Jump to content

bad_teammate

Certifiably Surly
  • Posts

    20319
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Posts posted by bad_teammate

  1. Voting for the CRA of 1964, under a Democratic president...

    The original House version:

    • Southern Democrats: 7–87   (7–93%)
    • Southern Republicans: 0–10   (0–100%)
    • Northern Democrats: 145–9   (94–6%)
    • Northern Republicans: 138–24   (85–15%)

    The Senate version:

  2. 15 hours ago, BabaYaga said:

    So one donates to a lobby group.  The other wants to take away constitutional rights. Same thing...

    Both actively working to influence the legislative process to different ends.

    It is absolutely true that right-wingers can be hardened and radicalized by the existence of a black president or the mouthiness of teens. It is also absolutely true that the left-wingers can be hardened and radicalized, as well. It's not a one way thing.

  3. @Mole

    I think your second bullet point is the most important one. In terms of progress towards equality, the move from 0% equal to 80% equal is much simpler and far more straightforward than the move from 81% equal to 100% equal. Just like a car requires far more power to get from 101 - 200 mph than it did to get from 0 - 100 mph. The marginal gains in black equality over the last 50 years are far harder to quantify than going from slave to non-slave or going from no-voting-rights to equal-voting-rights.

    I think we agree on that.

    @DixonHur

    The CRA of 1964 prohibited employment discrimination along the following lines:
    - race/color
    - gender
    - nationality
    - religion

    The CRA also ended public segregation, desegregated schools, and solidified the right to vote.

    Your argument in the other thread was that it would have been better for blacks if they had waited until whites decided on their own to finally stop oppressing blacks, yes? I am not trying to be unfair, but I genuinely do not know how to re-state your argument in a way that makes it seem any less absurd.

    I guess the same is true of women, non-Christians, and non-white immigrants?

    Quote

    The entirety of my argument can be summed up in the idea that the combination of societal, judicial, and economic pressure is a more effective means of effecting civil change, then legislation.

    How does social pressure manifest itself in a representative democracy if not legislation? That's what representative democracy is, no?

    At the time of the implementation of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, it had majority appeal.

    civil-rights-act-august-1964.jpg?zoom=2&

    In the decades after, almost no one thinks the CRA of 1964 was NOT good for the country (1% of whites and 0% of blacks). (So you understand my skepticism regarding the actual existence of your multiple millionaire black friends who think the CRA was bad for blacks.)

    americans-in-2014.jpg?zoom=2&resize=665,

    I am not seeing where the problem is. I am not seeing any evidence of demonstrable harm from the CRA of 1964 and I certainly see no evidence that the CRA is unpopular.

  4. 34 minutes ago, SuingToGetAMessageBoard? said:

    The unemployment report seems misleading.   Much better jobs now for blacks than back then which is a result of the civil rights movement.  

    I absolutely agree. I was just making sure I included all the linked sources from the other threads in order to be as fair as possible to @DixonHur as I could.

    11 minutes ago, bernorange said:

    I like how BT felt the need to specify the Black Civil Rights Movement as if that clarifies which civil rights movement he is talking about.

    You're welcome. Other civil rights movements have existed in America and exist today. Women's rights, LGBT rights, immigrant rights, veteran's rights, etc...

  5. Some statements to start a discussion. I find these statements non-controversial.

    - The enslavement of blacks by whites in America was bad.

    - The increase of civil rights for blacks in America has been good.

    - Racial animosity between whites and blacks existed before the black civil rights movement began.

    - Whites and blacks are more likely to be friends, equal(ish) co-workers, romantic partners, and neighbors today than they were before the black civil rights movement began.

    - It is good when the relations between races improve.

    - Systemic racism was not cured by the progress of black civil rights.

    - The rights of black people should not be contingent on the good graces of white people.

    @DixonHur - Let's talk.

    --------------------------------------------------------------

    The school walkout thread derailed into a discussion of the lasting impact of black civil rights, so I'm separating that conversation out so it no longer distracts from the purpose of the thread.

    Some of the relevant links to outside sources:
    (WaPo) - Report: No progress for African Americans on homeownership, unemployment, and incarceration in 50 years
    (Cornell-Roper): Public Opinion on Civil Rights: Reflections on the Civil Rights Act of 1964
    (History.com): When America Despised the Irish: The 19th Century’s Refugee Crisis
    (Westfield State University): White Fragility
    (Brookings): Black Progress: How far we’ve come, and how far we have to go

  6. 7 hours ago, TahoeHorn said:

    I'm on an Internet board entertaining myself, talking to people who have proposals which they are clueless about.  I figure fewer than a hundred will read my posts.  Fewer than ten will care.

    You don't actually talk to the people who are clueless about guns.  You're ranting about the misuse of "assault rifle" among people who already know that term doesn't fit. You're ranting about "scary" guns with people who do not categorize guns by level of fear. You're talking to a bunch of gun owners.

    You are sinking to Swam levels of idiocy.

  7. When white people talk about the civil rights movement increasing racial animosity, they are manifesting white fragility.

    Quote

    White people in North America live in a social environment that protects and insulates them from race-based stress. This insulated environment of racial protection builds white expectations for racial comfort while at the same time lowering the ability to tolerate racial stress, leading to what I refer to as White Fragility. White Fragility is a state in which even a minimum amount of racial stress becomes intolerable, triggering a range of defensive moves. These moves include the outward display of emotions such as anger, fear, and guilt, and behaviors such as argumentation, silence, and leaving the stress-inducing situation. These behaviors, in turn, function to reinstate white racial equilibrium. This paper explicates the dynamics of White Fragility.

    The black civil rights movement forces the whites paying attention to actually consider and face racial strife. For centuries, whites had such power dominance over blacks that whites could essentially pretend there was no racial animosity. The whole time, of course, blacks are constantly facing the reality of overwhelming racial animosity, but they cannot talk about it or even let it show on their faces lest the white society literally murder them.

  8. You need to stop the Ben Shapiro "facts don't care about your feelings" schtick, because your arguments are almost entirely devoid of actual facts and your sources contradict you when you say things like "I still believe that giving any group special status does more harm than good, because it not only perpetuates stereotypes, but also increases any existing animosity...it becomes us against them."

    Brookings (your link, recall)

    - In 1958, 44 percent of whites said they would move if a black family became their next door neighbor; today the figure is 1 percent.

    - In 1964, the year the great Civil Rights Act was passed, only 18 percent of whites claimed to have a friend who was black; today 86 percent say they do, while 87 percent of blacks assert they have white friends.

    Facts don't care about your beliefs, I guess.

    Quote

    In America, the Industrial Revolution began in the Northern states...specifically in 1793 at a cotton mill in Pawtucket, RI.  By 1821, all Northern states were slave free.  With the abolition of slavery in the North came the abolitionists.  Weird how that happened.

    The state of Vermont's constitution in 1777 abolished slavery in that state. How is that possible if abolitionists only came after the abolition of slavery in the North (which actually didn't fully happen until after the Civil War)?

    Quote

    But progress doesn't always move at the pace you'd like it to, so the South lagged behind due to simple economics.  Slavery was profitable for the Southerners.  However, it would have happened in time...likely before 1888 when Brazil, the last of the Atlantic Slave Trade countries, formally abolished slavery.  So, while it may have taken about 20 years more to happen, it would have happened because it would have become unsustainable.  Not only would customers been demanding a change, but the costs associated with slave ownership would have eventually made slavery more costly than the alternative.  Econ 101.

    This is a load of supposition about what theoretically would have happened. I'll ask again, What movement towards freeing the slaves was already underway in the American South before the Civil War started?

    Old South apologists are constantly talking about how slavery would have worked itself out eventually, but I see no movement towards that in the antebellum South. You can feel confident in your convictions, but that's not worth much of anything.

    And given the South's continued violent and furious resistance to black civil rights, I have no reason to believe that a swell of racial fellow feeling would've materialized out of the thin, white air.

    It makes no sense that free labor is somehow devalued by machines. It is a basic law of economic capitalism that business will pay as little as it can get away with according to the law or market, so if it is legal to enslave free labor, what mechanism existed in the South to prevent the continuance of slavery?

    You harp on being some kind of cold data machine, but most of your argument is based on beliefs that you feel are true.

  9. I would bet that most Americans do not have any real firm position on guns. As gun advocates here can attest, most Americans don't know much of anything about guns. With proper sales, you could get a plurality of Americans to approve of machine guns or approve of a ban on all firearms.

  10. 6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

    It's delusion that there is not a significant number on the left on board with this rhetoric. They are getting bolder in revealing their intention, day by day. 

    Nah, I think many are simply changing their intentions.

    Just as many on the right are like, "Fine, fuck you, I'm finally donating to the NRA" there are those on the left saying, "Fine, fuck you, take all the fucking guns away."

  11. 35 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    “Repeal the Second Amendment”

    Clear enough?  Tweeted out by Senator Karen Carter Petersen.  But she doesn’t speak for you though.....

    OK, so what does Delaney Tarr have to do with Louisiana State Senator Karen Carter Petersen? Do they attend the same lib cabal meetings?

  12. 20 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    And to repeal the 2nd amendment.   Oh wait.  No.  Sorry.  That’s the Vice Chair of the DNC.  Or did she misspeak...

    Holy shit Delaney Tarr is the Vice Chair of the DNC? Hell yeah, girl!

  13. 1 hour ago, DixonHur said:

    Thanks 1865,  but what the fuck does that have to do with the CRA?

    In the post you quote, I do not specifically limit my statement to the CRA. I am responding to your idiotic assertion that "giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them" and, in doing so, am listing various different legal protections given to blacks. This includes the 13th amendment, the CRA of 1964, the VRA of 1965, and many other pieces of legislation that have materially and irrefutably improved the lives of black Americans as a whole.

    Quote

    So while slavery sucked for the slaves, their decedents have benefited from it.  Sorry, facts don't have feelings.

    Oh hell yes dude, hit me with that good "slavery was actually good for the blacks, so YOU'RE WELCOME!" shit.

    Hell yeah let's say blacks are better off in America than they are in Africa because colonialism isn't a thing and apartheid didn't exist and white supremacy didn't completely fuck over that entire continent for centuries. Come on, Ben Shaprio and Daily Stormer, pump that white supremacy right into my veins.

    Quote

    Really?

    Yes, really, answer the question. If the Industrial Revolution was bound to free the slaves, why was it not done in the American South? Why did the American South find slavery so vital to their lives that they literally seceded and started a war to protect it? What movement towards freeing the slaves was already underway in the American South before the Civil War started? Please educate me.
     

    Quote

     Is if supposed to be shocking that minorities living in areas with the most racism benefited most from the laws?

    Yes, that's obvious. So why did you say that "giving legal protections to minorities has been the worst thing that's happened to them"? You're contradicting yourself.

  14. 5 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    Breakdowns at the state and federal law enforcement levels for a crackpot that was reported dozens of times.  No.  Let's not look at that. 

    So if the enforcement had been done effectively... would it have stopped him? lol

    Quote

    Let's also not look at an incident a matter of weeks later when yet another copy-cat killer tried to ply his craft in MD, and then when faced with armed resistance took his own life before he could even get started.  But yeah, I'm being disingenuous.

    You are. Did the MD shooter want to be a mass shooter or did he just want to kill the people he felt were responsible for his poor little broken male heart? Did he kill himself because he was confronted? How he hell would you know the answer to either of those questions?

  15. 5 hours ago, krutov said:

    let's just say that's a rather charitable characterization of the journolist story, and leave it at that.

    We don't have to. We can discuss it. I think you want to leave it at that because Journolist only works as a scare story if it is not discussed at length, because it's actually a (god forgive me for using this bullshit word) nothingburger.

    Journolist was an e-mail list of like-minded journalists, editors, policy idiots, and Internet personalities. They talked about shit, argued, and advocated for positions and coverage. That is literally it.

    It was coordination in the sense that humans talk to each other and share ideas. No boss/employee relationships. No power dynamics.

    Quote

    as for the sinclair story, it depends on the script.  the script in question was an apolitical editorial statement by the organization.  sort of like putting "democracy dies in darkness" on your banner when a republican gets elected: it betrays a partisan leaning but still commits to telling the truth.   pretty much all you can ask of a news organization.

    It was neither apolitical nor was it presented as if it was from Sinclair. The script is specifically written to make it seem like it is coming from the local news organization and not the central Sinclair mothership.

    And I guess producing a piece from Sebastian Gorka ranting about the deep state as a "must-run" is also apolitical? lol

  16. 3 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    So if "someone" could not be stopped is incorrect - then they can be stopped, then how are you also not claiming that we are not eliminating all shootings.

    mother

    fukken

    brain

    genius

     

  17. Laws are only worthwhile if they solve the problem 100%. Anything less is a waste of time and freedom.

    ~very Libertarianishly~
    "First we start with age of consent laws."

     

  18. 2 minutes ago, BabaYaga said:

    A true honor to see such a sharp mind at work:

    No amount of gun control is going to stop someone hell-bent on killing someone.

    BULL. SHIT.

    That's a provably false statement. 

    So he didn't actually make the statement you said he made? #sad

×
×
  • Create New...