Women and Minorities: A Question.

• Gblock

  bigdaddy2003;1397817 wrote:Right. That makes a lot of sense to me. You call me out because you said my statement to boatshoes proves I can't debate but you reply with this to him after his post instead of replying to my last post aimed towards you. By the way doesn't your latter statement contradict your original statement towards me? I mean a person who calls someone out for what you did should never use the same reasoning as a retort even if it's supposed to be mocking another person. Here is why your statement makes 0 sense though. I've read a ton of boatshoes' political posts and every post on this thread and like I said he's made it clear about how he feels on the subject of race and it's aligned with the position of a person such as Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz who are liberal Democrats. It's not hard to follow but I understand you've lost a few brain cells. You did make me laugh earlier in the thread though when you made it out that conservatives are the ones who call people names to avoid debates. I guess you need to read my Twitter interactions. I could go through and show you valid debate points I've tweeted to liberals who call me a moron or racist and then block me so they don't have to keep talking. I didn't just label him and stop talking. If I would've called him an idiot for his opinion and never returned to the thread then you would have a point. You're saying I'm a political retard because I'm not posting facts on the subject but neither is he. There are no facts regarding how you think a group of people should be treated. It's fine that he believes minorities should be allowed to have free reign in the country and white people have to take anything that happens to them but don't expect that opinion to be welcomed by everyone.

  black people have free reign and white people have to take anything that happens to them...sounds legit
• O-Trap

  

  bigdaddy2003;1397817 wrote:Right. That makes a lot of sense to me. You call me out because you said my statement to boatshoes proves I can't debate but you reply with this to him after his post instead of replying to my last post aimed towards you. By the way doesn't your latter statement contradict your original statement towards me? I mean a person who calls someone out for what you did should never use the same reasoning as a retort even if it's supposed to be mocking another person. Here is why your statement makes 0 sense though. I've read a ton of boatshoes' political posts and every post on this thread and like I said he's made it clear about how he feels on the subject of race and it's aligned with the position of a person such as Rachel Maddow or Ed Schultz who are liberal Democrats. It's not hard to follow but I understand you've lost a few brain cells. You did make me laugh earlier in the thread though when you made it out that conservatives are the ones who call people names to avoid debates. I guess you need to read my Twitter interactions. I could go through and show you valid debate points I've tweeted to liberals who call me a moron or racist and then block me so they don't have to keep talking. I didn't just label him and stop talking. If I would've called him an idiot for his opinion and never returned to the thread then you would have a point. You're saying I'm a political retard because I'm not posting facts on the subject but neither is he. There are no facts regarding how you think a group of people should be treated. It's fine that he believes minorities should be allowed to have free reign in the country and white people have to take anything that happens to them but don't expect that opinion to be welcomed by everyone.

  /O-Trap't
• Gblock

  haha ^^^
• rmolin73

  

  sleeper;1397724 wrote:Like I said, minorities need to grow up.

  Yet the only people whining, crying and stomping their feet on this site are a few white guys. Get out of your little fictitious world. Do some blacks leech on the system? Yes! But you guys that cry about the few that do are just as bad as them. Just STFU and get yours.
• sleeper

  

  rmolin73;1397951 wrote:Yet the only people whining, crying and stomping their feet on this site are a few white guys. Get out of your little fictitious world. Do some blacks leech on the system? Yes! But you guys that cry about the few that do are just as bad as them. Just STFU and get yours.

  I'm sure you say the same thing about blacks in the 1950's and earlier. "Stop whining and crying". LOL
• Gblock

  sleeper;1397972 wrote:I'm sure you say the same thing about blacks in the 1950's and earlier. "Stop whining and crying". LOL

  
  
  yes AA is the same as what was happening to blacks in the 50-60's aka emmit till...got ya:thumbup:
• O-Trap

  

  Gblock;1397978 wrote:
  
  yes AA is the same as what was happening to blacks in the 50-60's aka emmit till...got ya:thumbup:

  In all fairness, what happened to blacks as a whole in the '50s and '60s, on average, is not even what happened to Emmit Till. Extremes don't define what is normative.
  
  Now documentation being different through the time periods, this would be impractical, but would it be difficult for someone to cite stories today of black men shooting and killing white people?
  
  Again, extreme cases.
• sleeper

  

  Severity is irrelevant. It's still wrong and supporting racism(or as liberals call it, please try not to laugh: PRO-DISCRIMINATION) is wrong.
  
  I will continue to fight for equality rather than promote special treatment based on race. Please let me know when black people are good enough to earn success on their own.
• Gblock

  well comparing AA to what was normal for treatment of blacks during that time is just as laughable was my point
  
  as far as blacks killing whites..meh they mostly kill other blacks
• Gblock

  and the guys who did that to emmit till were not even convicted
• sleeper

  

  Gblock;1397985 wrote:well comparing AA to what was normal for treatment of blacks during that time is just as laughable was my point
  
  as far as blacks killing whites..meh they mostly kill other blacks

  Racism and prejudice is no laughing matter. :mad:
• FatHobbit

  

  O-Trap;1397982 wrote:In all fairness, what happened to blacks as a whole in the '50s and '60s, on average, is not even what happened to Emmit Till. Extremes don't define what is normative.
  
  Now documentation being different through the time periods, this would be impractical, but would it be difficult for someone to cite stories today of black men shooting and killing white people?
  
  Again, extreme cases.

  Even if you remove the extreme cases, there is hardly a comparison between any black on white violence you can find today and the organized repression and violence that blacks historically faced from whites.
• O-Trap

  

  Gblock;1397985 wrote:well comparing AA to what was normal for treatment of blacks during that time is just as laughable was my point
  
  as far as blacks killing whites..meh they mostly kill other blacks

  
  I couldn't say, as I haven't looked up the numbers. I know this to be the common sentiment, but is there actual substantiation for this? I'm just curious.
  
  Overall, I agree with your former point. Specifically as it pertains to jobs ... eh, I don't know. I suppose I have to leave it at that, for now ... that I don't know.
  

  Gblock;1397988 wrote:and the guys who did that to emmit till were not even convicted

  Neither was OJ. It happens.
• O-Trap

  

  FatHobbit;1397991 wrote:Even if you remove the extreme cases, there is hardly a comparison between any black on white violence you can find today and the organized repression and violence that blacks historically faced from whites.

  Historically, I'm not disagreeing. As it pertains to those alive TODAY (ie those who might benefit or be limited a la AA), though, I'm not sure we're dealing with as wide a difference.
• sleeper

  

  Discrimination: Okay as long as it benefits my voting base. :thumbup:
• rmolin73

  

  sleeper;1397972 wrote:I'm sure you say the same thing about blacks in the 1950's and earlier. "Stop whining and crying". LOL

  We're not talking about the 50's we're talking about now. So continue your bitching and moaning about a few blacks bitching and moaning. You do it so well.
• sleeper

  

  rmolin73;1398007 wrote:We're not talking about the 50's we're talking about now. So continue your bitching and moaning about a few blacks bitching and moaning. You do it so well.

  Oh right I just just stop "complaining" and allow RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION to occur. :rolleyes:
  
  Glad you to see you support RACISM. :thumbdown:
• FatHobbit

  

  O-Trap;1397996 wrote:Historically, I'm not disagreeing. As it pertains to those alive TODAY (ie those who might benefit or be limited a la AA), though, I'm not sure we're dealing with as wide a difference.

  I agree somewhat that nobody alive today faced the same discrimination as their parents. But their parents and grand parents faced significant discrimination and they didn't get to start with the same advantages that most white people get. My family was hardly rich but I did have a lot of advantages that other people did not have. (You could argue that poor white people have the same disadvantages as poor black people and I would not disagree) The American dream is that children get to work hard and improve their life so they can have a better life than their parents. When all the parents of a certain group have been repressed, then all of their children are going to start out a little bit farther behind. I don't mind giving them a boost so they can be successful.
• rmolin73

  

  sleeper;1398011 wrote:Oh right I just just stop "complaining" and allow RACISM AND DISCRIMINATION to occur. :rolleyes:
  
  Glad you to see you support RACISM. :thumbdown:

  Here you go being a drama queen. I guarantee you I do more to eliminate racism/class ism in my personal life than you.
  
  sleeper=Al Sharpton of the OC
• rmolin73

  

  FatHobbit;1398015 wrote:I agree somewhat that nobody alive today faced the same discrimination as their parents. But their parents and grand parents faced significant discrimination and they didn't get to start with the same advantages that most white people get. My family was hardly rich but I did have a lot of advantages that other people did not have. (You could argue that poor white people have the same disadvantages as poor black people and I would not disagree) The American dream is that children get to work hard and improve their life so they can have a better life than their parents. When all the parents of a certain group have been repressed, then all of their children are going to start out a little bit farther behind. I don't mind giving them a boost so they can be successful.

  Reps! Most fail to realize that we are moving more towards a class struggle and moving slowly away from a race struggle. No matter how much the media or the oc tries to make it seem.
• Crimson streak

  

  rmolin73;1398016 wrote:Here you go being a drama queen. I guarantee you I do more to eliminate racism/class ism in my personal life than you.
  
  sleeper=Al Sharpton of the OC

  
  Speaking of al sharpton he plays a big role in keeping racism alive and kicking. The shit that dude says is mind boggling
• rmolin73

  

  Crimson streak;1398027 wrote:Speaking of al sharpton he plays a big role in keeping racism alive and kicking. The **** that dude says is mind boggling

  That is his goal to keep racism going so that he is relevant.
• Crimson streak

  

  rmolin73;1398031 wrote:That is his goal to keep racism going so that he is relevant.

  
  I love the fact that almost every black person hates his ass too lol
• O-Trap

  

  FatHobbit;1398015 wrote:I agree somewhat that nobody alive today faced the same discrimination as their parents. But their parents and grand parents faced significant discrimination and they didn't get to start with the same advantages that most white people get. My family was hardly rich but I did have a lot of advantages that other people did not have. (You could argue that poor white people have the same disadvantages as poor black people and I would not disagree) The American dream is that children get to work hard and improve their life so they can have a better life than their parents. When all the parents of a certain group have been repressed, then all of their children are going to start out a little bit farther behind. I don't mind giving them a boost so they can be successful.

  I certainly don't think it's fair that some start out more behind the 8-ball than others. However, I don't think it's any more fair to pass over someone else who is best qualified to do something based purely on race/color. At this point, I think color is too broad a brush to use for any sort of activity like this. The potential with using it exists for the children of someone like Oprah Winfrey to get these same "boosts." It may benefit the company by adding "diversity" (hardly) to their employee base to fulfill an outdated quota, so why not hire Oprah's kid over John Average's kid based on color?
  
  I'm not okay with that, but that's the current ... broken ... system in place.
• gut

  Eliminate legacy favoritism from top schools and you do a lot to level the playing field. You'd also have to eliminate weightings for high school, as well.
  
  Harvard and Ivy-league grads obviously have more opportunities than most other schools - start out at a better job and it's a leg-up for all future jobs, graduate school, etc. But what are the chances to go to Harvard for a non-legacy from a public school? Practically 0 unless you are a minority.