said: "Your idea [that all black people are damaged and deserve a special advantage], one I had never heard of until you introduced it as a concept".
Actually, you have used it a lot, starting with "It is about restoring a damaged race" in which you first said that Blacks were damaged. A blanket smear by you which included President Obama.
[John Myste said] "Labeling something racism".
It is not a matter of labeling. It is about knowing the concept thoroughly.
[John Myste said] "and then rejecting it based on your supposed moral imperative".
Yes, my moral imperative, the one you hate so much, is that it is bad to inflict racism on anyone.
[John Myste said] You don't know what AF is".
I know exactly what it is. Your cooking up this whopper again and again doesn't make it any more true. I know exactly what it is much more than you. I have dared to look at how it affects individuals. To you that is a no-no.
[John Myste said] "and your philosophy is based on an idea that does not exist in the real world".
AA exists in the real world, sorry.
[John Myste said] "Additionally, your reasoning is wholly fallacious".
Since you cannot come up with even one example of this, you are just making a hollow insult.
"How can I continue with you?"
Perhaps if you did a little research you would do better.
[John Myste said] "I am a life-long student of the soft science of critical thinking,"
Then how can you come across as soft-in-the-head when you get actually kind of shrill at the very idea of discussing how this policy impacts individuals?
[John Myste said] "You are using the term with no understanding behind it".
Yawn. Another lie.
[John Myste said] "Your whole approach is fallacious".
Yet, you cannot come up with even one example of this.
[John Myste said] "You cannot assume a position and then use your assumption as proof of your philosophy about the issue".
Sorry, AA is explicitly racist whether or not my assumption (that racism is bad) is involved. You have it backwards.
John said: "Accusing people who have philosophies you don't like of being racist...".
Not at all. The particular policy you support here is explicitly racist. And you have used racist arguments in support of it. All by definition racist. This is not a matter of accusation, but instead of proper identification. Philosophy? Perhaps. But we are just discussing a racist policy. Not as bad as Jim Crow or lynching, but still racist by definition.
[John Myste said] "What race am I against? My own?"
Racism is based on ignorance and illogic, and that is a tough can of worms to get into, no matter who the racist. But it is clear that you favor a policy that explicitly demands that individuals get punished and rewarded based on their skin color.
[John Myste said] "Then by your definition most blacks are racist against blacks, as they mostly supported AF".
We are not talking about "my" definitions. But the actual ones. Of course, a black or white person who supports a racist policy is some sort of racist. No matter if it is Jim Crow, AA quotas, or lynching.
[John Myste said] "I think you are insane".
No. I have a consistent (and to you inconvenient) imperative that it's not a good idea to have a policy designed to deny opportunity due to someone's skin color.
From Google, by the way. Remember, these are not my definitions. But just the generally accepted ones: "rac·ism/'ra?siz?m/ Noun:
[1] The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as...
[2] Prejudice or discrimination directed against someone of a different race based on such a belief.
The first, [1] is strongly present in your insistence that blacks are damaged, etc. The second is very explicitly present in your demand for discrimination against individuals based on this policy. There. Hopefully you won't have anything to fall back on anymore in your insistence that the racism problem isn't something that is at the root of your policy you favor but instead something I made up. Insane? Well, crazy. Crazy like an informed fox.
And now to use some more critical thinking at one of John Myste's specific points that was so completely and provably untrue: "AF is about race equality". Let's check out one specific and very typical AA policy. The infamous one at the University of Michigan law school, Gratz v. Bollinger.
From the text: "The University of Michigan used a 150-point scale to rank applicants, with 100 points needed to guarantee admission. The University gave underrepresented ethnic groups, including African-Americans, Hispanics, and Native Americans, an automatic 20-point bonus on this scale, while a perfect SAT score was worth 12 points".
There. The 20 point difference, granted to some races and denied others (not only to whites). A requirement which denies and prohibits race equality, thus directly contradicting your claim "AF is about race equality". IF you want, I can go through example after example of specific affirmative action policies which explicitly mandate race inequality through such methods as this one to reward some individuals for their skin color and punish others. In fact, we will find that most of these policies demand race inequality.
Remember, as it appears you have entirely lost sight of the concept, that equality (in a social setting) refers to "The state of being equal, esp. in status, rights, and opportunities".
John said: "Dmarks, you also don't understand reward and punishment".
Do you want go to into these words? I can assure you that you have no idea what you are talking about, just like with the definition of the words racism.
[John Myste said] "I do not have time or interest in educating you on this"..
That's real rich, as you are making so many claims that simply aren't true at all. You are only educating me on how uninformed, idiotic, and ill-intentioned racists are, and how they don't understand their own policies, and how they hate it when you look at how they affect people. Also stupid and unintellectual is how you rest things on blanket assumption such as the idea that blacks are all damaged, and then insist it doesn't matter that your claim is false. If you are doing like you did before, you will be making up your own definitions of the words on the fly.
[John Myste said] "You speak your own language".
Wow. You really are such a liar. I refer to what words actually mean, and you do not.
[John Myste said] "and you base imperative belief on Dmarks Language".
Wow. What an idiot you have turned out to be. I refer to what words actually mean, and link to it. I notice now you are refusing to address any of the actual points made, and are just lobbing insult after false claim after insult.
[John Myste said] "I can honestly say that you now hold the distinction of the most irrational person I have met at Contra O'Reilly, by far".
Which, given the complete lack of any evidence, is just a lame insult.
[John Myste said] "Listening to a loud mouth who responds with total jibberish to each point ruins the site.';
Yet, you can't give one example of total gibberish.
[John Myste said] "You are making me disgusted with the entire site".
Your racism (which I mistakenly called "mild" and the lengths to which it makes you go, like insisting that Obama is "damaged" and could not have made it on a level playing field is far more disgusting than my imperative that "racism is bad" that offends you so.
[John Myste said] "because people who had the patience to deal with you have been banned".
Will banned WD for lying repeatedly to WD, not for what he did in regard to me. [Huh?]
[John Myste said] "leaving your nuttiness to dominate and become the site".
Yeah, people like Klansman and you think I am nutty.
[John Myste said] "You don't have to agree, but damn! Labeling those racist who understand the policy".
I understand completely this explicitly racist policy. You do not. People who embrace it and support it are racist by definition. You should know this by now. It's a fact whether or not I believe in it.
[John Myste said] "and then spouting off continued nonsense is just painful".
You can't name one bit of nonsense from me. But there is plenty from you, such as how all black individuals are damaged and inferior. It's fine if you stop lying and insulting and making fact-free comments, and go back to being the bigot you are.
Also stupid and unintellectual is how you rest things on blanket assumption such as the idea that blacks are all damaged, and then insist it doesn't matter that your claim is false.
[John Myste said] I never said that ["idea that blacks are all damaged"]. You did.
You did many times. This is the first time: "It is about restoring a damaged race" (your own words).
[John Myste said] "Reward and punishment are intended to encourage or deter actions".
Yeah, which is why I find the polices you advocate, which punish people for things they never did and never will do, and reward people for things they never had anything to do with, to be very strange and misguided. Not to mention entirely unjust.
[John Myste said] like insisting that Obama is "damaged".
I never said that [insisting that Obama was damaged], you did. John's own words: "Without AF, Obama would not the president". And yes this is the same AF that John so many times assumes that all blacks are damaged. Also, as you said blacks were damaged, and Obama is black, you also called him damaged there too.
[John Myste said] "I repeatedly stated it was not about individuals, which was the gist of my main thesis".
An invalid, disproven thesis which crumbled to dust as soon as we came up with examples in this damaged group who are not damaged at all, in any way.
[John Myste said] "You are intentionally lying because you are angry".
No, I am calmly pointing out that the (by-definition) racist assumption that all blacks are inferior is worthless due to the preponderance of blacks in this group who are not damaged.
[John Myste said] "I know you now understand the argument".
I understand it more than you do. You find it a weakness to dig deep and critically look at a careless blanket assumption such as yours.
[John Myste said] "As for your removed comment about me not voting, sorry. I am a liberal. I intend to vote twice, perhaps more".
[John Myste said] Well, yes, this will happen. Thanks to leftist groups lying in the courtroom and filing frivolous lawsuits to protect voter fraud.
[John Myste said] "I said that the “race” was damaged, discredited and set back that needed to be fixed".
The race is made up 100% of individuals. When such a statement is made, we must analyze how it applies individuals covered by it.
[John Myste said] "The race was uneducated and considered un-credible. Neither applies to Obama".
Then it follows that Obama, as a qualified individual, was not helped by AA.
[John Myste said] "If you were confident in your position, you would not invent things to refute".
You invent plenty of them already, my friend.
[John Myste said] "You don’t understand the problem AF intended to solve".
I understand it completely. However, unlike you, I look at the following: 1) How it ignores the problem it is supposed to solve. 2) How it is based on false assumptions.
[John Myste said] "It was about a race, not specifically about rewarding or punishing individuals".
Yet, as the damaged race is made up of individuals, it does end up affecting them. This cannot be denied.
[John Myste said] "I agree, that is a racist idea. It happens to be one you came up with, though".
You broke it here, and have repeated it. I opposed it each time.
[John Myste said] "...AF you are saying blacks are inferior or worthless. Only you say that and I acknowledge that it is irrational".
AF says this, and I counter that it is racist. Blacks are not "damaged". They are diverse people of many levels of skill and income.
[John Myste said] "Projection. I don’t make blanket assumptions".
Do you want me to count how many times you have insisted that all blacks are damaged and uneducated?
[John Myste said] "I think Obama is superior to most whites, present company included".
Then it follows that AF, which assumes all blacks are damaged and need special consideration to place unqualified people in positions, would not have applied to him at all. He's not damaged.
[John Myste said] "Your chain is too lax, my friend".
The Democrats' fight for voter fraud is well documented throughout the summer and fall.
[John Myste said] "I do not believe that all blacks are damaged or uneducated, so the count is zero".
Which means you have entirely flip flopped from the "damaged race" racist claim of yours. Which is fine, since that is racist.
[John Myste said] "The fact that you keep lying about this is what has completely turned me off this Dmarks inanity dominated site".
I have told the truth about this. The record is clear in the many comments in which you claimed that the black race (which includes all black individuals) is damaged. I have not lied one time about it. But again, if you have flipped on this issue, and rescind this racist smear about damaged blacks, that is great.
I wonder if you have also rescinded this racist claim: "We robbed blacks of education, opportunity, and the ability to gain skills and knowledge. Replacing what we robbed is not racism". Giving extra reward to educated high achieving black individuals while punishing white individuals who have no education/opportunity/etc (which is the core of the intent and action of AA). is by definition racist.
As for this, "Dmarks inanity dominated site".
what is inane is your repeated insistence that all blacks are damaged. I'm sorry I am not as stupid and ignorant as you like, and thus refuse to accept your disproven repeated claim.
So in conclusion, it is time for you to sit down and shut up. You have no idea what you are talking about. If you did, you would not lie about your racist claim of the "damaged" race.
[John Myste said] "You don't understand AF".
I completely understand it. Just like I understand racial profiling and Jim Crow. However, I dislike all of these policies for the same reason. What is happening here is your insistence on something illogical. You repeatedly mention a certain set (blacks) which contains individuals who are all damaged/uneducated/etc. That is your premise. That this describes blacks. And then you go haywire when I point out the blacks who are not damaged. And the whites who are damaged, and how your assertion completely falls apart based on the facts.
[John Myste said] "I suspect most liberals will ultimately do the same. This is now Dmarks place, and like his own site, a complete bore".
How like WD you are, making lame insults. But if it means you will stop making ignorant assertions, fine.
[John Myste said] "I like Will and enjoy his commentary".
Then you should read his about AF. He always realizes that there are individuals involved. And he has shown strong evidence that blacks have advanced completely without its presence.
[John Myste said] "but Will is a minor player on his site and you refuse to debate honestly".
You can't come up with one example where I did not debate honestly. But you are right. It is Will's place to tell you to sit down and shut up, not mine. And if you make such crazy faith-based assertions about race, I will not shut up either. Logic and intelligence are important.
Anyone wanting further education on this might want to visit this post by Will which shows strong proof that racist "solutions" like AF are very ineffective in doing what they are supposedly trying to do. It is hard for one to claim to "understand" AF without knowing about this.
And to make one last correction. John said: "You use the term "racism" as a label for affirmative action in order to denigrate it. The label is irrelevant as anything other than an appeal to emotion, so I will not address it (see common fallacies for further understanding)".
I went to the dictionary to check the definition of racism before I even said this. You have refused to, proving that you don't care what words mean at all. The "label" (more like accurate description) has nothing to do with emotion, and everything to do with properly identifying such destructive policies.
[John Myste said] "so I will not address it".
In other words, you know well that this policy is explicitly racist and you are afraid to bother to check the meanings of words. If anything is "boring" it is your repeated use of unintellectual cop-outs like this when caught making very careless statements.
| Posts that link here [TADM #59] "N-Word & Other Slurs" Foul Fiction (Examining Dennis Marks' Strong Racial Biases), 10/4/2014. [TADM #62] Dennis Marks White-Hooded Projection, 5/15/2015. [TADM #83] Racism No Longer Exists Racist Dennis Marks Sez, 10/17/2015. |
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are not moderated.
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.