• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

No White Privilege in Upstate NY

blackjack50 said:
Can you please point to a specific policy or law in the United States that unfairly helps white people? Or harms blacks?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

White privilege is not institutionalized racism. Racial majority privilege is systemic racism. Do you know the difference between institutionalized and systemic? You might wanna start there. Then, try this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
 
ecofarm said:
I don't think you understand my post. The OP clearly has no clue what white privilege means. He thinks an isolated event can disprove the sociological fact of majority privilege. It's very important to racist rhetoric to deny majority privilege because that allows them to blame the struggle of blacks on DNA.
Click to expand...

Oh wait.. don't forget "life choices".. that's another good one to hang blame.
 
blackjack50 said:
Can you please point to a specific policy or law in the United States that unfairly helps white people? Or harms blacks?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Okay:


The Anti-Drug Abuse Act provided mandatory minimum sentences of
imprisonment for possession with intent to distribute powder and crack cocaine. In
this statute Congress established a quantitative 100-to-1 sentence ratio between the
two (i.e., it takes 100 times as much powder cocaine as crack cocaine to trigger the
same sentence). Under this distinction, a person convicted of possession with intent
to distribute a pound of powder cocaine (453.6 grams) would serve considerably less
time in a federal prison than one convicted of possession with intent to distribute 5
grams of crack. The United States Sentencing Commission incorporated the ratio
into its generally binding sentencing guidelines.
Since enactment, it has become apparent that the incidence of this sentencing
differential falls disproportionately on African-American defendants
Click to expand...
 
blackjack50 said:
Can you please point to a specific policy or law in the United States that unfairly helps white people? Or harms blacks?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I can think of one - or at least the Labor Dept under Bush thought so.

It seems that Georgia Pacific wanted all new employees to be able to read and write and the libs thought that was racial discrimination against black people.

It seems the left endorses illiteracy in the workplace when blacks are the illiterates
 
Mac77 said:
I can think of one - or at least the Labor Dept under Bush thought so.

It seems that Georgia Pacific wanted all new employees to be able to read and write and the libs thought that was racial discrimination against black people.

It seems the left endorses illiteracy in the workplace when blacks are the illiterates
Click to expand...

Link please.
 
Mac77 said:
Minorities often scream racism when they do not get their way.

A few libs here are insulted by the "white privilage" taunt directed at the liberal class.

But the black girls are the ones who invoked the false racism charges and the left supported them without knowing the real facts involved
Click to expand...

The left does that all the time. Michael Brown and Trayvon Martin are just a few recent examples.

The reason they do this is because they evaluate things differently. Instead of looking at a situation and evaluating it based on "right and wrong", or "good and bad" the way most people like myself do, they instead base their judgement on things like "black vs. white", "weak vs. strong" "oppressed vs. oppressors (authority)" and "poor vs. wealthy". Another way of putting it is, they base their judgement on victimhood rather than assessing who's right.


.
 
ecofarm said:
White privilege is not institutionalized racism. Racial majority privilege is systemic racism.
Click to expand...

Racial majority privilege? What privilege? Can you tell me? Is there something specific that blacks cannot do because of the system? Is there NO POSSIBLE other explanation other than race?

Do you know the difference between institutionalized and systemic? You might wanna start there. Then, try this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_privilege
Click to expand...

Yes. One is actually written law. The other has to be founded in the system. And that is the challenge I'm making to you. Can you please point to me where it is "systemized?" What exactly is it that black people are incapable of doing in this current system?
 
:doh white privilege is a made up term to keep black people down and for certain liberal types to make money or have a career.
 
blackjack50 said:
Racial majority privilege? What privilege? Can you tell me? Is there something specific that blacks cannot do because of the system? Is there NO POSSIBLE other explanation other than race?



Yes. One is actually written law. The other has to be founded in the system. And that is the challenge I'm making to you. Can you please point to me where it is "systemized?" What exactly is it that black people are incapable of doing in this current system?
Click to expand...

The real racists are the ones that think that black people can't succeed because of the color of their skin.
 
YorkshirePete said:
So would we rather be born black or white in these United States.? Free cell phones? Do tell
Usually ends the argument of people who have no idea what it is like to be pulled over twice a week, every week
Click to expand...

Wrong. Impossible. Just look at the facts.

- A greater percentage of male drivers (12%) than female drivers (8%) were stopped by police during 2011.
- A higher percentage of black drivers (13%) than white (10%) and Hispanic (10%) drivers were stopped by police during 2011.
- Stopped drivers reported speeding as the most common reason for being pulled over in 2011.
- Approximately 80% of drivers pulled over by police in 2011 felt they had been stopped for a legitimate reason.
- In 2011, about 68% of black drivers believed police had a legitimate reason for stopping them compared to 84% of white and 74% of Hispanic drivers.
- In 2011, about 3% of traffic stops led to a search of the driver, the vehicle, or both. Police were more likely to search male drivers (4%) than female drivers (2%).

https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=702
 
Mac77 said:
I can think of one - or at least the Labor Dept under Bush thought so.

It seems that Georgia Pacific wanted all new employees to be able to read and write and the libs thought that was racial discrimination against black people.

It seems the left endorses illiteracy in the workplace when blacks are the illiterates
Click to expand...

Yeah, let's see a link to this pretty obvious lie.
 
Mac77 said:
Georgia-Pacific?s literacy test fails to make the grade ? Business Management Daily: Free Reports on Human Resources, Employment Law, Office Management, Office Communication, Office Technology and Small Business Tax Business Management Daily

Some blacks who could not read were given jobs as part of the settlement with Labor Dept and others were given cash.

I doubt if many of them spent the cash on reading lessons
Click to expand...

Right.. so please explain why Georgia Pacific needed to have employees pass a literacy test when it was not necessary for the job?

that's exactly how Jim Crow laws worked.
 
jaeger19 said:
Right.. so please explain why Georgia Pacific needed to have employees pass a literacy test when it was not necessary for the job?

that's exactly how Jim Crow laws worked.
Click to expand...

You must be kidding

A liberal arguing that illiteracy is ok?

How about warning signs?

Or, how about the same race baiters suing the company years from now because more white workers were being promoted to supervisor jobs than black people?

The obvious answer is illiteracy among black workers but liberals would never accept that simple explaination
 
blackjack50 said:
Racial majority privilege? What privilege? Can you tell me? Is there something specific that blacks cannot do because of the system? Is there NO POSSIBLE other explanation other than race?
Click to expand...

Blacks, and other minorities, are disadvantaged as a result of race. Not in explicit law or institutional policy but systemically (not systematically) as a result of attitudes and the majority's socially natural tendency to maintain a status-quo power advantage.

Do you deny that racism exists against blacks and affects them throughout social sectors including employment, housing and the justice system? If so, stop being intentionally ignorant.

Yes. One is actually written law. The other has to be founded in the system. And that is the challenge I'm making to you. Can you please point to me where it is "systemized?" What exactly is it that black people are incapable of doing in this current system?
Click to expand...

Not "systemized". Systemic means found throughout social sectors despite law. Blacks are capable of doing anything, but it's more difficult for them as a result of white privilege.

Try re-reading the wiki on 'white privilege'. If you can't grasp it, I can't help you. I'm not here to be your sociology professor.

If you want to deny that racism affects blacks as a whole and throughout society, then go ahead and serve the racists.
 
Bodhisattva said:
The real racists are the ones that think that black people can't succeed because of the color of their skin.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say they are racist. Just ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
ecofarm said:
Black, and other minorities, are disadvantaged as a result of race. Not in explicit law or institutional policy but systemically (not systematically) as a result of attitudes and the majority's socially natural tendency to maintain a status-quo power advantage.

Do you deny that racism exists against blacks and affects them throughout social sectors including employment, housing and the justice system? If so, stop being intentionally ignorant.



Not "systemized". Systemic means found throughout social sectors despite law.

Try re-reading the wiki on 'white privilege'. If you can't grasp it, I can't help you. I'm not here to be your sociology professor.
Click to expand...

Or because of government sanctioned illiteracy among black people?
 
blackjack50 said:
I wouldn't say they are racist. Just ignorant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Bush called it the soft bigotry of low expections

Liberals expect less from black people than from whites
 
Mac77 said:
You must be kidding

A liberal arguing that illiteracy is ok?

How about warning signs?

Or, how about the same race baiters suing the company years from now because more white workers were being promoted to supervisor jobs than black people?

The obvious answer is illiteracy among black workers but liberals would never accept that simple explaination
Click to expand...

Yeah.. wrong.

There is absolutely no argument made by ANYONE that illiteracy is okay.

The question is.. is using literacy as a criteria for a job.. that does not require literacy... an appropriate measure when it ends up discriminating against a group of people.

And when companies are sued because of discrimination.. there is a very high bar.. its not "just because more white workers are promoted"... the bar is much higher. It must show that discrimination took place and that EQUALLY QUALIFIED people are passed over due to race.

Your arguing a myth.
 
jaeger19 said:
Yeah.. wrong.

There is absolutely no argument made by ANYONE that illiteracy is okay.

The question is.. is using literacy as a criteria for a job.. that does not require literacy... an appropriate measure when it ends up discriminating against a group of people.

And when companies are sued because of discrimination.. there is a very high bar.. its not "just because more white workers are promoted"... the bar is much higher. It must show that discrimination took place and that EQUALLY QUALIFIED people are passed over due to race.

Your arguing a myth.
Click to expand...

Of course you are agreeing the the Labor Dept that illiteracy is good enough for black people doing that job
 
Mac77 said:
Of course you are agreeing the the Labor Dept that illiteracy is good enough for black people doing that job
Click to expand...

Well.. yes.. literacy was not a requirement for the job.. that's obviously true. Thus it questions the need for their requirement that people be literate in order to be employed.

this is not an argument that illiteracy is "okay".

Anymore than making accommodations for a wounded vet so that they can work and get into public buildings is an argument that "war is okay".
 
jaeger19 said:
Well.. yes.. literacy was not a requirement for the job.. that's obviously true. Thus it questions the need for their requirement that people be literate in order to be employed.

this is not an argument that illiteracy is "okay".

Anymore than making accommodations for a wounded vet so that they can work and get into public buildings is an argument that "war is okay".
Click to expand...

In a free country the employer is best qualified to decide the requirewment for the job

And you are arguing that ilkliteracy is ok for black people in deadend jobs.

Until whites who can read get promoted to be their supervisor

then the liberal **** will hit the fan
 
jaeger19 said:
Right.. so please explain why Georgia Pacific needed to have employees pass a literacy test when it was not necessary for the job?

that's exactly how Jim Crow laws worked.
Click to expand...

Why would being able to read not be important? You have to be able to read instructions, notices, the "required" notices posted for employees, important info from HR, etc.... I see a lawsuit for an injured employee that couldn't read the memo that one of the machines would be worked on, and it will be GP's fault because they "knew the employee couldn't read"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom