Have You Heard About the new Ku Ku Klan?

[JimBowie1958]

Similarly, that I, on some normative basis, harbor any element of disloyalty to literally hundreds of millions of people whom I don't know from "Adam's housecat," and merely because their skin tone and mine are more or less different, also is just nuts, in my mind. Race just doesn't strike me as a basis for owing to others or expecting from them some form of loyalty, fealty, or troth.

That would make sense if you were the only person/persons involved, but you are not.

You have the government that truncates your rights in federal contracts and as to whose perspective is relevant in a court of law.

You are well liable to have your personal rights limited due to your race in the near future and worse if whites become a minority as these race baiting losers go all out in their war against 'whiteness', aka having white skin.

Just like the Jews in Europe who thought that they could play nice with the Nazis and actually voted for Hitler in 1933, you are being a sucker if you help to empower these racist filth to make war against you and your loved ones.

Period.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Race traitors are more dangerous to us than any other classification of persons.

More dangerous than Norks with nukes?

I think I will have to disagree with you on that.

 

[Pogo]

Does anyone know what Ku Klux Klan stands for? What an odd name. Pogo?

Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia

The name was formed by combining the Greek kyklos (κύκλος, circle) with clan.

That's what I just posted in much more detail, Sherlock. The question was after all put to me.

And you Googled it, I saw the link you plagiarized

I didnt see Pogos response because I have him on ignore.

He is much more sane that way.

But you did see the other posts referring to it, and you do know how to read ignored posts to see what they're talking about as you just did above, and you are reading this right now, so cram your dishonesty back up where it came from.

Meanwhile, speaking of dishonest lying hacks, I'm still waiting for this --

Does anyone know what Ku Klux Klan stands for? What an odd name. Pogo?

Ku Klux Klan - Wikipedia

The name was formed by combining the Greek kyklos (κύκλος, circle) with clan.

That's what I just posted in much more detail, Sherlock. The question was after all put to me.

And you Googled it, I saw the link you plagiarized

I don't need to "Google" it. It happens to be an area of expertise. I know this stuff from memory. That's why I was summoned here.

I'm not aware of any link that you claim to have seen but if there is I probably wrote it. So why don't you post this link you claim to have seen and I'll know who to sic my attorney on.

Well SassyIrishLass ?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Similarly, that I, on some normative basis, harbor any element of disloyalty to literally hundreds of millions of people whom I don't know from "Adam's housecat," and merely because their skin tone and mine are more or less different, also is just nuts, in my mind. Race just doesn't strike me as a basis for owing to others or expecting from them some form of loyalty, fealty, or troth.

That would make sense if you were the only person/persons involved, but you are not.

You have the government that truncates your rights in federal contracts and as to whose perspective is relevant in a court of law.

You are well liable to have your personal rights limited due to your race in the near future and worse if whites become a minority as these race baiting losers go all out in their war against 'whiteness', aka having white skin.

Just like the Jews in Europe who thought that they could play nice with the Nazis and actually voted for Hitler in 1933, you are being a sucker if you help to empower these racist filth to make war against you and your loved ones.

Period.

Dude, you and I have totally different viewpoints of non-white people. I can only say that as go my personal experiences with minorities. Truly, during my nearly 60 years of interacting with minorities, from....

• my relationships with the minorities who worked for my parents,
• my interactions and one friendship with the black kids in school,
• my friendship with a black guy in college,
• my friendships with a few blacks,
• my very close professional associations with a handful of minority partners/principals in my firm, and
• my relatively close acquaintanceships and professional and social associations with some number of minorities -- maybe 100, maybe a little over that...

I just have not gotten the "vibes" you have. Yes, I see the same stuff you do on TV, the crowds, and the conniptions, and the violence, and whatnot. When I see minority folks "carrying on" (not including violence, which is never okay) what crosses my mind is that they are just pissed off about something, so they're protesting. Why is that about all I make of minorities protesting?

• Because I know goddamned well they don't, by definition as minorities, have the numbers to effect the extreme stuff that you fear, and it'll be centuries, if at all, before they can possibly grow the minority population to have them. There're enough minorities in the U.S for them to raise hell, not transform the country into an anti-white nation as you claim/fear they will achieve.
• Because I know that even if the combined communities of A-Americans, Latinos and Asians were to comprise more than 50% of the population, even if those racial/ethnic segments wanted to be so, they aren't anywhere close to being unified against white folks. I don'f know of any place on the planet that has a pluralistically proportioned population and the citizenry of whites and non-whites. That's certainly not the case in any of the (non-U.S.) highly diverse countries I've worked in as an expat (3 months or more per trip) or visited more than six times for at least two weeks each time:
  • Brazil -- 49% white, 25% mulatto, 17% black, 5% mestizo, 1% Native American
  • Singapore -- 74.3% Chinese, 13.3% Malay, 9.1% East Indian, 3.2% Other
  • Venezuela -- 33% mestizo, 32% white, 21% mulatto, 9% black, 4% Native American

You have the government that truncates your rights in federal contracts...

What is that supposed to mean?

I ask because my firm has quite a few federal contracts, and we're making really good money delivering as per the contract terms.

You have the government that truncates your rights ... as to whose perspective is relevant in a court of law.

What? In court, the relevant perspectives are those advanced by the defense and the prosecution.

you are being a sucker if you help to empower these racist filth to make war against you and your loved ones.

In the U.S., the only group(s) that can actually do that is/are white. (Click the link to understand why I wrote that.)

 

[westwall]

"competitors"???? ?????

As if the White goys don't stand in their way of global domination?

Just like any other race can produce any number of degenerate filth. Not that Jews are a race mind you, but you clowns are all the same. The "Jews" who you claim are trying to destroy the world are not Jews. They are atheists masquerading as Jews so that simple minded people such as yourself will stick your heads up so their minions can cut them off at the right time.

So, you're kind of admitting that there are ethnic Jew Atheists ruining the World?

Well, actually I'd say the ones who ruin the World are the elites, whom about 50% are Jews, and 50% are Western Europeans (Mostly Brits)

No, I am claiming there are ATHEISTS trying to run the world. I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic, but I recognize and honor those who are religious. Atheists, especially militant atheists, do not.

1.) I've seen Atheist Jews, who certainly fought fiercely for Israel, and whom fought fiercely against anti-Semitism.

2.) It's not just Atheist Jews, but also Secular Jews.

3.) Very religious Jews like say Hasidim Jews are not a global issue, but in their own right can be a very persistent local issue, due to their general dirtiness, poverty, stubbornness, and arrogance.

No, dummy. The scumbags who are trying to run this world are atheists. They are not Jews. They are atheists. Some day, if you live long enough, you may evolve enough to understand, but I doubt it.

An ethnic Jew is still an ethnic Jew, even ones who are far removed from Judaism, will typically stand with their ethnicity, when the sh*t hits the fan.

Actually, it's also the Atheist Jews, who are typically the ones who kick, and scream the most about anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust, as well.

Bullshit. That is the reasoning ability of a baboon.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Dude, you and I have totally different viewpoints of non-white people. I can only say that as go my personal experiences with minorities. Truly, during my nearly 60 years of interacting with minorities, from....

• my relationships with the minorities who worked for my parents,
• my interactions and one friendship with the black kids in school,
• my friendship with a black guy in college,
• my friendships with a few blacks,
• my very close professional associations with a handful of minority partners/principals in my firm, and
• my relatively close acquaintanceships and professional and social associations with some number of minorities -- maybe 100, maybe a little over that...

The problem is with the ideological leadership and the hefty percentage of the black community that buys into that bullshit. The average black guy on the street is just fine as long as they dont decide to just go with the flow and vote like everyone else in their community when it counts.

What are those odds?

You have the government that truncates your rights in federal contracts...

What is that supposed to mean?

I ask because my firm has quite a few federal contracts, and we're making really good money delivering as per the contract terms.

Lol, dude, look up federal contract set asides sometimes. And I think you know this already.

There are contract bids that you cannot compete for by law specifically if you are a white man.

You have the government that truncates your rights ... as to whose perspective is relevant in a court of law.

What? In court, the relevant perspectives are those advanced by the defense and the prosecution.

There isin court cases something called the 'Reasonable Person Standard' as in Mr Whiteman wore a T-Shirt that had the Templar Knights cross on it, and Mr Blackman was offended because it looks to him like a KKK symbol. The fact that Mr Whiteman wore it as prep for the Renaissance Fair is immaterial, the only thing that matters in court is whether the 'Reasonable Black Man' would have taken offense.

That is built in racism to our courts proceedings.

you are being a sucker if you help to empower these racist filth to make war against you and your loved ones.

In the U.S., the only group(s) that can actually do that is/are white. (Click the link to understand why I wrote that.)

Lol, that is simply not true. that is like arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people.

Group discipline and leadership overcomes lack of numbers in these kinds of situations. FACT.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

As if the White goys don't stand in their way of global domination?
So, you're kind of admitting that there are ethnic Jew Atheists ruining the World?

Well, actually I'd say the ones who ruin the World are the elites, whom about 50% are Jews, and 50% are Western Europeans (Mostly Brits)

No, I am claiming there are ATHEISTS trying to run the world. I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic, but I recognize and honor those who are religious. Atheists, especially militant atheists, do not.

1.) I've seen Atheist Jews, who certainly fought fiercely for Israel, and whom fought fiercely against anti-Semitism.

2.) It's not just Atheist Jews, but also Secular Jews.

3.) Very religious Jews like say Hasidim Jews are not a global issue, but in their own right can be a very persistent local issue, due to their general dirtiness, poverty, stubbornness, and arrogance.

No, dummy. The scumbags who are trying to run this world are atheists. They are not Jews. They are atheists. Some day, if you live long enough, you may evolve enough to understand, but I doubt it.

An ethnic Jew is still an ethnic Jew, even ones who are far removed from Judaism, will typically stand with their ethnicity, when the sh*t hits the fan.

Actually, it's also the Atheist Jews, who are typically the ones who kick, and scream the most about anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust, as well.

Bullshit. That is the reasoning ability of a baboon.

Where are these Atheist Jews who don't consider themselves Jewish at all?
I've met such Jews, both in person, and online.
They all identify at least loosely as coming from a Jewish heritage.

 

[Marion Morrison]

What kind of thread is it where I like Pogo posts?

Well, I certainly wasn't going to do due diligence looking up the origin of "The Klan".

Thx.

I still don't like you so much.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Dude, you and I have totally different viewpoints of non-white people. I can only say that as go my personal experiences with minorities. Truly, during my nearly 60 years of interacting with minorities, from....

• my relationships with the minorities who worked for my parents,
• my interactions and one friendship with the black kids in school,
• my friendship with a black guy in college,
• my friendships with a few blacks,
• my very close professional associations with a handful of minority partners/principals in my firm, and
• my relatively close acquaintanceships and professional and social associations with some number of minorities -- maybe 100, maybe a little over that...

The problem is with the ideological leadership and the hefty percentage of the black community that buys into that bullshit. The average black guy on the street is just fine as long as they dont decide to just go with the flow and vote like everyone else in their community when it counts.

What are those odds?

You have the government that truncates your rights in federal contracts...

What is that supposed to mean?

I ask because my firm has quite a few federal contracts, and we're making really good money delivering as per the contract terms.

Lol, dude, look up federal contract set asides sometimes. And I think you know this already.

There are contract bids that you cannot compete for by law specifically if you are a white man.

You have the government that truncates your rights ... as to whose perspective is relevant in a court of law.

What? In court, the relevant perspectives are those advanced by the defense and the prosecution.

There isin court cases something called the 'Reasonable Person Standard' as in Mr Whiteman wore a T-Shirt that had the Templar Knights cross on it, and Mr Blackman was offended because it looks to him like a KKK symbol. The fact that Mr Whiteman wore it as prep for the Renaissance Fair is immaterial, the only thing that matters in court is whether the 'Reasonable Black Man' would have taken offense.

That is built in racism to our courts proceedings.

you are being a sucker if you help to empower these racist filth to make war against you and your loved ones.

In the U.S., the only group(s) that can actually do that is/are white. (Click the link to understand why I wrote that.)

Lol, that is simply not true. that is like arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people.

Group discipline and leadership overcomes lack of numbers in these kinds of situations. FACT.

The average black guy on the street is just fine as long as they dont decide to just go with the flow and vote like everyone else in their community when it counts.

​

I'm sorry, but I'm not even sure how to construe that statement. Here's why:

• "The average black guy on the street" and "everyone else in [the black] community" strikes me as two rhetorical approaches for describing the same group of individuals, yet your statement implies there're material differences between the two "groups."
  
  • What makes that "average black guy on the street" be any different from "everyone else in [the black] community?"
  • Is not the "average black guy on the street" by definition the guy who is like the majority of black people? If he is, then "everyone else in [the black] community" must be some minority of the black community that is very different from the majority of it, but that then would make the majority of the black community not be "problematic." If and/or on the occasion of an "average black guy" aligning himself with "everyone else in [the black] community," the two are substantively of the same mind, in which case the two are not materially different. Accordingly, one must infer that you would/will thus take exception with the black community as a whole, which if that's the case, the "average black guy on the street"
• "The average black guy on the street" is "fine" provided he doesn't do "X," exe being vote (something one does as an individual) in accordance with that he perceives is in his own best interest (something I presume you expect everyone will do, and to which you don't object).

Maybe your point is that black Republicans don't "vote the party?" Should/need anyone actually do so? As go blacks and their voting habits, in 13 of the below shown 20 presidential elections, the GOP got as many as or more black votes than there were black individuals registered as Republicans. That indicates that black individuals do as everyone else does -- vote based on what they believe best suits them.

Now as for the fact that blacks are overwhelmingly registered as and vote as Democrats is a different matter. I suspect that in large measure most people -- without regard to their race -- vote in synchronicity with their party affiliation. It's hardly reasonable to expect blacks would not do the same.

It's probably worth noting that the fact that most blacks voted Democrat from 1936 to 1992 strongly suggests that the social issue of race is not the only thing that holds importance in black voters' minds.

look up federal contract set asides sometimes. And I think you know this already.

There are contract bids that you cannot compete for by law specifically if you are a white man.

I suspected the SBA disadvantaged business set asides are what you had in mind, but I needed to confirm that.

From where I sit, that is a non-issue. The issue isn't the set asides, but rather one's reticence for partnering with a minority firm to win those contracts. Sorry, I'm not going to lament or begrudge minorities over the fact that for 5% of its contracts, the federal government sets aside contract award prioritization to minority-owned firms; thus non-minority-majority owned firms have to partner with majority minority owned firms to get "a piece of that pie."

Aside:

For almost ten years, my firm was a minority-majority owned one. It just happened that a white partner left and the person who took his place was a black woman. There were only five partners in the firm and two of them were minorities, and when the black woman made partner, we became majority-minority owned because they collectively had more partner units than I and the other white partner, even though I had more units than any single other partner.

During that period, our firm was the minority-owned prime on two contracts and we partnered with two of the top consulting firms on the planet. It was a "win-win" arrangement for everyone involved. That period and partnering played a pivotal role in growing the size of our firm and opened a lot of doors to additional work. We grew so much that we were about to "make" four new partners, but we received a purchase offer and accepted it. The individuals we were about to promote, along with the existing partners who continued to work, became partners in the firm that acquired us.

The point is that the minority set aside is only "a thing" if one lets it be. One doesn't have to let it be, but, yes, one can.​

There isin court cases something called the 'Reasonable Person Standard' as in Mr Whiteman wore a T-Shirt that had the Templar Knights cross on it, and Mr Blackman was offended because it looks to him like a KKK symbol. The fact that Mr Whiteman wore it as prep for the Renaissance Fair is immaterial, the only thing that matters in court is whether the 'Reasonable Black Man' would have taken offense.

That is built in racism to our courts proceedings.

Is that example taken from an actual case? If so, please cite the case so I can read its details.


What you've described above sounds like a civil rather than criminal matter. In civil matters, the "reasonable person" standard doesn't overrule the requirement that harm has to have taken place; legitimate harm must be established before the "reasonable person" standard comes into play. One's merely having their feelings hurt does not typically constitute harm, though in exceptional cases, it can. Some black guy who saw the C-ville events on TV and was offended cannot prevail in an emotional distress suit whereby the only harm experienced is his emotional distress in the wake of having seen Klansmen marching with shields, weapons, torches, etc. When there's tangible harm along with emotional distress, well, that's a different matter.

Looking at the "reasonable man" standard in an abstract criminal context, I agree that there is an element of racism "built into" the "biography" of the "reasonable man/person."

As goes the "reasonable person" standard's application in criminal law, there're are aspects of ambiguity in the standard's explication, but even so, the standard is applied when juries render judgment, and it's used in determining who bears culpability -- e.g., should Reagan have been held culpable because everything the actors in Iran-Contra did was done on an implicit or explicit instruction he issued or should Ollie North have been held culpable because he led the initiative that implemented the "vision"/instruction Reagan gave? -- in the commission of a legal wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the "reasonable man" concept, particularly with regard to passing judgment, aims existentially to inject into jurisprudence a degree of egalitarianism that might otherwise perish were a dispassionate jurist who's well aware of the law's nuances, thus, as goes legal theory, markedly more able to apply sophisticated notions of guilt and innocence that, frankly, wouldn't matter to any "reasonable man." In other words, the "reasonable man" standard exists to ensure that the spirit of the law isn't ignored due to the law's letter, that the law, it's enforcement, interpretation and application doesn't become "slicker" than be desirable to the community who live by it.

In the context of race, racism and its attendant forms of discrimination and for most of his long history, the "reasonable man/person" has performed the opposite function. Thus, rather than motivating decision-makers to question their unreflective biases and preconceptions, the "reasonable man" has long served as an ideal vehicle for articulating a relatively unchallengeable version of those very beliefs. Indeed, this worry was one prominent reason for suspicion of the "reasonable person" articulated by both courts and disadvantaged claimants -- i.e., individuals whose relevant status as it applies to a given social-justice matter under consideration is not white, male, able-bodied, Christian, literate, and heterosexual, which is how the "reasonable person/man" is defined.

The default characteristics of the "reasonable person" are the source of much of the difficulty. To the extent that a claimant is privileged, that is, their status matches that of the "reasonable man," his or her characteristics will already be extant in the reasonable person, hence they bear no burden of displacement. If the unmodified standard works properly only to the extent that the claimant is privileged, then the risk of any failure to appropriately modify the standard falls most heavily on the least privileged. This is because it is up to the disadvantaged to identify and displace the default characteristics of the "reasonable person." Unlike the privileged, the disadvantaged -- who are by definition most divergent from the unmodified reasonable person -- are forced to insist on an almost endless specification of their own characteristics. Thus, the illiterate Hispanic woman with a disability must demand attentiveness to all of those characteristics or the standard will not function properly; however, being forced to put the claim in this way makes the claim for simple equal consideration look like a plea for special treatment. But this is problematic from an equality point of view. And this concern is augmented by the fact that the deeper and more complex the diversity implicated in any equality inquiry, the more significant this worry will be.
​

In part perhaps because of the lack of clarity about what the reasonable person is meant to accomplish in the constitutional context, his primary role seems to have shifted away from being a way to problematize the judge’s dispirited point of view and to have, instead, a way of justifying it. So the corrective function of the reasonable person with its emphasis on the way in which the claimant’s experience may differ from the judge’s seems to have given way to a justificatory use of the reasonable person where its primary role is as a vehicle to convey the objective content of discrimination.

For instance, consider a matter whereby the "reasonable man" may serve to provide parents and teachers with a defence to assault where they were using reasonable force against their children or pupils for the purpose of correction. The "reasonable man" test would be whether a reasonable person possessing the claimant’s attributes and in the claimant’s circumstances would conclude that the law marginalizes the claimant or treats her as less worthy on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. Applied to a child claimant, this test confronts one with the fiction of the reasonable, fully apprised minor. The best one can do is to adopt the perspective of the reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, who seriously considers and values the child’s views and developmental needs. To say this, however, is not to minimize the subjective component; a court assessing an equality claim involving children must do its best to take into account the subjective viewpoint of the child, which will often include a sense of relative disempowerment and vulnerability.

In applying the "reasonable man" test to the matter, one may well conclude as follows:

A reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, apprised of the harms of criminalizing parental discipline -- and in light of the presence of other governmental initiatives to dissuade abusive corporal punishment and the fact that generally abusive and harmful conduct is prohibited -- would not conclude that the child’s dignity has been offended. The deciding jurist/jury might further assert that children often feel a sense of disempowerment and vulnerability; this reality must be considered when assessing the impact of the imputation of the "reasonable man's" mindset on a child’s sense of dignity. Moreover, the force permitted is limited and must be set against the reality of a child’s mother or father being charged and pulled into the criminal justice system, thereafter bearing the attendant rupture of the family setting, or a teacher being detained pending bail, with the inevitable harm to the child’s crucial educative setting.​

What is worth noting here is that the emphasis is not at all on the subjective experiences of the child. Rather it is on the response of the "reasonable person" acting on behalf of the child. But this person is typically, of course, the very parent who is the accused and who in these cases deploys physical force against the child. And this "reasonable man" seems focused not on the attributes of childhood that may give the events particular significance or meaning but rather on the reasons behind the legislation. This is why the "reasonable person" here stresses the importance to children of stability in their family and educational relationships. Applied thus, the "reasonable man/person" standard serves as a vehicle for expressing the ultimate judicial point of view, rather than for questioning it. This becomes existential the standard's shift from the corrective to a justificatory use of the "reasonable person" also accounts for why the reasoning emphasizes not the subjective characteristics and experiences of the complainant but rather the purposes of the legislation expressed through the reasonable person charged with the care of the child.


The "reasonable man" has long held an appeal for common law reasoning, in part because it is possible to invoke him even when (or perhaps especially when) his exact role is not terribly clear. However, even the very brief discussion above suggests why on this count the rhetorical unity of the "reasonable man" may be dangerous. As described above, one can draw lessons across varying manifestations of the "reasonable person" but those lessons need to be carefully drawn with a full awareness of the variations within each jurisprudential context.

The invocation to adjudicate equality claims is another good illustration of this. I used the context of child abuse, but the type of abuse is irrelevant to the test. Let the child be a minority or woman adult and they and the jury/jurist find themselves facing the very same adjudicatory dilemma. There, the "reasonable man" was clearly invoked for a very laudable reason, designed to further the aims of the equality guarantee. But his vague role and ill-defined content made it all too easy to slide into a very different, less compelling use of the standard. With more attentiveness to the exact role he is to play, however, it does seem possible to reshape the reasonable person to fulfill the very important corrective function for which he was originally invoked.

that is simply not true. that is like arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people.

No, it's not at all like saying that. Superficially, sure, one could say that. In substance, hell no, and most especially not like me saying that. (Did you read the first major section (there were two, IIRC) of the content at the hyperlink in the sentence that inspired you to make the remark above?)

I will come back to explain why not, but I'm tired right now.

 

[dannyboys]

They look like Jews.

No, they look like degenerate morons, what happens to a race of people when Nature wants to shit them out of its ass.

So, Jews can't be degenerated morons, which Nature wants to shit them out of its ass?

Of course they can; just like anyone else.

It's no secret that a large segment of Jewish society, resents White Christians.

They see us as competitors, and oppressors.

Go fuck yourself!
Permanent Ignore!

 

[Marion Morrison]

Dude, you and I have totally different viewpoints of non-white people. I can only say that as go my personal experiences with minorities. Truly, during my nearly 60 years of interacting with minorities, from....

• my relationships with the minorities who worked for my parents,
• my interactions and one friendship with the black kids in school,
• my friendship with a black guy in college,
• my friendships with a few blacks,
• my very close professional associations with a handful of minority partners/principals in my firm, and
• my relatively close acquaintanceships and professional and social associations with some number of minorities -- maybe 100, maybe a little over that...

The problem is with the ideological leadership and the hefty percentage of the black community that buys into that bullshit. The average black guy on the street is just fine as long as they dont decide to just go with the flow and vote like everyone else in their community when it counts.

What are those odds?

You have the government that truncates your rights in federal contracts...

What is that supposed to mean?

I ask because my firm has quite a few federal contracts, and we're making really good money delivering as per the contract terms.

Lol, dude, look up federal contract set asides sometimes. And I think you know this already.

There are contract bids that you cannot compete for by law specifically if you are a white man.

You have the government that truncates your rights ... as to whose perspective is relevant in a court of law.

What? In court, the relevant perspectives are those advanced by the defense and the prosecution.

There isin court cases something called the 'Reasonable Person Standard' as in Mr Whiteman wore a T-Shirt that had the Templar Knights cross on it, and Mr Blackman was offended because it looks to him like a KKK symbol. The fact that Mr Whiteman wore it as prep for the Renaissance Fair is immaterial, the only thing that matters in court is whether the 'Reasonable Black Man' would have taken offense.

That is built in racism to our courts proceedings.

you are being a sucker if you help to empower these racist filth to make war against you and your loved ones.

In the U.S., the only group(s) that can actually do that is/are white. (Click the link to understand why I wrote that.)

Lol, that is simply not true. that is like arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people.

Group discipline and leadership overcomes lack of numbers in these kinds of situations. FACT.

The average black guy on the street is just fine as long as they dont decide to just go with the flow and vote like everyone else in their community when it counts.

​

I'm sorry, but I'm not even sure how to construe that statement. Here's why:

• "The average black guy on the street" and "everyone else in [the black] community" strikes me as two rhetorical approaches for describing the same group of individuals, yet your statement implies there're material differences between the two "groups."
  • What makes that "average black guy on the street" be any different from "everyone else in [the black] community?"
  • Is not the "average black guy on the street" by definition the guy who is like the majority of black people? If he is, then "everyone else in [the black] community" must be some minority of the black community that is very different from the majority of it, but that then would make the majority of the black community not be "problematic." If and/or on the occasion of an "average black guy" aligning himself with "everyone else in [the black] community," the two are substantively of the same mind, in which case the two are not materially different. Accordingly, one must infer that you would/will thus take exception with the black community as a whole, which if that's the case, the "average black guy on the street"
• "The average black guy on the street" is "fine" provided he doesn't do "X," exe being vote (something one does as an individual) in accordance with that he perceives is in his own best interest (something I presume you expect everyone will do, and to which you don't object).

Maybe your point is that black Republicans don't "vote the party?" Should/need anyone actually do so? As go blacks and their voting habits, in 13 of the below shown 20 presidential elections, the GOP got as many as or more black votes than there were black individuals registered as Republicans. That indicates that black individuals do as everyone else does -- vote based on what they believe best suits them.

Now as for the fact that blacks are overwhelmingly registered as and vote as Democrats is a different matter. I suspect that in large measure most people -- without regard to their race -- vote in synchronicity with their party affiliation. It's hardly reasonable to expect blacks would not do the same.

It's probably worth noting that the fact that most blacks voted Democrat from 1936 to 1992 strongly suggests that the social issue of race is not the only thing that holds importance in black voters' minds.

look up federal contract set asides sometimes. And I think you know this already.

There are contract bids that you cannot compete for by law specifically if you are a white man.

I suspected the SBA disadvantaged business set asides are what you had in mind, but I needed to confirm that.

From where I sit, that is a non-issue. The issue isn't the set asides, but rather one's reticence for partnering with a minority firm to win those contracts. Sorry, I'm not going to lament or begrudge minorities over the fact that for 5% of its contracts, the federal government sets aside contract award prioritization to minority-owned firms; thus non-minority-majority owned firms have to partner with majority minority owned firms to get "a piece of that pie."

Aside:

For almost ten years, my firm was a minority-majority owned one. It just happened that a white partner left and the person who took his place was a black woman. There were only five partners in the firm and two of them were minorities, and when the black woman made partner, we became majority-minority owned because they collectively had more partner units than I and the other white partner, even though I had more units than any single other partner.

During that period, our firm was the minority-owned prime on two contracts and we partnered with two of the top consulting firms on the planet. It was a "win-win" arrangement for everyone involved. That period and partnering played a pivotal role in growing the size of our firm and opened a lot of doors to additional work. We grew so much that we were about to "make" four new partners, but we received a purchase offer and accepted it. The individuals we were about to promote, along with the existing partners who continued to work, became partners in the firm that acquired us.

The point is that the minority set aside is only "a thing" if one lets it be. One doesn't have to let it be, but, yes, one can.​

There isin court cases something called the 'Reasonable Person Standard' as in Mr Whiteman wore a T-Shirt that had the Templar Knights cross on it, and Mr Blackman was offended because it looks to him like a KKK symbol. The fact that Mr Whiteman wore it as prep for the Renaissance Fair is immaterial, the only thing that matters in court is whether the 'Reasonable Black Man' would have taken offense.

That is built in racism to our courts proceedings.

Is that example taken from an actual case? If so, please cite the case so I can read its details.


What you've described above sounds like a civil rather than criminal matter. In civil matters, the "reasonable person" standard doesn't overrule the requirement that harm has to have taken place; legitimate harm must be established before the "reasonable person" standard comes into play. One's merely having their feelings hurt does not typically constitute harm, though in exceptional cases, it can. Some black guy who saw the C-ville events on TV and was offended cannot prevail in an emotional distress suit whereby the only harm experienced is his emotional distress in the wake of having seen Klansmen marching with shields, weapons, torches, etc. When there's tangible harm along with emotional distress, well, that's a different matter.

Looking at the "reasonable man" standard in an abstract criminal context, I agree that there is an element of racism "built into" the "biography" of the "reasonable man/person."

As goes the "reasonable person" standard's application in criminal law, there're are aspects of ambiguity in the standard's explication, but even so, the standard is applied when juries render judgment, and it's used in determining who bears culpability -- e.g., should Reagan have been held culpable because everything the actors in Iran-Contra did was done on an implicit or explicit instruction he issued or should Ollie North have been held culpable because he led the initiative that implemented the "vision"/instruction Reagan gave? -- in the commission of a legal wrong.

The fact of the matter is that the "reasonable man" concept, particularly with regard to passing judgment, aims existentially to inject into jurisprudence a degree of egalitarianism that might otherwise perish were a dispassionate jurist who's well aware of the law's nuances, thus, as goes legal theory, markedly more able to apply sophisticated notions of guilt and innocence that, frankly, wouldn't matter to any "reasonable man." In other words, the "reasonable man" standard exists to ensure that the spirit of the law isn't ignored due to the law's letter, that the law, it's enforcement, interpretation and application doesn't become "slicker" than be desirable to the community who live by it.

In the context of race, racism and its attendant forms of discrimination and for most of his long history, the "reasonable man/person" has performed the opposite function. Thus, rather than motivating decision-makers to question their unreflective biases and preconceptions, the "reasonable man" has long served as an ideal vehicle for articulating a relatively unchallengeable version of those very beliefs. Indeed, this worry was one prominent reason for suspicion of the "reasonable person" articulated by both courts and disadvantaged claimants -- i.e., individuals whose relevant status as it applies to a given social-justice matter under consideration is not white, male, able-bodied, Christian, literate, and heterosexual, which is how the "reasonable person/man" is defined.

The default characteristics of the "reasonable person" are the source of much of the difficulty. To the extent that a claimant is privileged, that is, their status matches that of the "reasonable man," his or her characteristics will already be extant in the reasonable person, hence they bear no burden of displacement. If the unmodified standard works properly only to the extent that the claimant is privileged, then the risk of any failure to appropriately modify the standard falls most heavily on the least privileged. This is because it is up to the disadvantaged to identify and displace the default characteristics of the "reasonable person." Unlike the privileged, the disadvantaged -- who are by definition most divergent from the unmodified reasonable person -- are forced to insist on an almost endless specification of their own characteristics. Thus, the illiterate Hispanic woman with a disability must demand attentiveness to all of those characteristics or the standard will not function properly; however, being forced to put the claim in this way makes the claim for simple equal consideration look like a plea for special treatment. But this is problematic from an equality point of view. And this concern is augmented by the fact that the deeper and more complex the diversity implicated in any equality inquiry, the more significant this worry will be.
​

In part perhaps because of the lack of clarity about what the reasonable person is meant to accomplish in the constitutional context, his primary role seems to have shifted away from being a way to problematize the judge’s dispirited point of view and to have, instead, a way of justifying it. So the corrective function of the reasonable person with its emphasis on the way in which the claimant’s experience may differ from the judge’s seems to have given way to a justificatory use of the reasonable person where its primary role is as a vehicle to convey the objective content of discrimination.

For instance, consider a matter whereby the "reasonable man" may serve to provide parents and teachers with a defence to assault where they were using reasonable force against their children or pupils for the purpose of correction. The "reasonable man" test would be whether a reasonable person possessing the claimant’s attributes and in the claimant’s circumstances would conclude that the law marginalizes the claimant or treats her as less worthy on the basis of irrelevant characteristics. Applied to a child claimant, this test confronts one with the fiction of the reasonable, fully apprised minor. The best one can do is to adopt the perspective of the reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, who seriously considers and values the child’s views and developmental needs. To say this, however, is not to minimize the subjective component; a court assessing an equality claim involving children must do its best to take into account the subjective viewpoint of the child, which will often include a sense of relative disempowerment and vulnerability.

In applying the "reasonable man" test to the matter, one may well conclude as follows:

A reasonable person acting on behalf of a child, apprised of the harms of criminalizing parental discipline -- and in light of the presence of other governmental initiatives to dissuade abusive corporal punishment and the fact that generally abusive and harmful conduct is prohibited -- would not conclude that the child’s dignity has been offended. The deciding jurist/jury might further assert that children often feel a sense of disempowerment and vulnerability; this reality must be considered when assessing the impact of the imputation of the "reasonable man's" mindset on a child’s sense of dignity. Moreover, the force permitted is limited and must be set against the reality of a child’s mother or father being charged and pulled into the criminal justice system, thereafter bearing the attendant rupture of the family setting, or a teacher being detained pending bail, with the inevitable harm to the child’s crucial educative setting.​

What is worth noting here is that the emphasis is not at all on the subjective experiences of the child. Rather it is on the response of the "reasonable person" acting on behalf of the child. But this person is typically, of course, the very parent who is the accused and who in these cases deploys physical force against the child. And this "reasonable man" seems focused not on the attributes of childhood that may give the events particular significance or meaning but rather on the reasons behind the legislation. This is why the "reasonable person" here stresses the importance to children of stability in their family and educational relationships. Applied thus, the "reasonable man/person" standard serves as a vehicle for expressing the ultimate judicial point of view, rather than for questioning it. This becomes existential the standard's shift from the corrective to a justificatory use of the "reasonable person" also accounts for why the reasoning emphasizes not the subjective characteristics and experiences of the complainant but rather the purposes of the legislation expressed through the reasonable person charged with the care of the child.


The "reasonable man" has long held an appeal for common law reasoning, in part because it is possible to invoke him even when (or perhaps especially when) his exact role is not terribly clear. However, even the very brief discussion above suggests why on this count the rhetorical unity of the "reasonable man" may be dangerous. As described above, one can draw lessons across varying manifestations of the "reasonable person" but those lessons need to be carefully drawn with a full awareness of the variations within each jurisprudential context.

The invocation to adjudicate equality claims is another good illustration of this. I used the context of child abuse, but the type of abuse is irrelevant to the test. Let the child be a minority or woman adult and they and the jury/jurist find themselves facing the very same adjudicatory dilemma. There, the "reasonable man" was clearly invoked for a very laudable reason, designed to further the aims of the equality guarantee. But his vague role and ill-defined content made it all too easy to slide into a very different, less compelling use of the standard. With more attentiveness to the exact role he is to play, however, it does seem possible to reshape the reasonable person to fulfill the very important corrective function for which he was originally invoked.

that is simply not true. that is like arguing that the Bolsheviks could not take over Russia because they were a minority of the people.

No, it's not at all like saying that. Superficially, sure, one could say that. In substance, hell no, and most especially not like me saying that. (Did you read the first major section (there were two, IIRC) of the content at the hyperlink in the sentence that inspired you to make the remark above?)

I will come back to explain why not, but I'm tired right now.

92% will think "TL;DR" Welcome to the internetz!

 

[JimBowie1958]

Where are these Atheist Jews who don't consider themselves Jewish at all?

Do you see what you just did there?

 

[JimBowie1958]

92% will think "TL;DR" Welcome to the internetz!

I suspect that Xelor is a lawyer of some sort, but whatever the case he is given to long detailed responses.

I love it!

I have to wait for a block of time so I can respond to him and I look forward to doing it.

It seems that, like with most truly liberal Americans, we agree on 90% of what we discuss, but the implementation of goals and perspective of what is typical is what drives us into disagreement, which is normal for humanity, I think.

But he disagrees with me and so I must show him the error of his ways before St Micheal hurls him into the Lake of Fire

 

[Marion Morrison]

92% will think "TL;DR" Welcome to the internetz!

I suspect that Xelor is a lawyer of some sort, but whatever the case he is given to long detailed responses.

I love it!

I have to wait for a block of time so I can respond to him and I look forward to doing it.

It seems that, like with most truly liberal Americans, we agree on 90% of what we discuss, but the implementation of goals and perspective of what is typical is what drives us into disagreement, which is normal for humanity, I think.

But he disagrees with me and so I must show him the error of his ways before St Micheal hurls him into the Lake of Fire

He's definitely a smart feller, yet leans leftish.

I have known this for quite some time.

 

[JimBowie1958]

He's definitely a smart feller, yet leans leftish.
I have known this for quite some time.

Yeah, classic liberals, which it seems Xelor is closest to, are rare and also intelligent people, mostly.

Note to Xelor; I hate replying to a third person and referring to you in third person; but, alas, the limitations of the English language bind me!

Anyway, Marion, I enjoy most of Xelors posts, and I doubt I will ever put him on ignore unless he wants it.

USMB is blessed to have a good group of reasonable classic liberals and some reasonable lefties also.

I think that is why I spend the biggest chunk of my day posting here, lol.

 

[martybegan]

Does anyone know what Ku Klux Klan stands for? What an odd name. Pogo?

Actually yes.

"Ku Klux" is corrupted (deliberately) from Kuklos, the Greek for "circle". The KKK was originally put together by six bored twentysomething ex-soldiers as a cross (no pun intended) between a fraternity and a practical joke. The silly hazing/initiation/structure rituals it adopted were based on those of the Kuklos Adelphon, a popular and widely-known college fraternity of the time.

Once they had morphed Kuklos into Ku Klux, deliberately to add mystery to it, one of the collaborators (named Kennedy) continued the alliteration joke with "Klan", reasoning "we are all of 'Scotch-Irish' descent". Then the other silly K-alliterations (kleagle, klavern etc) followed along the same lines.

Doesn't most of the silly stuff come from the 1920's iteration of the Klan, and not the 1870's-80's version?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Doesn't most of the silly stuff come from the 1920's iteration of the Klan, and not the 1870's-80's version?

The first Klan was more about tactics, operating illegal profit making ventures and terrorizing Yankees and blacks.

The Second Klan was more about imitating a movie and pretending to be heroic champions of white Protestants.

 

[martybegan]

Doesn't most of the silly stuff come from the 1920's iteration of the Klan, and not the 1870's-80's version?

The first Klan was more about tactics, operating illegal profit making ventures and terrorizing Yankees and blacks.

The Second Klan was more about imitating a movie and pretending to be heroic champions of white Protestants.

And the third clan was a less organized version of the previous ones fighting against the 60's civil rights movement.

I wouldn't consider today's version of the Klan as a separate iteration, just the remains of the 60's version.

 

[westwall]

No, I am claiming there are ATHEISTS trying to run the world. I'm not an atheist, I'm agnostic, but I recognize and honor those who are religious. Atheists, especially militant atheists, do not.

1.) I've seen Atheist Jews, who certainly fought fiercely for Israel, and whom fought fiercely against anti-Semitism.

2.) It's not just Atheist Jews, but also Secular Jews.

3.) Very religious Jews like say Hasidim Jews are not a global issue, but in their own right can be a very persistent local issue, due to their general dirtiness, poverty, stubbornness, and arrogance.

No, dummy. The scumbags who are trying to run this world are atheists. They are not Jews. They are atheists. Some day, if you live long enough, you may evolve enough to understand, but I doubt it.

An ethnic Jew is still an ethnic Jew, even ones who are far removed from Judaism, will typically stand with their ethnicity, when the sh*t hits the fan.

Actually, it's also the Atheist Jews, who are typically the ones who kick, and scream the most about anti-Semitism, and the Holocaust, as well.

Bullshit. That is the reasoning ability of a baboon.

Where are these Atheist Jews who don't consider themselves Jewish at all?
I've met such Jews, both in person, and online.
They all identify at least loosely as coming from a Jewish heritage.

Unlike you I have actually met the people who wish to rule this planet of ours. They are not even remotely religious. They worship the almighty dollar, and for the most part it is a game amongst themselves over who can get the most power and wealth. Who gets harmed by their games they truly don't care.

There are a very few who actually care about humanity, and how they can help it, but they are very rare indeed. They still have an authoritarian mentality don't ever forget that, but they would at least be benevolent tyrants. Unlike the others.

 

[Pogo]

Doesn't most of the silly stuff come from the 1920's iteration of the Klan, and not the 1870's-80's version?

The first Klan was more about tactics, operating illegal profit making ventures and terrorizing Yankees and blacks.

The Second Klan was more about imitating a movie and pretending to be heroic champions of white Protestants.

Nope, if anything you got the first part backward. The first Klan was originally an innocuous social club and then degenerated into a social terrorism club but had no particular "profit" motive It was the second Klan (1915) that was founded by a con man expressly to milk money from memberships on the back of "Birth of a Nation" and the then-vibrant Lost Cause movement. That guy (Simmons) hired a PR firm to spread a relatively sleepy operation into a nationwide one, and it worked so well (read: there was so much profit) that he got squeezed out of his own operation.

BOTH pretended to be heroic champions of white Protestants. That was a theme from the first Klan --- the other similar vigilante groups that gurgled up with the nineteenth century Klan (and there were dozens) commonly named themselves the Constitutional Union Guard, Heroes of America, Knights of the Black Cross; Knights of the Red Hand; Knights of the Rising Sun; Knights of the White Camellia; Knights of the White Carnation; Men of Justice and the Seymour Knights --- all from the 1860s-1870s. They fancied (and rationalized) themselves as "protectors". And the second one especially as a moral police force.

It was the second (20th century) Klan that was selling memberships for profit, acquiring property, and had itself chartered with the state of Georgia from its beginning. Matter of fact that's how it was officially shut down --- the IRS slapped a huge back tax bill on it and forced it to fold, and simultaneously the Governor of Georgia revoked its charter.