Supreme Court rejects affirmative action at colleges as unconstitutional

[TheMysteriousGX]

That was 2022. 2021 had it's own round of that, contemporaneous to the court case and which had no chance of passing at all. This year had another round of it, if I recall. So did 2016.

Often it's a republican pushing it when Dems are in power, because if it passes it can be used as election fodder to their benefit. "The other guy wants your daughters to come home in body bags" and the like.

Look, can you find any substantiated example of a Republican pushing for an equal draft with democrats opposing it?

Because I can only find examples of the opposite

Congress moves toward requiring women to register for the draft - Roll Call

Congress is moving toward requiring women to register for the draft after the House included a requirement that they do so in a defense bill.

rollcall.com

Like, nobody's pushing hard on it, due to it's completely irrelevant nature, but whenever it comes up it's only some of the GOP that oppose it

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That's not where slavery came up though, was it?

When you brought slavery it up, you brought up specifically American slavery. And then when I responded about American slavery... you then bizarrely moaned that I'd focused on American slavery.

The reason I brought up slavery was because slavery can be racist (it doesn't have) just like AA can be racist too. American slavery was definitely racist and so was American AA. That's why I brought it up to begin with because certain people here don't want to actually admit AA was racist and bad.

 

[Silvanus]

The reason I brought up slavery was because slavery can be racist (it doesn't have) just like AA can be racist too. American slavery was definitely racist and so was American AA. That's why I brought it up to begin with because certain people here don't want to actually admit AA was racist and bad.

And why did you then complain that I gave a response focused on American slavery?

 

[Phoenixmgs]

And why did you then complain that I gave a response focused on American slavery?

You talking about this post/question?

If American slavery is racist, how are racist AA policies not racist? Slavery CAN be racist or not, same with AA, but when someone says AA is racist, they are talking about the racism obviously. Yet, I have to inundated with senseless claims about police or capitalism or math being inherently racist, and you guys won't even say super obvious racist thing is racist, this is how ridiculous this conversation is. The fact that we are on page 23 now when this should've like 1 page long with everyone saying like "cool, a bit less racism now" and that should've been it.

---

Is @TheMysteriousGX, @Silvanus, @Ag3ma going to just say it's good the SCOTUS got rid of some racism? Can we simply agree on something this fucking simple?

 

[Silvanus]

You talking about this post/question?

That, and the post before it, which is the first time you asked me about slavery:

So was American slavery racist?

So I responded about American slavery. Saying that unlike AA, there is no "could be or could not be" about its racism.

Then you seemingly objected that my reply focused on American slavery, rather than slavery as a whole:

I said slavery CAN be racist, note how I didn't put American before it.

...despite the fact you were the one who chose to focus on American slavery specifically. Not me.

----

Is @TheMysteriousGX, @Silvanus, @Ag3ma going to just say it's good the SCOTUS got rid of some racism? Can we simply agree on something this fucking simple?

I don't believe they did "get rid of some racism". You're still just insisting everyone accept your bunk premise that AA is automatically racist.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Is @TheMysteriousGX, @Silvanus, @Ag3ma going to just say it's good the SCOTUS got rid of some racism? Can we simply agree on something this fucking simple?

It's hilarious that this topic has you devolved into just repeating "do you agree with my simplistic strawman or not, y/n" constantly, for pages, when it's clear that the topic is way more complicated than that

Anyway:

Despite the existence of specific scholarship funds for a wide variety of gender and racial specific groups, white dudes still take home a disproportionate majority of scholarship funds

In light of that, would you declare those specific scholarships unacceptably racist and allow that disproportionate gap to get even wider?

 

[Satinavian]

The reason I brought up slavery was because slavery can be racist (it doesn't have) just like AA can be racist too. American slavery was definitely racist and so was American AA. That's why I brought it up to begin with because certain people here don't want to actually admit AA was racist and bad.

The problem with that comparison is that American slavery is not bad because it is racist, it is bad because it was slavery. Non racist slavery is also considered pretty bad nowadays.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

That, and the post before it, which is the first time you asked me about slavery:



So I responded about American slavery. Saying that unlike AA, there is no "could be or could not be" about its racism.

Then you seemingly objected that my reply focused on American slavery, rather than slavery as a whole:



...despite the fact you were the one who chose to focus on American slavery specifically. Not me.

----


I don't believe they did "get rid of some racism". You're still just insisting everyone accept your bunk premise that AA is automatically racist.

There is also no "could be or could not be" about AA's racism either. Notice how I removed "American" when I said "Slavery CAN be racist or not"? AA, just like slavery, can be racist or not, but American versions were definitely racist.

You said "American slavery is not something that "could be racist or could not be". It just was. There's no "could not be". And I never said that or alluded to that... that was my point.

How is discriminating against a race(s) not racism?

It's hilarious that this topic has you devolved into just repeating "do you agree with my simplistic strawman or not, y/n" constantly, for pages, when it's clear that the topic is way more complicated than that

Do you even know what a strawman is? I've been straight up talking about the literally title of the thread the entire time, yet I'm the one here strawmanning?

You can't even say that discriminating against a race is racist.

The problem with that comparison is that American slavery is not bad because it is racist, it is bad because it was slavery. Non racist slavery is also considered pretty bad nowadays.

The comparison wasn't because both are bad but because both were racist. American AA, just like slavery, was racist. You can't say one was racist and another wasn't racist.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Do you even know what a strawman is? I've been straight up talking about the literally title of the thread the entire time, yet I'm the one here strawmanning?

You can't even say that discriminating against a race is racist.

So we should scrap all of the race and sex based scholarships, further widening the already disproportionate gap in scholarship money for white dudes.

To not be racist or sexist

Hey, do you play strategy games? Do you know what a snowball effect is?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Super cool how, since Pheonix resurrected the thread, I've now had both main arguments I had at the beginning of the thread, with the same people, verbatim

Including the one about the draft.

Kinda think it's time to let it die. Clearly nobody's argument is enough to change anybody's mind, considering they haven't actually changed. Might've even devolved

 

[Phoenixmgs]

So we should scrap all of the race and sex based scholarships, further widening the already disproportionate gap in scholarship money for white dudes.

To not be racist or sexist

Hey, do you play strategy games? Do you know what a snowball effect is?

Again, is discriminating against race racism? Yes or no?

Should white people then just be slaves for X amount of years America had slavery to even it out?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Again, is discriminating against race racism? Yes or no?

Should white people then just be slaves for X amount of years America had slavery to even it out?

Gonna take that as a hard yes on eliminating scholarships for women and minorities

Is the United States allowed to redress any of its race-based crimes or would that be racist?

 

[Silvanus]

There is also no "could be or could not be" about AA's racism either. Notice how I removed "American" when I said "Slavery CAN be racist or not"? AA, just like slavery, can be racist or not, but American versions were definitely racist.

So there is a "could be or could not be" about AA, too, then, but you're apparently happy they banned all possible implementations, including the non-racist ones.

How is discriminating against a race(s) not racism?

Plenty of forms of AA are not functionally discriminatory.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Gonna take that as a hard yes on eliminating scholarships for women and minorities

Is the United States allowed to redress any of its race-based crimes or would that be racist?

Is discriminating people based on race racist? Yes or no.

As long as you don't use racism to do so.

So there is a "could be or could not be" about AA, too, then, but you're apparently happy they banned all possible implementations, including the non-racist ones.



Plenty of forms of AA are not functionally discriminatory.

The SCOTUS banned food stamps, medicaid, WIC, etc? That's news to me.

Literally all AA is discriminatory, that's literally the point of it. Nobody cares that things are discriminatory in nature because most things are discriminatory in nature. You and everyone discriminates tons every single day. However, only certain forms of AA are racist, that is a bad way to discriminate.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Is discriminating people based on race racist? Yes or no.

You already said you'd get rid of those scholarships, furthering the gap

As long as you don't use racism to do so.

How? If the government has specifically wronged black people, how do you redress that without specifically helping black people?

How does that even make sense?

 

[Silvanus]

The SCOTUS banned food stamps, medicaid, WIC, etc? That's news to me.

Do you consider those things to be AA?

And if so, how do you square that with your insistence that American forms of AA were definitely racist?

Literally all AA is discriminatory, that's literally the point of it. Nobody cares that things are discriminatory in nature because most things are discriminatory in nature. You and everyone discriminates tons every single day. However, only certain forms of AA are racist, that is a bad way to discriminate.

"Discrimination" has more than one sense. You could use the term to refer to any innocuous approach that targets one thing more than another-- making it 'discrimination' to choose apples over pears at the grocery shop.

That innocuous sense seems to be the way you're using it in this post here. But how you were speaking before made it clear you were using the word in a much more specific sense-- to do with prejudicial favouring of people.

I do not believe AA involves discrimination in that latter sense, because it is applied to situations in which its beneficiaries already suffer unequal treatment in the opposite direction. For that reason it's not true to say AA brings about an unduly "favourable" outcome.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

You already said you'd get rid of those scholarships, furthering the gap

How? If the government has specifically wronged black people, how do you redress that without specifically helping black people?

How does that even make sense?

Is discriminating against a race racism? Yes or No? Can you not follow a super simple direction?

You help everyone in certain predicaments because anyone of any race can be in such predicaments.

Do you consider those things to be AA?

And if so, how do you square that with your insistence that American forms of AA were definitely racist?



"Discrimination" has more than one sense. You could use the term to refer to any innocuous approach that targets one thing more than another-- making it 'discrimination' to choose apples over pears at the grocery shop.

That innocuous sense seems to be the way you're using it in this post here. But how you were speaking before made it clear you were using the word in a much more specific sense-- to do with prejudicial favouring of people.

I do not believe AA involves discrimination in that latter sense, because it is applied to situations in which its beneficiaries already suffer unequal treatment in the opposite direction. For that reason it's not true to say AA brings about an unduly "favourable" outcome.

Depending on how you're defining AA, they can. I don't really care about semantics argument. The racist parts of American AA were racist. How has this concept taken 24 fucking pages? Pulling fucking teeth...

I've said "DISCRIMINATING AGAINST RACE" not just discrimination. If you give people assistance, you literally have to discriminate unless you give everyone the same assistance and then it's not assistance to those that actually need it if everyone is getting it. The term discrimination gets a bad rap because of super obvious stuff like racism and sexism but society would collapse if you couldn't discriminate, your life everyday literally depends on it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Is discriminating against a race racism? Yes or No? Can you not follow a super simple direction?

You help everyone in certain predicaments because anyone of any race can be in such predicaments.

Wild shit, being against reparations because they're racist

 

[Ag3ma]

Wild shit, being against reparations because they're racist

As far as I can see, Phoenixmgs's argument can be summed up as: if a person is discriminated against because of their race, society cannot do anything about that otherwise it would be racist.

I just don't really know what anyone can be expected to do with that.

 

[Silvanus]

Depending on how you're defining AA, they can. I don't really care about semantics argument. The racist parts of American AA were racist. How has this concept taken 24 fucking pages? Pulling fucking teeth...

How /I'm/ defining AA? But /you're/ the one who chose to introduce those concepts into this discussion.

So if you think they do count, then you have to abandon the idea that all American AA is racist. But if you don't think they count, then why did you bring them up? Your counterargument falls through.

I've said "DISCRIMINATING AGAINST RACE" not just discrimination. If you give people assistance, you literally have to discriminate unless you give everyone the same assistance and then it's not assistance to those that actually need it if everyone is getting it. The term discrimination gets a bad rap because of super obvious stuff like racism and sexism but society would collapse if you couldn't discriminate, your life everyday literally depends on it.

Uh-huh. So AA counts as the innocuous, unavoidable form of discrimination. It doesn't count as the racist, undue favour form of discrimination. Clear enough?