View Poll Results: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

Voters
28. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes, I explained below why

    6 21.43%
  • No, I explained below why

    2 7.14%
  • Yes; I did not explain below why

    15 53.57%
  • No; I did not explain below why

    5 17.86%
  • Other

    0 0%
Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 56

Thread: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

  1. #1
    Educator Black_Zawisza's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    12-20-13 @ 04:15 AM
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    604

    Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    This popped into my mind during a discussion about gay marriages and civil unions in another thread. This question assumes that the system of segregation actually is "equal", ie that having inferior public services for blacks in the Jim Crow South was not "separate but equal".

    Thoughts?
    Statist silliness of the day:
    Quote Originally Posted by sangha View Post
    All this talk about "dominion over a third person" is libertarianistic goobledy-gook. "dominion over a third person" means that the 3rd person is "controlled", and our govt does not control people.

  2. #2
    Student
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Last Seen
    03-06-13 @ 02:59 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    272

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Yeah cause the qualification "but equal" is always added by a group that actually wants an unequal distribution of whatever. If they didn't think of the other group as "less than", they wouldn't want separate access to the same thing, so they (being in charge) go ahead and build drinking fountains that are inferior, or civil unions that aren't recognized by the fed or other states. If they actually wanted equality, they wouldn't be striving for separation in the first place. It's just a way to get the oppressed group to shut up and accept its status as inferior, and aside from that, I always want to tell someone with that mindset "YOU go call what you're doing a civil union."

  3. #3
    Professor
    Luna Tick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Nebraska
    Last Seen
    04-05-13 @ 05:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,148

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by wolv67 View Post
    Yeah cause the qualification "but equal" is always added by a group that actually wants an unequal distribution of whatever. If they didn't think of the other group as "less than", they wouldn't want separate access to the same thing, so they (being in charge) go ahead and build drinking fountains that are inferior, or civil unions that aren't recognized by the fed or other states. If they actually wanted equality, they wouldn't be striving for separation in the first place. It's just a way to get the oppressed group to shut up and accept its status as inferior, and aside from that, I always want to tell someone with that mindset "YOU go call what you're doing a civil union."
    That's pretty much it. The only part they achieved was the "separate" part. They were never equal. They argued that if we put the races together, no one would ever be able to get along and there would be endless fights. I think that's been proven to be untrue.

  4. #4
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    This popped into my mind during a discussion about gay marriages and civil unions in another thread. This question assumes that the system of segregation actually is "equal", ie that having inferior public services for blacks in the Jim Crow South was not "separate but equal".

    Thoughts?
    There wouldn't be a need to separate them in the first place if they were equal. That's my 2 cents.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  5. #5
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:01 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    I wouldn't say that separate but equal is inherently unequal. We have some very minor examples of separate but equal in society that are fairly equal. Men's and Women's restrooms for example. They are separate, but generally equal.

    When talking politics in the real world though, separate but equal will generally turn out to be separate and unequal. It's just one of those ideas that looks okay on paper but doesn't work in practice.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  6. #6
    Count Smackula
    rathi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    10-31-15 @ 10:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    7,890

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    "Separate but equal" is like "just the tip". Once a blue moon, the person making the statement is actually sincere . For the most part, its a blatantly transparent lie.
    Last edited by rathi; 06-07-12 at 07:50 PM.

  7. #7
    Doesn't go below juicy
    tacomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Last Seen
    05-20-16 @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    31,781

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Zawisza View Post
    This popped into my mind during a discussion about gay marriages and civil unions in another thread. This question assumes that the system of segregation actually is "equal", ie that having inferior public services for blacks in the Jim Crow South was not "separate but equal".

    Thoughts?
    The motivation to separate two things like whites and blacks or straights and gays pretty much comes from the feeling by one group that another group is inferior in some way. That same motivation will create the tendency to allow or create substandard conditions from the group deemed inferior.

  8. #8
    Global Moderator
    Rage More!
    Your Star's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    26,362

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Read the decision in Brown v Board.
    Eat me, drink me, love me;
    Laura make much of me

  9. #9
    Professor cmakaioz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Oakland, CA
    Last Seen
    01-22-13 @ 02:48 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    1,582

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    There's a pretty easy way to tell if a propose two- (or more) tier system of allegedly equal rights/facilities/services is ACTUALLY equal, whether in substance or (at the very least) in the expectations and conceptions of those arguing in favor of the separation.

    It's a classic approach drawn from cake-cutting algorithms: if the situation is one of two entities, then one "cuts" (establishes the terms or enumerates the rights/goods/services associated with the two separate-but-allegedly-equal packages)...while the other chooses (with the chooser keeping what they chose, and the cutter keeping whatever other option is left over).

    The basis of this approach should be obvious: if those seeking to do the separating are genuine believers in separate-can-be-equal, then they should have no objection to having the other group (the group being targeted for separate treatment) keeping the choice of which track/tier of rights and services they have access to. For example, if current legal recognition of marriage is so closely on par with civil unions, then advocates of separate-but-equal would themselves be engaging (no pun intended) in civil unions and marriages on a roughly equal basis. I'd have to dig a bit later on to see if I can find numbers on this, but my first impression is that there remain very, very few heterosexual civil unions (relative to legally recognized marriages) among the population of committed hetero couples seeking legal recognition of their relationship.

    This is of course worlds away from what we're actually in right now with regards to legal recognition of gay and lesbian marriages, which is a case where a dominant and already-entitled hetero population holds most of the chips and is allowed to decide upon matters they have no direct stake in. It's a classic case of moral hazard, and fundamentally antidemocratic.
    I've moved on to a better forum (scienceforums.net). Facts matter, and I don't have the time or energy for putting up with the pretense that they don't. PM me if you'd like me to get in touch with you when I'm done developing my own forum system, likely towards the end of 2013.

  10. #10
    Sometimes wrong

    ttwtt78640's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Uhland, Texas
    Last Seen
    Today @ 03:11 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    34,705

    Re: Is "separate but equal" inherently unequal?

    Separate but equal sounds wonderful until it is applied, as with the racial segreagtion use originally proclaimed as equal. As an earlier post pointed out, if one proposed a trade, say swapping the black/white signs on school or restroom facilities both groups may be surprised how unequal those facilities really were.

    We now have this mainly for gender yet never intended it to be "unfair", but to maintain "tradition" just like the prior racial version or to elevate females "artificially" since they can not successfully compete "heads up" with males in some areas. This is done now to help women feel 'included' while actually being excluded. For example, college sports rules (laws?) say that for every male sports player there must be a separate, yet not equal (except in number) female sports player. If your college has a male football team that has 100 players you must create 100 female players in some sport(s) to "balance that out", perhaps a female swim team, some female golfers and a female vollyball team. But in the name of "fairness" that is the deal, because obviously women are very unlikely to make the college football team, yet it generates tons of money for the school, so somehow that means that we must benefit female athletes "equaly" too. Why this is fair is beyond me, as most males can't make the college football team either, yet they get no 'alternate' special free benefit offers to try out for.

    There is also the military version of gender pseudo separation, some positions are male only and some are either gender, yet I know of none that are female only. The pay is essentially the same except for those not permitted equal access to "combat pay" slots, or getting ample overseas or shipboard time to advance in rank as rapidly (there may be more strange remedies for this, but I know of very few, when I was with the US Navy, only females got Guam and Iceland shore duty counted as "shipboard" assignments), but the physical requirements for the "either gender" slots are strangely not equal, the males must be more physically "able" to do the SAME job as the females, yet this is somehow seen as "fair" and necessary. Imagine if we had different minmum qualification standards based on other factors - woops, we do that too in the military, as you age, less is expected of you physically, even if you are likely paid more due to rank and time in service. We accept all sorts of 'separate' things yet rarely call them 'unequal" even when they actually are.
    Last edited by ttwtt78640; 06-07-12 at 09:25 PM.
    “The reasonable man adapts himself to the world: the unreasonable one persists to adapt the world to himself.
    Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.” ― George Bernard Shaw, Man and Superman

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •