Dems

[NatMorton]

This boils down to the left vs. right principles involved. The right operates under individual/self-interested politics while the left operates under inclusive/collective ones.

The respective principles reflect certain values each oppose from the other. That's where defensive posturing such as "It's just that good policy isn't the [liberals'] objective. The opportunity to virtue signal is." stems from.

I disagree. An axiom I've mentioned often here holds true: Conservatives think liberals are people with bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people with ideas. This plays out daily here on DP. In fact, I can literally cite a message posted shortly before yours (#47) as an example. Opposition to DEI is never taken by the left for the reasons given. It's always "racism."

 

[quip]

I disagree. An axiom I've mentioned often here holds true: Conservatives think liberals are people with bad ideas. Liberals think conservatives are bad people with ideas. This plays out daily here on DP. In fact, I can literally cite a message posted shortly before yours (#47) as an example. Opposition to DEI is never taken by the left for the reasons given. It's always "racism."

Interesting enough, opposition to DEI comes with the oft accusation of reverse racial discrimination.

Your own example belies itself. The origins of DEI are (partially) based upon historical racial disparities. Conservatives simply take liberties with this fact in order to adjust the narrative as the victims.
Such conservative "logic" is a time honored tradition.

 

[NatMorton]

Interesting enough, opposition to DEI comes with the oft accusation of reverse racial discrimination.

Only because that's accurate. Preferential treatment for one race over another, even when well intentioned, is still racial discrimination. But I didn't say accusations of racial discrimination were the problem. I said accusations of racism were.

Your own example belies itself. The origins of DEI are (partially) based upon historical racial disparities. Conservatives simply take liberties with this fact in order to adjust the narrative as the victims.
Such conservative "logic" is a time honored tradition.

No one is arguing there hasn't been historical (or even current) racial disparities. The question is whether or not those disparities justify solutions that are racially discriminatory. I argue they don't, and that opinion often is greeted with charges of racism from members of the far left.

 

[Revelation]

Why then didn't America go bankrupt during Biden's term? During Obama's two terms?

well Prophetically that doesn't happen till Revelation 18 when Mystery Babylon burns down in one hour.

many in the Prophetic world think that may be the New York region or the whole united states; look at Revelation 18 and you tell me what nation mostly matches what the Prophet says.

but God is patient with us and will not bankrupt us real fast, although he could. the Red and Blue criminals certainly deserve to lose everything they have stolen from us.


blessings all, the Orange has now declared this the '12 days war' and thus my new 12 in the Left Corner.

.

 

[quip]

Only because that's accurate. Preferential treatment for one race over another, even when well intentioned, is still racial discrimination. But I didn't say accusations of racial discrimination were the problem. I said accusations of racism were.

No one is arguing there hasn't been historical (or even current) racial disparities. The question is whether or not those disparities justify solutions that are racially discriminatory. I argue they don't, and that opinion often is greeted with charges of racism from members of the far left.

Eliminating a policy that removes racial barriers for minorities - propositioned upon the contrived rhetoric of white discrimination - may only be deemed racially provoking.

You can't have it both ways. If you consider racial discrimination as bad policy then don't promote denying it's victims relief.... for your own perceived advantage.

 

[The Brad Dad]

It seems that EVERYthing that the Dems endorse or "are supporters of", are things that are bad for the country. It almost seems like the Dems want to take America down or bankrupt the country, or? Does anybody have a theory as to why this is? I mean, they like high gas prices, they want "sanctuary cities", criminals, no borders, LBGTQ, men in women's sports, kids having sex changes, and WE should pay for it all! WTF is up with these people? There has to be an agenda. I don't know what it is but I think these are Luciferians. OR?????????

It's all the avocado toast.

 

[The Brad Dad]

That sounds like one hell of a party - where did you manage to score an invitation to that?

Any videos of this drinking the blood and eating the flesh of babies?

I'd totally get down on some delicious baby flesh!

 

[NatMorton]

Eliminating a policy that removes racial barriers for minorities - propositioned upon the contrived rhetoric of white discrimination - may only be deemed racially provoking.

No, they may be correctly deemed as racially discriminatory. The skin colors involved make absolutely no difference to the fact that policies which betstowe preference on some skin colors and not others are -- by definition -- discriminatory.

An institution that allows only black members is no less discriminatory than one that allows only white members. The only difference is, typically, the motivation for the discrimination.

You can't have it both ways. If you consider racial discrimination as bad policy then don't promote denying it's victims relief.... for your own perceived advantage.

I promote denying anyone that relief, and I see no contradiction in that. Conversely, you're arguing that racial discrimination can be both right and wrong, so I think you're the one trying to have it both ways.

I would add that while I don't agree with his position, CRT mavens like Ibrahim Kendi are at least open about it. From memory, his words were "The only remedy for past discrimination is current discrimination. The only remediation for current discrimination is future discrimination."

If you believe in discrimination, don't try to hide it and don't try spin it.

 

[The Brad Dad]

An institution that allows only black members is no less discriminatory than one that allows only white members.

True, but it's not racism. We discriminate every day.

 

[NatMorton]

True, but it's not racism. We discriminate every day.

We're in agreement. Reflexive charges of racism leveled against those who oppose racial discrimination in any form are unreasonable, yes?

 

[The Brad Dad]

We're in agreement. Reflexive charges of racism leveled against those who oppose racial discrimination in any form are unreasonable, yes?

It depends. You'd have to cite me a scenario to see if we're talking about the same thing.

 

[NatMorton]

It depends. You'd have to cite me a scenario to see if we're talking about the same thing.

Start with me. I oppose racial discrimination in almost all forms. For example, in the Students for Fair Admissions case, I believe Harvard's admissions program was fairly labeled discriminatory because they made an active effort to reject Asian students in order to boost black enrollment.

Is such an opinion an expression of racism?

 

[The Brad Dad]

Start with me. I oppose racial discrimination in almost all forms. For example, in the Students for Fair Admissions case, I believe Harvard's admissions program was fairly labeled discriminatory because they made an active effort to reject Asian students in order to boost black enrollment.

Is such an opinion an expression of racism?

It’s an uneducated, myopic expression of both racism and anti racism.You cannot have over 200 years of blinding oppression due to racism without government tipping the scales to assist those oppressed to get up to speed. And our country isn’t even honest in its assessments of these things. Look at the current Trump regime. They ran on the idea that DEI programs promoted non whites over whites who were incompetent and responsible for many of the country’s ills. Yet the “solution” to DEI was, say, someone like Pete Hegsmith. An objective step down from the previous folks who held the position, but he’s a white face on TV who likes say “warfighters” a lot, so he’s assisted as competent badass. Look at Trump himself. He went to Wharton’s and yet he speaks like he’s suffering from a head wound all the time and is remarkably uneducated about the world despite being that wealthy and presumably traveling and meeting other people. Our country’s ability to assess its own inherent biases are pretty poor.

 

[NatMorton]

It’s an uneducated, myopic expression of both racism and anti racism.You cannot have over 200 years of blinding oppression due to racism without government tipping the scales to assist those oppressed to get up to speed. And our country isn’t even honest in its assessments of these things. Look at the current Trump regime. They ran on the idea that DEI programs promoted non whites over whites who were incompetent and responsible for many of the country’s ills. Yet the “solution” to DEI was, say, someone like Pete Hegsmith. An objective step down from the previous folks who held the position, but he’s a white face on TV who likes say “warfighters” a lot, so he’s assisted as competent badass. Look at Trump himself. He went to Wharton’s and yet he speaks like he’s suffering from a head wound all the time and is remarkably uneducated about the world despite being that wealthy and presumably traveling and meeting other people. Our country’s ability to assess its own inherent biases are pretty poor.

Interesting you say that, but the folks who educated me said it is illegal to discriminate based on race. It's something educated folk call "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Have you heard of it?

 

[The Brad Dad]

Interesting you say that, but the folks who educated me said it is illegal to discriminate based on race. It's something educated folk call "Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."

Have you heard of it?

I can only go by what I've read, and the folks who educated you owe you a refund. The Civil Rights act doesn't preclude black colleges, black networking orgs, latino versions of that, etc.This idea that any ethnicity gathering for any reason is automatically equal to white supremacy is pretty pedestrian.

 

[NatMorton]

I can only go by what I've read, and the folks who educated you owe you a refund. The Civil Rights act doesn't preclude black colleges, black networking orgs, latino versions of that, etc.This idea that any ethnicity gathering for any reason is automatically equal to white supremacy is pretty pedestrian.

One what basis was Harvard's admissions program found to be illegal?

 

[The Brad Dad]

One what basis was Harvard's admissions program found to be illegal?

That their criteria wasn't organized and clearly defined. They didn't rule that race based admissions in and of themselves without guardrails around are illegal.

 

[The Brad Dad]

Opposition to DEI is never taken by the left for the reasons given. It's always "racism."

Because magically the only people Republicans insist are DEI as in incapable of performing the duties of whatever role they're in are all non whites. And then they vote for people like Trump to show us how seriously they take meritocracy.

 

[MAGAnificent]

It seems that EVERYthing that the Dems endorse or "are supporters of", are things that are bad for the country. It almost seems like the Dems want to take America down or bankrupt the country, or? Does anybody have a theory as to why this is? I mean, they like high gas prices, they want "sanctuary cities", criminals, no borders, LBGTQ, men in women's sports, kids having sex changes, and WE should pay for it all! WTF is up with these people? There has to be an agenda. I don't know what it is but I think these are Luciferians. OR?????????

To be fair, libruls all over the western world suffer from the same woke ideology. As a whole, libruls go batshit crazy about every 60 years.

 

[The Brad Dad]

To be fair, libruls all over the western world suffer from the same woke ideology. As a whole, libruls go batshit crazy about every 60 years.

Do you think Nixon was a bad president who deserved to be impeached if he hadn't stepped down?

 

[NatMorton]

That their criteria wasn't organized and clearly defined. They didn't rule that race based admissions in and of themselves without guardrails around are illegal.

You think they were found guilty of disorganization?

Good Lord, that's ignorant.

 

[The Brad Dad]

You think they were found guilty of disorganization?

Good Lord, that's ignorant.

Probably because it was your takeaway lolol

 

[quip]

No, they may be correctly deemed as racially discriminatory. The skin colors involved make absolutely no difference to the fact that policies which betstowe preference on some skin colors and not others are -- by definition -- discriminatory.

An institution that allows only black members is no less discriminatory than one that allows only white members. The only difference is, typically, the motivation for the discrimination.

This of course assumes a fair playing field, a zero summed scenario where a win for a minority necessitates an equivalent loss for the majority.
Sorry Nat but we both know this fantasy doesn't work the way you'd prefer....quite the opposite actually.

I promote denying anyone that relief, and I see no contradiction in that. Conversely, you're arguing that racial discrimination can be both right and wrong, so I think you're the one trying to have it both ways.

I would add that while I don't agree with his position, CRT mavens like Ibrahim Kendi are at least open about it. From memory, his words were "The only remedy for past discrimination is current discrimination. The only remediation for current discrimination is future discrimination."

If you believe in discrimination, don't try to hide it and don't try spin it.

Decrying racial discrimination by way of opposing policies that strive to challenge it?

Your sophistry is showing Nat.

 

[NatMorton]

This of course assumes a fair playing field, a zero summed scenario where a win for a minority necessitates an equivalent loss for the majority.
Sorry Nat but we both know this fantasy doesn't work the way you'd prefer....quite the opposite actually.

No, you're building a straw man. I never said the playing field was -- or is -- equal. I am saying no matter which way the playing field tilts, giving some races preferential treatment over others is racial discrimination, period.

Decrying racial discrimination by way of opposing policies that strive to challenge it?

Your sophistry is showing Nat.

No, I'm simply stating facts, and I think you're problem is that you can't quite come out and say "I support racial discrimination."

This is not sophistry on my part. It's cognitive dissonance on yours.

 

[quip]

No, you're building a straw man. I never said the playing field was -- or is -- equal. I am saying no matter which way the playing field tilts, giving some races preferential treatment over others is racial discrimination, period.

Yet, that's exactly what you're achieving when you remove DEI incentives...because the playing field is decidedly unlevel.

No, I'm simply stating facts, and I think you're problem is that you can't quite come out and say "I support racial discrimination."

This is not sophistry on my part. It's cognitive dissonance on yours.

I'm saying there's NO racial discrimination to be had.
By definition... you can't disadvantage the advantaged. It's a mere partisan fever dream.