Whites OBJECTIVELY Have Less Rights than Minorities

No you're right....the south has always been a beacon for liberalism. What was I thinking....hahahahaha

 

The Democrat Party has always been the party of identity politics, which was my point. They have been the party of slavery. They have been the party of Jim Crow. And now they are the party of affirmative action. All of these policies, which, at one time or the other, were widely supported within the Democrat Party, use identity politics for the advantage of at least one race at the expense of another.

 

I agree, the Dem party of conservatives were the party of slavery and Jim crow. Agreed.

 

And . . . the Democrat Party is the party of affirmative action, which you conveniently left out.

Conservatism, like I said, is anathema to slavery, affirmative action, and Jim Crow, since those are anathema to small government.

Slavery, Jim Crow, and affirmative action use identity politics for the advantage of at least one race at the expense of another.

 

Well actually the dem party was created during a time when the entire country owned slaves and saw nothing wrong with it.

The flag of the confederacy flew over 4 years of slavery. The us flag flew over 150 years of slavery

 

Didn't leave it out. I was highlighting what the conservative dem party did (slavery, jim crow)
Yes, today the Liberal Dems own AA.

 

You say that liberal Democrats own affirmative action (AA). Affirmative action is based on the soft bigotry of low expectations of minorities, specifically blacks and Hispanics. Slavery and Jim Crow were also based on the soft bigotry of low expectations. In short, liberal Democrats "own" (using your own words) a program with a racist basis that was also the justification for slavery and Jim Crow.

Yes, affirmative action is racist against white people, but it is also racist against blacks and Hispanics, since it is based on the soft bigotry of low expectations of those groups. Liberals think blacks and Hispanics need special treatment to be on the same level as white people. That's, uh, pretty racist. And you said you liberals "own" that. Wow!

 

The lack of logic is dreadful! It would only be racist if racism didn't already exist. As it does, it simply reduces the severity of the result of racism.

 

AA is not based on the soft bigotry of low expectations of minorities. It was based on minorities being discriminated against by white people. My lord...

 

Notice how I qualified the second clause of my polemic; I said, "Affirmative action is based on the soft bigotry of low expectations of minorities, specifically blacks and Hispanics [emphasis added]." I qualified that second clause because affirmative action is not advantageous too all minorities; it, in fact, discriminates against Asian Americans, a minority racial group in the United States, and Asian Americans, historically, have also been discriminated against by white people, too, and yet they are not getting the same preferential treatment that black and Hispanics do under affirmative action.

If affirmative action is not based on the soft bigotry of low expectations, if is "based on minorities being discriminated against by white people," then why doesn't it discriminate in favor of Asian Americans, too? According to your logic, which is essentially the logic of the liberal intelligentsia of the Democrat Party, and which has been touted by people of your ilk in this thread, affirmative action is justified because of historical discrimination against minorities for the benefit of white people. Well, Asian Americans had, at one time, been systemically and institutionally discriminated against by white people in this country, too, so, logically, they should also be recipients of affirmative action based on your logic. But they're not. That salient fact undermines the logic of your justification for affirmative action.

Again, affirmative action is racist against blacks and Hispanics, since it is the soft bigotry of low expectations, since liberal Democrats think that those groups inherently cannot stay on level with white people. That is racist, sorry.

 

Why do you think Asians have never benefited from AA?

 

We know that AA reduces the effect of racism. To call it racist therefore continues to be an illogical argument.

 

Your logic is wonderfully bizarre in that you think racism can be cured or justified by racism. If you were to follow that same line of logic, you would literally think that fighting a house fire with more fire would be a good idea. You cannot "reduce the effect of racism" by adding in more racism. Affirmative action adds racism by discriminating against whites and Asian Americans based on their skin color. Affirmative action adds racism by discriminating for blacks and Hispanics based on the soft bigotry of low expectations that they require special treatment to stay afloat in this country.

 

Unlike you, I'm using logic. The first best, zero discrimination, isn't available. We know then that adding discrimination, as a means to reduce the effects of racism, is logical. Its standard theory of the second best analysis. A dominate aspect of modern economics and its understanding of rationality.

That AA reduces the impact of racism, and you moan about it, just shows the consequences of that illogical approach....

 

Do you read? How about reading about Asian American students suing Harvard over affirmative against being used against them: https://www.npr.org/2018/11/02/6607...-trial-is-ending-but-lawsuit-is-far-from-over

You are so sure of yourself, and yet you seemingly have never heard of this widely touted case against affirmative action being used against Asian Americans.

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny...can-affirmative-action-worked-for-me.amp.html

 

Just because you say my argument is illogical, it does not mean it is. What is wonderfully ironic about your argumentation is that you say that my argumentation is illogical, and then you don't follow it up with supporting evidence to back up your claim, which is standard in argument. Saying my argument is illogical and not following that up with supporting evidence in how it is illogical simply falls into the category of ad hominem, which is logically fallacious.

Yes, it is. It's called not discriminating. Pretty easy stuff.

Who's this "we"? No, friend, we don't know that "adding discrimination, as a means to reduce the effects of racism, is logical." You, for some reason, think that. I disagree and do not accept that argument, for I believe it to be illogical. I believe it to be illogical because you are adding racism to create equality of outcome, which flies in the face of equity, which is what I am for.

Affirmative action discriminates against white people and Asian Americans based on their skin color, because as a group they are doing better economically than blacks and Hispanics. Innocent working-class and middle-class whites are discriminated against simply because of their skin color, a naturally immutable feature. Being unfairly discriminated against can actually engender feelings of contempt for blacks and Hispanics and perhaps, worse, racial supremacy. Affirmative action discriminates against blacks and Hispanics because it is based on the soft bigotry of low expectations, which can give those minorities an inferiority complex, which can create negative self-fulfilling prophesies. Affirmative action adds more racism, not less racism, into society.

 

Sorry, but there's no debate in it. We know that racism is a problem. We also know that positive discrimination reduces that problem. You whinging that its racism is illogical, by definition. You'd only have a point if racism didn't already exist.

Your response added nothing, just repeating illogical clap-trap.

 

In other words, you said racism is a problem and we know that adding racism reduces that problem.

. . .

And you're saying that I am being illogical? That's a hoot!

You are amusingly ironic, friend.

 

You just confirm your illogical perspective. We know that positive discrimination reduces the effect of racism. You ultimately want a more racist outcome.

 

An opinion piece in the New York Times, a bastion of liberal nonsense and a pro-Democrat outlet, with no evidence to support the claims and is pure anecdote?

Well, that just puts the hammer on my argument!

Consider me "pwned."

 

Are you a troll, or do you not see the irony in your argument? "Positive discrimination," a euphemism for "affirmative action," which is a euphemism for racism against white people and Asian Americans and racism for certain minorities, adds more racism. You champion equality of outcome, not equity, which blinds you from the dark realism of affirmative action: it is adding more racism; it is not reducing it.

 

I'm applying logic. Its why you haven't been able to comprehend. Positive discrimination is the economic term for affirmative action. It acknowledges that it is discriminatory, but that discrimination is a reaction to racism that already exists. We also know that it works. Without AA, we'd have greater problems with racism.

Your illogical stance is essentially a celebration of racism. That you call a reaction to that racism, which reduces the inefficient discrimination, racist just shows how alien logic is to your argument.

 

Hahaha...So you’re saying the person is lying? The person didn’t benefit from AA?

 

Evidently you do not have a TV where you can watch recent news on a regular basis, to see the numbers of unarmed black people being shot or beaten by our nations police forces of late.In retrospect it is not something that is just recent.