Thought police- On the beat
The Supreme Court is currently is viewing the case of Ricci v. Destefano, a case where a white New Haven, Connecticut, firefighter is suing because after placing 1st on a promotion exam, he was denied a promotion on the grounds that the test was discriminatory against minorities. Out of the top 15 applicants, 14 were white and one was Hispanic. We’ve seen this before, as it is similar to my previous post about Obama’s crack policy changes. Why is it that people are so quick to find racism when there really is none? Reason Online shows how the test was in no way racist:
For their part, the white firefighters argue that the city broke the law by taking their race into account when deciding whether or not to honor the results. Keep in mind that there are no credible allegations of racist intent against the actual exam. To comply with federal law, New Haven vetted the test with independent experts before administering it. We’re only talking about the racially uneven outcomes.
The tests were neutral, ensuring neutrality further by referencing outside experts. So really the top scoring applicants weren’t given any advantage, and the decision to remove the test and thus the removal of their promotions was based solely on their skin. Racism anyone? The Supreme Court will be coming to a decision soon, most likely siding with the plaintiff, thus ending many reverse discrimination practices in the workplace.
But this is just the beginning. The House passed hate crime legislation last week to include more groups, excluding others. This disparity coincides with the Democrat’s long love affair with prejudice and unconstitutional legislation. Hot Air says it better than anyone:
Until recently, motives only mattered in proving the mens rea of a crime, ie, the desire to commit the crime. Motive matters in murder, for instance; a drunk driver can kill a pedestrian and a person can kill a spouse to collect on the insurance. Both happen with depressing regularity. The difference is that the latter had an explicit desire to kill (for profit) while the other had a depraved indifference to life but no explicit desire to kill, and that’s why they get charged with different crimes.
However, we don’t differentiate between murder for profit and murder for a particular animus of hate. Doing that creates a subtle but significant change in which the state has suddenly become the arbiter of thought, determining different outcomes based on thought despite the similarity of crime. The First Amendment arguments are obvious, but Jazz Shaw thinks this also violates the Fourteenth as well:
They go on explaining how when one group is seen as more guilty than another group for the same crime, it violates the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. For example, when someone murders another person because that individual is homosexual, this is seen as a hate crime hence harsher penalties, but when someone kills and individual for their anti-homosexual beliefs, this isn’t a hate crime. It is placing a group of citizens above another group. What many hate crime activists don’t realize is that all crimes are committed out of hate. Just because the two individuals are different doesn’t mean the penalties should be harsher, because then you start to police thought and not the crimes themselves.
At least we aren’t in Britain where a number of their citizens (see: white males) may actually start being blocked from jobs. Oh wait . . .
As a last remark, I would like to address the term itself: reverse discrimination. It claims reverse as if one group is more often discriminatory against another. The fact that it has a different name shows the view that we are in fact different. Race, gender and sexual preference do not make us different. We are all the same. Ideas make us different, and if you are willing to say that those differences should be recognized when accepting applicants, hiring individuals or trying suspects, then you are the thought police.
Affirmative action exists as a corrective measure in response to years of oppression that put people’s children into positions of disadvantage that exist due to misconduct in the past. We can’t blame White people today for what their ancestors have done, but we can recognize that there are people who are at an inherent disadvantage due to where they come from.
Note that I am not defending the firefighter scenario. I am, however, defending the concept of killing a homosexual for being a homosexual a hate crime. Why? There is open aggression towards them, as with many other minorities. This is why matters regarding them are especially sensitive. They are a fragile group that is constantly under attack, and unlike many bigots they don’t have things like money or the ability to blend into White Christian society to buffer that.
“there are people who are at an inherent disadvantage due to where they come from. ”
And they can be white too. Not all blacks are at a disadvantage and not all whites are at an advantage. I’m not against someone who grew up in poverty and went to crappy inner city schools getting a leg up when going to college, I am against someone looking at a white person and a black person and choosing the black person solely because of the color of their skin. Funny thing is, affirmative action now has nothing to do with advantages and disadvantages, it only has to do with color. It was originally intended to help those who were persecuted against find jobs and get into colleges. Is that really necessary now, 40 years later? No longer do we have segregation nor oppression against blacks. Affirmative action (kinda like welfare and social security) was meant to be a temporary fix; something to be removed when no longer needed.
“They are a fragile group that is constantly under attack, and unlike many bigots they don’t have things like money or the ability to blend into White Christian society to buffer that.”
Are you saying gays don’t have money but bigots do? I’m sorry, but the last documentary I saw about gay-hating crazy people and skinheads showed the bigots as pro-dominantly poor. Most gay people I know are well off.
You also didn’t address why they should be held above other groups. First off, it is unconstitutional. Secondly, you never said anything other than they come under attack often. I’ve had open aggression towards me for being a white male Christian republican, can’t I be protected? Maybe Republicans should be protected on college campuses, you’d be surprised how rough things got during campaign season.
“Is that really necessary now, 40 years later? No longer do we have segregation nor oppression against blacks. Affirmative action (kinda like welfare and social security) was meant to be a temporary fix; something to be removed when no longer needed.”
Yes, it is still necessary. We may no longer have government approved segregation and oppression against blacks, but that doesn’t change what still occurs in one’s every day life. When such a disproportionate amount of Blacks are in poverty due to the effects of what happened to their ancestry, they certainly haven’t been put on even ground just yet.
“Are you saying gays don’t have money but bigots do? I’m sorry, but the last documentary I saw about gay-hating crazy people and skinheads showed the bigots as pro-dominantly poor. Most gay people I know are well off. ”
I’m saying that people in the dominant group in this country are more likely to have money and the backing of the majority. Gays can obviously be born into rich families, but I can pull anecdotal evidence out, too - like a kid who was more or less kicked out of his household without any financial backing from his parents because of his sexual orientation. Being born into those families doesn’t always mean they have access to the privileges that someone in those conditions who is heterosexual would. Like for example, support from your community or the ability to be open about your sexuality and not experience undue stress and anxiety because of it.
And it’s not just the “trailer trash” White people who have some kind of anti-Gay agenda. I would like it to be so, but that’s simply wishful thinking. There are plenty of people in power who are in some way opposed to Gays, and you need only look to the Republican party and the Conservative media for evidence of this.
“You also didn’t address why they should be held above other groups. First off, it is unconstitutional. Secondly, you never said anything other than they come under attack often. I’ve had open aggression towards me for being a white male Christian republican, can’t I be protected? Maybe Republicans should be protected on college campuses, you’d be surprised how rough things got during campaign season.”
You’ve been protected because of a couple things - you’re White, you’re Christian, and you’re male. You’ve definitely been in the dominant group and while I’m not holding you personally responsible for what others in your group have done, to deny the advantages this has given you (Even simply from being born into the family you’re in), is being pretty naive.
And I would agree that if Republicans are continuously harassed during election season, the school should step in to ensure their safety and that their voice is heard equally.
“When such a disproportionate amount of Blacks are in poverty due to the effects of what happened to their ancestry, they certainly haven’t been put on even ground just yet.”
First off, anyone can escape poverty. Secondly, my ancestors were immigrants who built railroads. They were treated far worse. Shouldn’t I get help?
Also, isn’t it a bit racist to say that all blacks are disadvantaged when compared to whites? Stop trying to make this about advantage because it clearly is not. It is about the color of the individual’s skin. Not only is that unconstitutional, but what happened to equality under the law?
“Like for example, support from your community or the ability to be open about your sexuality and not experience undue stress and anxiety because of it.”
So anyone who has ever been rejected, denied money from their parents, been put down, should be a protected class? If someone kills a pedophile, not a criminal, but someone who just would like to, is that a hate crime? If you believe that homosexuality is in no way a choice then pedophilia is in no way a choice.
“There are plenty of people in power who are in some way opposed to Gays,”
This is where you and many others get it wrong. Most people aren’t anti-gay, they are anti gay-marriage. There is a big difference. Of course, the liberals would love to play it up like the Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of bigots, but truth is, allowing gay marriage is just as illogical as banning it, and just as bigoted.
“You’ve been protected because of a couple things - you’re White, you’re Christian, and you’re male.”
No I have not. I have experienced racism, sexism and persecution. In no way have I been protected. I guarantee had I been stabbed or assaulted during the campaign (there were a few times when things were shaky) my assailant wouldn’t have been charged with a hate crime. Republicans aren’t the majority, so I should be protected right? You are creating such double standards and in doing so creating inequality.
“to deny the advantages this has given you (Even simply from being born into the family you’re in), is being pretty naive.”
But the color of your skin does not automatically determine you to be from an advantaged family or from a disadvantaged family. I could be the poorest white kid in the U.S. and still be pushed down in favor of a minority just because of the color of their skin. That is racism. Any policy that specifically takes race into account is racist.
You also dodged my question about how the policies are unconstitutional. Of course, most liberals pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to call law.
“And I would agree that if Republicans are continuously harassed during election season, the school should step in to ensure their safety and that their voice is heard equally.”
But we shouldn’t be a protected group like other minorities? Why not? Isn’t that a bit prejudiced?
What I am getting at is that hate crime legislation, affirmative action and racial quotas all hinder equality. They place barriers between groups, not just in society but in law. There should be equal justice under the law. You cannot say one person is more of a victim than another person should they both be victims of the same crime. It is saying a dead gay person is worse than a dead straight person. This hypocrisy is killing me inside.
“First off, anyone can escape poverty. Secondly, my ancestors were immigrants who built railroads. They were treated far worse. Shouldn’t I get help?”
The implication that immigrants who built railroads have undergone anywhere near the kind of oppression that Blacks have in America is pretty offensive. Plenty of people have families who have gone through hard times in the past. Still doesn’t really make up for the shit that an entire race has had to deal with, like the Native Americans or Japanese even.
“Also, isn’t it a bit racist to say that all blacks are disadvantaged when compared to whites? Stop trying to make this about advantage because it clearly is not. It is about the color of the individual’s skin. Not only is that unconstitutional, but what happened to equality under the law?”
It’s an effort to repay a debt born from many years of unconstitutional treatment of Blacks. Yes, let’s give them hell and then sweep it under the rug, declaring efforts to restore the balance and bring people back to equality as “unconstitutional”!
And it definitely is about the color of their skin. Minorities have had to deal with this being such a huge disadvantage to them in the past, and now you’re complaining because the government wants to help the very people it was persecuting. And while you may not have been around while this all happened, the United States government sure was, and it is still very much responsible.
“But the color of your skin does not automatically determine you to be from an advantaged family or from a disadvantaged family. I could be the poorest white kid in the U.S. and still be pushed down in favor of a minority just because of the color of their skin. That is racism. Any policy that specifically takes race into account is racist.”
If you’re the poorest white kid in the US, you’re entitled to certain benefits, as well. You’re certainly entitled to a free college education if you put in even the most token effort in high school, for example.
I’ve already stated why I don’t consider “any policy that specifically takes race into account” to be racist. There is no intent of bias here so much as an effort to make up a disproportionate amount of bias in the past. You know what’s racist? A nation built on the money of slave labor predominately comprised of Blacks. Jim Crow laws. Allowing polls to keep black from voting even after they’ve been “granted” the right. Arguing that none of these things affect the condition of Black people today.
“So anyone who has ever been rejected, denied money from their parents, been put down, should be a protected class? If someone kills a pedophile, not a criminal, but someone who just would like to, is that a hate crime? If you believe that homosexuality is in no way a choice then pedophilia is in no way a choice.”
When it’s something they cannot choose and that poses no harm to others? Sure.
Pedophilia is not a choice, but it certainly is not a “victimless crime”, either. Pedophilia is a condition that would make one much more prone to breaking the law, like many such psychological conditions.
Is it wrong to kill someone for something they haven’t even done, even if they’re a pedophile? Of course it is. Is this a hate crime? I wouldn’t consider it that, if only because homosexuality is not really a detractor to the safety of others, and thus is something I would consider necessary to be “protected.”
“This is where you and many others get it wrong. Most people aren’t anti-gay, they are anti gay-marriage. There is a big difference. Of course, the liberals would love to play it up like the Republicans are nothing more than a bunch of bigots, but truth is, allowing gay marriage is just as illogical as banning it, and just as bigoted.”
If you’re against allowing Gays the ability to participate in things such as marriage that, in this country, shouldn’t be tied to a specific religion and thus not be subjected to the views of that religion, then yes. You are against Gays. “Sure, I’ll tolerate them, but don’t let them do anything a Christian would!” Marriage is not specifically a Christian ritual, and really shouldn’t be required to adhere to Christian ideology.
“No I have not. I have experienced racism, sexism and persecution. In no way have I been protected. I guarantee had I been stabbed or assaulted during the campaign (there were a few times when things were shaky) my assailant wouldn’t have been charged with a hate crime. Republicans aren’t the majority, so I should be protected right? You are creating such double standards and in doing so creating inequality.”
“Republican” is an ideological choice that is yours to make. You can say that it endangers you if you like, but it isn’t the same as being Gay or Black. People with your attributes have been preferenced for centuries, I don’t see how you can deny that. Comparing someone to disliking you for your political views to someone disliking you for being born Black and said people passing laws to actively promote the destruction and marginalization of your people is pretty different. And yes I’m taking it back to early 1900s America. Why? Because, again, it still has an effect today.
“You also dodged my question about how the policies are unconstitutional. Of course, most liberals pick and choose which parts of the Constitution to call law.”
If the government passed a law that did something terrible to every Chinese family in America, then shortly thereafter passed a law to make amends for it, specifically targeting Chinese but not taking into account the Chinese that have come into this country or that have been born since then, would that be unconstitutional? What the government did was unjust, and now it is trying to make up for that.
“But we shouldn’t be a protected group like other minorities? Why not? Isn’t that a bit prejudiced?”
No, and Democrats or Liberals shouldn’t be considered a “protected” group either.
“What I am getting at is that hate crime legislation, affirmative action and racial quotas all hinder equality. They place barriers between groups, not just in society but in law. There should be equal justice under the law. You cannot say one person is more of a victim than another person should they both be victims of the same crime. It is saying a dead gay person is worse than a dead straight person. This hypocrisy is killing me inside.”
Very simple - this legislation is aimed at breaking barriers created by the government themselves in the past.
“Still doesn’t really make up for the shit that an entire race has had to deal with, like the Native Americans or Japanese even.”
But the entire “race” (we are actually all the same race) didn’t necessarily have to go through it. William Alexander Leidesdorff was a millionaire in 1810 and he was black. You are telling me that his kids had more of a disadvantage than my immigrant ancestors who came to this country 100 years later?
“Yes, let’s give them hell and then sweep it under the rug, declaring efforts to restore the balance and bring people back to equality as “unconstitutional”!”
It made some sense immediately afterward as ordered by LBJ and Nixon in 1965 and 1969. This was because their actually was a disparity in how they were treated and the advantages given. However, it was still unconstitutional under the 14th amendment to base it solely on race rather than advantage. Now, 45 years later, it would be just as unconstitutional to look solely at race, but it makes absolutely no sense. If you want to talk that kind of equality, then I can just as easily mark you as a Marxist. Privilege is not something to be evened. If a father or mother wishes to give their child the benefit of a good education and a nice upbringing, that is their choice. In no way should we have to bring everyone up to the highest standard, nor should we knock everyone down to the lowest common denominator. You are trying to argue that parents either a) should all have to give their children the exact same advantages or b) not give their children any advantages. For there to be true equality as you propose, we’d have to take children from their parents and place them in identical institutions with identical teachings and give them all identical privileges. The only thing in life that should be fair is the law.
“and now you’re complaining because the government wants to help the very people it was persecuting.”
Most of the people benefiting from affirmative action now weren’t persecuted against by the government. They don’t take into account how a person was effected by any legislation, they look only at the color of the person’s skin.
“There is no intent of bias here so much as an effort to make up a disproportionate amount of bias in the past.”
But in no way does it take into account the very bias of the past. It is solely looking at the color of the person’s skin, not at whether or not they were at some sort of disadvantage. The fact that I could have been given a full ride to college had I been black and come from the same household that I did is racist.
“Arguing that none of these things affect the condition of Black people today.”
Oh I am sure it has effected some black people, but not all. Again, affirmative action doesn’t take into account the condition of the person, just the color of their skin. It doesn’t take into account how they may or may not have been effected by governmental actions, just the color of their skin.
“Pedophilia is not a choice, but it certainly is not a “victimless crime”, either. Pedophilia is a condition that would make one much more prone to breaking the law, like many such psychological conditions.”
Being a pedophile is not a crime, statutory rape is. So we should persecute those with mental conditions? Technically, blacks are more likely to break the law, so by your logic they shouldn’t be a protected group. Again, by your logic, pedophiles should be a protected class because a) it is outside of their control and b) people persecute against them often.
You have no way of determining how dangerous a person is. A pedophile could be completely harmless and a homosexual a crazed murdering madman, yet under your definition the gay murderer would be part of the protected class and the harmless pedophile wouldn’t be.
“If you’re against allowing Gays the ability to participate in things such as marriage that, in this country, shouldn’t be tied to a specific religion and thus not be subjected to the views of that religion, then yes. You are against Gays.”
So if you aren’t with us you are against us? Again, I am not anti-gay. I am not pro gay marriage either. I have tons of gay friends. You say that a government run institution such as marriage shouldn’t be tied to a specific religion but I take it a step further; a government institution cannot be liked to religious belief or nonbelief. Marriage is a fundamentally religious institution and was one up until around 1620 when John Calvin messed everything up by saying marriages have to be recognized by both the government and the church, not just the church. Of course, at the beginning of our country, there was no problem with accepting a religious institution to be the basis for grouping households, as it only made sense and there were no opposers. Now enter the problem. There is one group (gays and gay rights activists) saying that gays should be allowed to marry because it is a government institution and one group (the rest who are opposed) saying they don’t want the government to hijack and change their religious institution. There are two problems with this. By denying the gays marriage, they are effectively barring them from equal benefits. By allowing gays to marry, they would be establishing a religious institution that differs from its origin, breaking the establishment clause of the 1st amendment. Enter the solution. Remove marriage from government. The government hands out civil unions to everyone, under each is given all the benefits under marriage today. Should someone want to still get married, they can, but the government would take no part in it. Then no one can get angry without simultaneously being a bigot, as they could choose to just not recognize the marriage. Hooray for limited government.
“Marriage is not specifically a Christian ritual, and really shouldn’t be required to adhere to Christian ideology.”
Because it was hijacked. Technically, it would be listed as a Jewish ritual, and thus an Islamic and Christian ritual as well.
““Republican” is an ideological choice that is yours to make. ”
I would disagree. I cannot just choose to be a liberal. There is no way I could choose to believe 99% of the liberal agenda, so really, I guess I am just made this way (by made this way, I mean I have uncommon sense, which wasn’t by choice).
Technically, as of now, being gay is still a choice. Science agrees. There is no gay gene. The head of the Human Genome Project even said that homosexuality isn’t hardwired.
“People with your attributes have been preferenced for centuries, I don’t see how you can deny that.”
I don’t, but just because they were preferred does not mean that I in any way am at an advantage because of it, nor does it mean that anyone who isn’t a white male is at a disadvantage because of it. You are trying to say ALL whites have benefited from past oppression of minorities and ALL blacks are at a disadvantage.
“said people passing laws to actively promote the destruction and marginalization of your people is pretty different.”
Well according to the DHS report claiming that anyone who is a Federalist needs to be watched and now have been labeled as ‘extremists’, I could easily argue that they are stacking it against my ideology. But the funny thing you mention here is, this is what is going on. Legislation is in place to marginalize people who are white males. Affirmative action is used not to lift a group up but to push a group below.
“And yes I’m taking it back to early 1900s America. Why? Because, again, it still has an effect today.”
But not on all black people, so why should affirmative action look solely at the color of the individual’s skin and not their advantage/disadvantage? You are saying all black people have less of an advantage than white people, which is complete bull. The son of Usher could get into college easier than the poorest white person with the exact same grades. Advantage and disadvantage have absolutely nothing to do with affirmative action.
“would that be unconstitutional?”
Yes. Equality under the law. They would have to sift through every man, woman, and child and determine who was put at a disadvantage because of it for it to be Constitutional.
“What the government did was unjust, and now it is trying to make up for that.”
The government is trying to make up for racial persecution by legislating racial persecution. Doesn’t that seem a bit backward to you?
“Very simple - this legislation is aimed at breaking barriers created by the government themselves in the past.”
The government is trying to break barriers made by the government by creating new barriers. That is just about as logical as saying you are going to stop rape by raping.