Help the White Male (Under 40) Community?

[jwoodie]

In case anyone has forgotten, this is the ONLY group in the USA that is legal to discriminate against. Even if you subscribe to the Old White Men canard, how can you justify this ACTUAL "war" against this blameless minority? Do you really think they are all closet members of the KKK? Is this some insane historical payback?

 

[Alfalfa]

How is it legal to discriminate against them? Why under 40?

 

[emilynghiem]

In case anyone has forgotten, this is the ONLY group in the USA that is legal to discriminate against. Even if you subscribe to the Old White Men canard, how can you justify this ACTUAL "war" against this blameless minority? Do you really think they are all closet members of the KKK? Is this some insane historical payback?

Hi Jwoodie: More bad news. here are some other examples of
other people who get discriminated against besides white males:

A. E. Political discrimination. If you don't believe in the death penalty, or don't believe the ACA is constitutional, you are still required to pay for policies or programs that impose a bias of political beliefs
while discriminating against political beliefs in other alternatives. This was explained to me that "people supposedly agree to put their political differences up to vote by majority rule" but I don't see
that. I don't see that people agree to have their political beliefs imposed upon, and treat these as sacred as religious beliefs. EX: Prolife people and anti-gay marriage people are harassed for trying to defend their views from imposition by laws biased politically or religiously against them. An even less common minority viewpoint, such as mine, of including and defending BOTH pro and anti views as equally protected by law, is thus excluded 2-3 times over because people on BOTH the other sides COMBINED discount this "third view of including both sides equally" by discriminating against each other.

B. People who have had civil rights violated but don't have legal resources to defend themselves cannot always recoup their damages, or cannot defend themselves equally from abuses as people who have money or political power to defend their interests so that offenses against them are avoided. So this is NOT equal protection of the laws, but basically people can get away with violating rights of poor people or minorities without equal defense. This has been going on continually, look up judicial and legal abuse online, and you'll see how there is not adequate check against abuses because any crimes or fraud have to be proven AFTER they already occurred, so the victims suffer all that time without equal protections of interests as the people who abused them.

C. I believe in respecting and protecting diverse political beliefs equally as religious beliefs, and RESOLVING CONFLICTS BEFORE laws or decisions or made by govt. Where this fails, I believe in correcting damages done by govt even where govt fails to do so. I don't believe victims should be denied corrections because the wrongdoers were never held accountable. Because of my beliefs, I end up taking on responsibility for massive corrections myself that govt fails to address; and now with more conflicts added on that require corrections and restitution, I cannot address them all. It is like being punished, where the damages within my reach that I try to correct keep increasing because the system does not require conflict resolution to include all interests equally, but waits for people to prove wrong or damages were incurred and going through court before correcting anything. And I believe in correcting things immediately before worse damage gets done. So that is punishing people who believe in govt being held accountable for damages. The people who don't believe in conflict resolution don't see this as damages, but as the cost of business as usual, so that view is favored while the view of conflict resolution "being legally necessary for constitutional inclusion and equal representation/due process" is discriminated against while denying any responsibility for damages done by such disregard.

D. crime victims and taxpayers who end up paying for damages, prosecution and incarceration for offenders committing crimes are penalized financially for the wrongdoings of others who are not required to pay for their own crimes. So lawabiding working taxpayers suffer a greater burden, while those who cannot work due to crime are not required to pay their share of costs even those they incurred.
This makes absolutely NO SENSE, and I fail to understand why this wasn't addressed along with health care to reform how we could pay for services instead of wasting billions paying for prisons and inmate care while neglecting services to lawabiding citizens who already pay billions to run a failed criminal justice system. Why wasn't health care reform tied to state reforms of state prisons except that didn't fit a federal agenda to make the President look good? Reforms couldn't be addressed on a state level, because that would focus leadership and solutions on Governors who are mostly Republican? or what?

E. People "born in this country" who commit crimes end up with housing, meals and even education paid for if they end up in prison; while people not born in this country who commit to work an honest living and want to obey all laws as a responsible citizen have to go through a process of gaining citizenship before they access rights, while those "born as citizens" have the right to abuse and violate those privileges granted solely by birthright and live off the public instead of working to earn or pay back their costs to society.

F. Govt officials have tax paid benefits and insurance and better coverage than the people who work to pay for them to have those benefits.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Fix the educational system and watch them kick ass

 

[bianco]

Is this some insane historical payback?

Seems to be.

And not only in America;

No Cookies | Herald Sun

2008

Discrimination against white males will soon be encouraged

DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged in a bid to boost the status of women, the disabled and cultural and religious minorities.

The first raft of changes to the Equal Opportunity Act were introduced into Parliament last week .

 

[Wake]

It'd be great if everyone could just be treated equally, without anyone being treated better or worse because of who they are or what happened in the past.

 

[ScienceRocks]

It'd be great if everyone could just be treated equally, without anyone being treated better or worse because of who they are or what happened in the past.

One can dream

 

[jwoodie]

How is it legal to discriminate against them? Why under 40?

Unlike all other Americans, they are not members of a "protected class" unless they are 40+ (age discrimination).

 

[Alfalfa]

How is it legal to discriminate against them? Why under 40?

Unlike all other Americans, they are not members of a "protected class" unless they are 40+ (age discrimination).

Race/ethnicity is a protected class, as is religion, gender, marital status and sexual orientation.

Just because they don't need the protection because for the last 100 years have been the main offenders doesn't mean it won't be there when they need it.

 

[Alfalfa]

This is what's so funny, for the last 100 years (and much longer) it's been white males who have been dragging jews, blacks, women and homos around town behind their chevy's, now they are complaining because they can't throttle their camaros in public anymore.

Hilarious.