Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofle
(Post 1811969)
Probably easier to just show the images because this quote game is weird.
Image A.
https://i.gyazo.com/bac99a5c1c7e5196...6de47b4d2b.png
Image B.
https://i.gyazo.com/014a8ebb9b5f4bbf...6cca770bb5.png
Response:
1. My argument was that he isn't being racist (as you hinted at in your initial question), he's being openly opposed to radical Islam and Islam by association. He's also openly against illegal immigration from Mexico. People who claim he seems to be focused on "preventing people of colour" from entering the USA need to provide evidence for that claim. And the fact that most Mexicans and Arabs are slightly more brown than your average white person isn't evidence.
2. I've explained my arguments for Men's rights plenty of times. Bringing up simple facts about genital mutilation, divorce court disparities, jail time disparities, parental time disparities etc. doesn't seem to have any impact. Here's a link with links if you want to look through them: https://www.avoiceformen.com/activism/about/
3. You're explaining a problem that simply can't be solved through "justice" of any kind. Play out any scenario where we have to transfer justice by force in your head:
So you're going to make Whites (and Asians I guess?) pay a Black Tax? That'll go down well. Way to stoke racial tension, make Black people feel more oppressed and victimized etc.
So we are going to make it easier for Black people to get into college and University even if they have worse grades and take the place of a more suitable student? That went down well. And this could extend to hiring policies.
As I said, you can't just force equality when it comes to outcome (equality under the law being a totally different issue). It's not possible. Yes, there are some issues that Black Americans have to overcome which they have no control over, but there comes a point when you simply have to take responsibility for your own actions.
|
Just gonna take things out of the spoiler tag at this point. We should show off our conversation, which has been quite fun so far!
1. You're right in the 'there's more smoke than there's fire' sense. Outside of broad statements regarding 'Mexicans', there aren't overt paeans to racism in Trump's speeches. His downplaying of white nationalism, his targeting of ethnic groups that are historically non-white, and the series of housing discrimination lawsuits brought against him by the DOJ indicate that the amount of smoke means there's a least a little fire. Can I prove Trump is racist? No. Outside of people who say, "I am racist", you're going to have a tough time. His words, his policies, the people he surrounds himself with, his assumption that a black reporter could hook him up with the Congressional Black Caucus - all of this leads people not blinded by MAGA to say, huh, his actions sure do seem to target non-white, non-Christians. Others have talked about how illogical a physical wall is and how much a travel ban will backfire, spectacularly, so I won't re-iterate here. Whenever you wonder why liberals get so angry and irritated over his comments, just flip it to Obama. If he said that radical Christianity was responsible for the murder of dozens of American citizens, most of the right would flip its collective ****. But I digress...
2. I've gone through these arguments many, many times before. The best I can do here, because I'm frankly not going to type out refutations that have been made by smarter people than I, is an analogy. Feminism (not the male genocide types, but the other 99.8% of feminists) presents as a serious, but not necessarily fatal condition, let's say Ebola. Feminism goes to a hospital, let's call it, Human Attention and Governmental Redress (HAGR). HAGR says, "woah, Feminism, that's a pretty nasty case of Ebola you've got there, let's get started on fixing this before it gets any worse." Suddenly, Men's Rights Activists show up. "Hey, HAGR, we were just on a run and my nipples got chaffed. I feel really uncomfortable in my shirt. Can you help me?" HAGR says, "sure MRA, but I need to sort out this Ebola thing first. By the way, we'll have a vaccine for Ebola at the end of this process, so both of you will benefit!" MRA then walks slowly outside (the nipple chaffing, you see) and sets fire to the hospital. Because HAGR is only fair, in their mind, if they treat both Ebola and chaffed nipples at the same time.
MRAs aren't invalid by definition. But in the scheme of human tragedy, human failing, and human oppression, women have been given short shrift for thousands of years. If you have a specific topic you're passionate about, I'll debate that. I just don't have the energy to take on the entirely of Molyneux's fanbase.
3. The strawliest of strawmen. I never said tax white people. I never said reparations. I never said anything other than PERSONAL acknowledgement that, IN THE AGGREGATE, being a white man will result in better material outcomes in the United States of America.
Affirmative Action, when applied appropriately and as intended, would result in the following:
College Application - Candidate 1 - Dan Smith. White, 18, 3.9 GPA from Wellington Prep, Somewhere, Vermont. Lacrosse team 3 years. Debate team 1 year. Eagle Scout.
Candidate 2 - De'Lonte Jackson. Black, 18. 3.8 GPA from PS 148, Bronx, NY. Basketball team 2 years. Big Brothers program 2 years.
Yale should take Candidate 2. Why? Despite the disadvantages one faces living in a highly urbanized area, De'Lonte has achieved nearly identical schooling marks, and participated in after-school activities. Who's the better student? Hard to say. Could very well be Dan Smith. But holistically? Considering the challenges endemic to De'Lonte's neighborhood, it very well could be him. It's also important to note that this isn't a case of 'this school or no school'. Dan Smith will have other opportunities. Where you went to school is less important than what you did while there anyway.
On a case by case basis, Affirmative Action can really suck. Again, I get it. Individual circumstances should dictate our impressions and decisions. But when it comes to national legislation on areas such as race or gender, the simplest application of these principles is (usually) what needs to be codified. There are historical reasons for this. Many of them involving black people. Hmmm, something about a Crow, and 3 Constitutional Amendments, and the National Guard needing to be deployed on multiple occasions, and domestic terrorism or something. Hmmm...
Goofle, I think I understand you. You're young, probably right around 21, if not younger, right? I'd bet we have very similar views on what is fair. I too think you should be judged on the, to quote Dr. King, the content of your character, rather than the color of your skin. And the good news is, we're getting there. Post-racial America is a real possibility. But we're not there. Political gerrymandering, disparity in journalism covering crime (thug vs. troubled youth, etc.), prison sentencing, etc. Affirmative Action is not a perfect solution. But it beats reparations. And it sure beats doing nothing.
