Growing Hidden White Racism

[taichiliberal]

They can thank the Obama administration and the campaign arm of that. Educated whites are not becoming 'more racist', they are becoming less PC. Meaning issues like affirmative action and such have lost support.

Are you insinuating that the more overt forms of bigotry and racism are in the majority of "liberals" who no longer support such issues as "affirmative action"?

No, the inference to be had was that the use of the 'race card' regarding differences in what should be policies, have caused many to recognize the problems with PC. Affirmative action type policies had their place in 60's and mid-70's, should have been dropped then. Bakke should have won. But the court ruled otherwise. There really was barely a blip, PC had established it's foothold. But the still waters run deep. The problem was obvious.


Now it's in the open. Reverse discrimination is wrong. Minorities are being tarred with the actions.

Before going all 'racist' on me, my take would be that if a company chose to hire a minority company or individual, BECAUSE that would bring in more business, fine. IF a student comes from an area/school/family with less advantages than 'average', a university can take their scores and disadvantages into consideration, PROVIDED that it is on income or lack thereof, not race.

Again, how does all this RETRO fighting over 40 year old affirmative action cases coincide with th OP's statements regarding the rise in racist and bigoted actions and advocation in this country since Obama was elected? Remember, it was the FBI and Secret Service folk that pointed out how it was anti-black prejudice words and actions and threats on the rise. NOTHING in their evaluations pointed to the supposition and conjecture you and JimBowie advocate. So again, how do YOU and the OP get from point A to point B?

 

[Annie]

Are you insinuating that the more overt forms of bigotry and racism are in the majority of "liberals" who no longer support such issues as "affirmative action"?

No, the inference to be had was that the use of the 'race card' regarding differences in what should be policies, have caused many to recognize the problems with PC. Affirmative action type policies had their place in 60's and mid-70's, should have been dropped then. Bakke should have won. But the court ruled otherwise. There really was barely a blip, PC had established it's foothold. But the still waters run deep. The problem was obvious.


Now it's in the open. Reverse discrimination is wrong. Minorities are being tarred with the actions.

Before going all 'racist' on me, my take would be that if a company chose to hire a minority company or individual, BECAUSE that would bring in more business, fine. IF a student comes from an area/school/family with less advantages than 'average', a university can take their scores and disadvantages into consideration, PROVIDED that it is on income or lack thereof, not race.

Again, how does all this RETRO fighting over 40 year old affirmative action cases coincide with th OP's statements regarding the rise in racist and bigoted actions and advocation in this country since Obama was elected? Remember, it was the FBI and Secret Service folk that pointed out how it was anti-black prejudice words and actions and threats on the rise. NOTHING in their evaluations pointed to the supposition and conjecture you and JimBowie advocate. So again, how do YOU and the OP get from point A to point B?

It has to do with what they are calling racism. It isn't It's a rejection of what has become 'established' rules.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Growing Hidden White Racism

How do you know that if it's hidden?

 

[Katzndogz]

They can thank the Obama administration and the campaign arm of that. Educated whites are not becoming 'more racist', they are becoming less PC. Meaning issues like affirmative action and such have lost support.

Are you insinuating that the more overt forms of bigotry and racism are in the majority of "liberals" who no longer support such issues as "affirmative action"?

No, the inference to be had was that the use of the 'race card' regarding differences in what should be policies, have caused many to recognize the problems with PC. Affirmative action type policies had their place in 60's and mid-70's, should have been dropped then. Bakke should have won. But the court ruled otherwise. There really was barely a blip, PC had established it's foothold. But the still waters run deep. The problem was obvious.

Now it's in the open. Reverse discrimination is wrong. Minorities are being tarred with the actions.

Before going all 'racist' on me, my take would be that if a company chose to hire a minority company or individual, BECAUSE that would bring in more business, fine. IF a student comes from an area/school/family with less advantages than 'average', a university can take their scores and disadvantages into consideration, PROVIDED that it is on income or lack thereof, not race.

After rejecting Bakke to accept the incompentent Patrick Chavis, Bakke did go on to become a respected doctor. Patrick Chavis was never qualified to be a doctor, not with all the affirmative action in the world. His incompetence killled several patients, he lost his license and was shot to death at a Foster's Freeze in Hawthorne California.

Affirmative action is like putting lipstick on a pig. Not even the pig wearing the lipstick, just putting it up there.

 

[Samson]

This is no 'social trend,' it is merely one person's subjective impression. Nothing more to it than that.

As much as it pains me to agree with anyone who epitomizes stupidity as clearly as yourself, I must agree: How is anyone aware of anything, including changes in social attitude, if it is "Hidden."

Apparently the only one that sees it is the OP?

Perhaps the OP would like to express his opinion regarding other "hidden" racial mysteries?

Is the Easter bunny actually a black or white rabbit?

I dfont know if I am the only one that sees this stuff happening or not, but to play off desCarte a bit, I can only suppose that people in the same enviornment may experience things similar to me. Why not?

I am hearing this at bars and informal gatheirngs of average folks. So I cannot help but wonder if what I am hearing is not something others are also expereincing, and if so, this is not a good thing.

Your Thesis:

"The sspread of white attitudes that dismiss blacks as sub-human, in effect, is becoming more blatant with each day" suggests more about the quality of the crowd you are hanging out with (informal gatherings of average folks) than any change in the 2008 popular vote which was 69,456,897 (Obama) to 59,934,814 (McCain).

Obama received the most votes for a presidential candidate in American history.

I doubt that there has been any "spread of white attitudes" during the past 4 years. I mean its not like they bombed Pearl Harbor. Even after flying jets into buildings, Arabs were not widely regarded as "sub human," but rather the tragic consequence of a culture stunted by religious zealotry.

Blacks have done nothing in the past 4 years to become anything like targets of what you are precieving.

 

[taichiliberal]

No, the inference to be had was that the use of the 'race card' regarding differences in what should be policies, have caused many to recognize the problems with PC. Affirmative action type policies had their place in 60's and mid-70's, should have been dropped then. Bakke should have won. But the court ruled otherwise. There really was barely a blip, PC had established it's foothold. But the still waters run deep. The problem was obvious.


Now it's in the open. Reverse discrimination is wrong. Minorities are being tarred with the actions.

Before going all 'racist' on me, my take would be that if a company chose to hire a minority company or individual, BECAUSE that would bring in more business, fine. IF a student comes from an area/school/family with less advantages than 'average', a university can take their scores and disadvantages into consideration, PROVIDED that it is on income or lack thereof, not race.

Again, how does all this RETRO fighting over 40 year old affirmative action cases coincide with th OP's statements regarding the rise in racist and bigoted actions and advocation in this country since Obama was elected? Remember, it was the FBI and Secret Service folk that pointed out how it was anti-black prejudice words and actions and threats on the rise. NOTHING in their evaluations pointed to the supposition and conjecture you and JimBowie advocate. So again, how do YOU and the OP get from point A to point B?

It has to do with what they are calling racism. It isn't It's a rejection of what has become 'established' rules.

You're not making sense, Annie. No one is talking about "rejection of established rules", we're talking about open advocation of racial bias against a black President (and subsequently the black population) in America. The definition is clear, as is shown here:

CNN: Death Threats Against Obama Increase By 400 Percent | The Public Record

Report: Antagonism Towards President Obama, Changing Racial Demographics Spur U.S. Hate Group Rise | The Hinterland Gazette

NOTHING there about "liberals" or white backlash 40 years hence affirmative action. So again, how do YOU and JimBowie get from point A to point B with your assertions?

 

[taichiliberal]

Are you insinuating that the more overt forms of bigotry and racism are in the majority of "liberals" who no longer support such issues as "affirmative action"?

No, the inference to be had was that the use of the 'race card' regarding differences in what should be policies, have caused many to recognize the problems with PC. Affirmative action type policies had their place in 60's and mid-70's, should have been dropped then. Bakke should have won. But the court ruled otherwise. There really was barely a blip, PC had established it's foothold. But the still waters run deep. The problem was obvious.

Now it's in the open. Reverse discrimination is wrong. Minorities are being tarred with the actions.

Before going all 'racist' on me, my take would be that if a company chose to hire a minority company or individual, BECAUSE that would bring in more business, fine. IF a student comes from an area/school/family with less advantages than 'average', a university can take their scores and disadvantages into consideration, PROVIDED that it is on income or lack thereof, not race.

After rejecting Bakke to accept the incompentent Patrick Chavis, Bakke did go on to become a respected doctor. Patrick Chavis was never qualified to be a doctor, not with all the affirmative action in the world. His incompetence killled several patients, he lost his license and was shot to death at a Foster's Freeze in Hawthorne California.

Affirmative action is like putting lipstick on a pig. Not even the pig wearing the lipstick, just putting it up there.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/5201152-post66.html

 

[Annie]

Again, how does all this RETRO fighting over 40 year old affirmative action cases coincide with th OP's statements regarding the rise in racist and bigoted actions and advocation in this country since Obama was elected? Remember, it was the FBI and Secret Service folk that pointed out how it was anti-black prejudice words and actions and threats on the rise. NOTHING in their evaluations pointed to the supposition and conjecture you and JimBowie advocate. So again, how do YOU and the OP get from point A to point B?

It has to do with what they are calling racism. It isn't It's a rejection of what has become 'established' rules.

You're not making sense, Annie. No one is talking about "rejection of established rules", we're talking about open advocation of racial bias against a black President (and subsequently the black population) in America. The definition is clear, as is shown here:

CNN: Death Threats Against Obama Increase By 400 Percent | The Public Record

Report: Antagonism Towards President Obama, Changing Racial Demographics Spur U.S. Hate Group Rise | The Hinterland Gazette

NOTHING there about "liberals" or white backlash 40 years hence affirmative action. So again, how do YOU and JimBowie get from point A to point B with your assertions?

Your failure to follow and attempts to change the goal posts won't work.

 

[catzmeow]

Affirmative action, by and large, doesn't even exist as it once did, aside from setting aside quotas in federal contracts for minority and women-owned businesses:

Affirmative action was first established in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required government contractors to "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" as well as to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[12] This executive order was superseded by Executive Order 11246, which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on 24 September 1965 and affirmed the Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[1] It is notable that affirmative action was not extended to women until Executive Order 11375 amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, expanding the definition to include "sex." As it currently stands, affirmative action through Executive Order 11246 applies to "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In the U.S., affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[5] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[13] Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,[14] and has been contested on constitutional grounds. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision (Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) concerning affirmative action in universities allowed educational institutions to consider race as a factor in admitting students, but ruled that strict point systems are unconstitutional.[15] Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under represented and typically have lower living conditions. However, this is still race-based affirmative action because poor people of all races do not receive these benefits. Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Washington (Initiative 200) have passed constitutional amendments banning affirmative action within their respective states. Conservative activists have alleged that colleges quietly use illegal quotas and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.[16]

 

[Samson]

Again, how does all this RETRO fighting over 40 year old affirmative action cases coincide with th OP's statements regarding the rise in racist and bigoted actions and advocation in this country since Obama was elected? Remember, it was the FBI and Secret Service folk that pointed out how it was anti-black prejudice words and actions and threats on the rise. NOTHING in their evaluations pointed to the supposition and conjecture you and JimBowie advocate. So again, how do YOU and the OP get from point A to point B?

It has to do with what they are calling racism. It isn't It's a rejection of what has become 'established' rules.

You're not making sense, Annie. No one is talking about "rejection of established rules", we're talking about open advocation of racial bias against a black President (and subsequently the black population) in America. The definition is clear, as is shown here:

CNN: Death Threats Against Obama Increase By 400 Percent | The Public Record

Report: Antagonism Towards President Obama, Changing Racial Demographics Spur U.S. Hate Group Rise | The Hinterland Gazette

NOTHING there about "liberals" or white backlash 40 years hence affirmative action. So again, how do YOU and JimBowie get from point A to point B with your assertions?

First, they don't get their talking points from The Hinderland Gazette. Second they may be a tad more discerning when they see statistics that quote any 400% increase. If I add 4 pennies to one penny, then I've effected a 400% increase in the amount of money I have: Is that significant? No, but it sounds impressive.

The bottom line is it is more than a little stupid to assume that almost 70 million Americans would vote for a mandingo in 2008, but that any significant number would hate mandingos in 2012 simply because one is the US President.

 

[Annie]

Affirmative action, by and large, doesn't even exist as it once did, aside from setting aside quotas in federal contracts for minority and women-owned businesses:

Affirmative action was first established in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required government contractors to "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" as well as to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[12] This executive order was superseded by Executive Order 11246, which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on 24 September 1965 and affirmed the Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[1] It is notable that affirmative action was not extended to women until Executive Order 11375 amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, expanding the definition to include "sex." As it currently stands, affirmative action through Executive Order 11246 applies to "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In the U.S., affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[5] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[13] Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,[14] and has been contested on constitutional grounds. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision (Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) concerning affirmative action in universities allowed educational institutions to consider race as a factor in admitting students, but ruled that strict point systems are unconstitutional.[15] Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under represented and typically have lower living conditions. However, this is still race-based affirmative action because poor people of all races do not receive these benefits. Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Washington (Initiative 200) have passed constitutional amendments banning affirmative action within their respective states. Conservative activists have alleged that colleges quietly use illegal quotas and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.[16]

and universities, the more selective the more influence it has.

 

[taichiliberal]

It has to do with what they are calling racism. It isn't It's a rejection of what has become 'established' rules.

You're not making sense, Annie. No one is talking about "rejection of established rules", we're talking about open advocation of racial bias against a black President (and subsequently the black population) in America. The definition is clear, as is shown here:

CNN: Death Threats Against Obama Increase By 400 Percent | The Public Record

Report: Antagonism Towards President Obama, Changing Racial Demographics Spur U.S. Hate Group Rise | The Hinterland Gazette

NOTHING there about "liberals" or white backlash 40 years hence affirmative action. So again, how do YOU and JimBowie get from point A to point B with your assertions?

Your failure to follow and attempts to change the goal posts won't work.

The chronology of the posts shows you are now lying, Annie. I've read the OP and asked a viable question. YOU jumped in and made an additional assertion that you have YET to back up with any documented evidence!

My links DISPROVE a contention put forth by JimBowie and I'm VERY specific as to what that is, as I am with you.

Bottom line: unless you can supply some type of proof beyond your personal opinion, supposition and conjecture, it's pointless to try and have an honest, rational discussion with you.

 

[taichiliberal]

It has to do with what they are calling racism. It isn't It's a rejection of what has become 'established' rules.

You're not making sense, Annie. No one is talking about "rejection of established rules", we're talking about open advocation of racial bias against a black President (and subsequently the black population) in America. The definition is clear, as is shown here:

CNN: Death Threats Against Obama Increase By 400 Percent | The Public Record

Report: Antagonism Towards President Obama, Changing Racial Demographics Spur U.S. Hate Group Rise | The Hinterland Gazette

NOTHING there about "liberals" or white backlash 40 years hence affirmative action. So again, how do YOU and JimBowie get from point A to point B with your assertions?

First, they don't get their talking points from The Hinderland Gazette. Second they may be a tad more discerning when they see statistics that quote any 400% increase. If I add 4 pennies to one penny, then I've effected a 400% increase in the amount of money I have: Is that significant? No, but it sounds impressive.

The bottom line is it is more than a little stupid to assume that almost 70 million Americans would vote for a mandingo in 2008, but that any significant number would hate mandingos in 2012 simply because one is the US President.

A standard ploy by clowns like Sammy here is to IGNORE all but one out of context quote from a source and then tack on their supposition and conjecture to treat their new creation as a the SOLE important "fact" from a source. Then they base all their following efforts in that vein.

Sorry Sammy, but that dog of yours won't fly. Rational, honest people who do NOT print bigoted words as a race baiting ploy will read the WHOLE information contained in the links.....and thus see that my questions to JimBowie and Annie remain valid.

 

[taichiliberal]

Affirmative action, by and large, doesn't even exist as it once did, aside from setting aside quotas in federal contracts for minority and women-owned businesses:

Affirmative action was first established in Executive Order 10925, which was signed by President John F. Kennedy on 6 March 1961 and required government contractors to "not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin" as well as to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin".[12] This executive order was superseded by Executive Order 11246, which was signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on 24 September 1965 and affirmed the Federal Government's commitment "to promote the full realization of equal employment opportunity through a positive, continuing program in each executive department and agency".[1] It is notable that affirmative action was not extended to women until Executive Order 11375 amended Executive Order 11246 on 13 October 1967, expanding the definition to include "sex." As it currently stands, affirmative action through Executive Order 11246 applies to "race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." In the U.S., affirmative action's original purpose was to pressure institutions into compliance with the nondiscrimination mandate of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.[5] The Civil Rights Acts do not cover veterans, people with disabilities, or people over 40. These groups are protected from discrimination under different laws.[13] Affirmative action has been the subject of numerous court cases,[14] and has been contested on constitutional grounds. In 2003, a Supreme Court decision (Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 US 244 – Supreme Court 2003) concerning affirmative action in universities allowed educational institutions to consider race as a factor in admitting students, but ruled that strict point systems are unconstitutional.[15] Alternatively, some colleges use financial criteria to attract racial groups that have typically been under represented and typically have lower living conditions. However, this is still race-based affirmative action because poor people of all races do not receive these benefits. Some states such as California (California Civil Rights Initiative), Michigan (Michigan Civil Rights Initiative), and Washington (Initiative 200) have passed constitutional amendments banning affirmative action within their respective states. Conservative activists have alleged that colleges quietly use illegal quotas and have launched numerous lawsuits to stop them.[16]

and universities, the more selective the more influence it has.

Are you including legacy students in that summation, bunky?

 

[Annie]

Affirmative action, by and large, doesn't even exist as it once did, aside from setting aside quotas in federal contracts for minority and women-owned businesses:

and universities, the more selective the more influence it has.

Are you including legacy students in that summation, bunky?

Bunky, legacy students have never been on par with affirmative action. As for my own opinion, stop legacies too.

 

[taichiliberal]

and universities, the more selective the more influence it has.

Are you including legacy students in that summation, bunky?

Bunky, legacy students have never been on par with affirmative action. As for my own opinion, stop legacies too.

We are agreed to include legacy students...but numbers are not the issue, as legacy students existed LONG before affirmative action. A cumulative study would be REAL interesting.

Now, how about answering my previous questions?

 

[Annie]

Are you including legacy students in that summation, bunky?

Bunky, legacy students have never been on par with affirmative action. As for my own opinion, stop legacies too.

We are agreed to include legacy students...but numbers are not the issue, as legacy students existed LONG before affirmative action. A cumulative study would be REAL interesting.

Now, how about answering my previous questions?

I'm not going back. I come to where I left, that's it. So you agree that both affirmative action and legacies should take their place on the rocks of history. Good on ya.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You take this message board as representative of the country as a whole? Are you fucking high?

What better sample do you have in mind?

 

[Unkotare]

Why'd you change your post, idiot? Realized you'd fucked up?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Growing Hidden White Racism

How do you know that if it's hidden?

Lol, you have never found something that was hidden from the general public but known to you?