It's time republicans faced the truth the rest of us know

[ptbw forever]

No, I am a far better person than you could ever hope to be and your attempts to be a psychiatrist are laughable

No you're not and psychiatrists are not the only people who are trained to identify individuals who might be a threat to themselves or others. If all I knew about you is that your parents were negligent in teaching you it is ill-manner to call others names especially people whom you don't know, that would be enough.

You are a demon because you decry “white supremacy” at a time when anti-white racism is thoroughly institutionalized

There is nothing more institutionalized than having white supremacy written into the laws of the United States as they were. If you were horrified to find out what was done to black people in this country during the times of slavery and the Jim Crow aftermath, that's understandable, but no one is plotting anything similar against white people, not in this country.

You are far too crazy and uneducated and ignorant to diagnose anyone with any kind of psychological condition.

 

[SweetSue92]

Most certainly, and man can waste his time attempting to fix a problem he keeps creating, and ignore he is one of the many perpetrators, if he thinks that will do any good.

The thing is God has give man responsibilities. Therefore we have the capacity to fix this problem. The reality of God tells us there is a right and wrong to all things. If there is a problem, there is a wrong side and a right side There is no both sides. So on this case there is one side that is wrong and one that is not.

So when we talk about race and how wrong it is see it, we must look at the fruits. One side decided they were better or supreme. They made laws and policies denying rights to all they saw as such.. They continue doing so. There is no equivalence to be had in this situation.

Who is the "they" in this situation?

Whites.

So you attributed to me, a white person, this:

One side decided they were better or supreme. They made laws ad policies denying rights to all they saw as such.. They continue doing so. There is no equivalence to be had in this situation.

That means you view my behavior by my race. You realize this, right? You are just as bad as whites who view blacks' behavior by THEIR race, but maybe you don't mind that--because it serves your purposes. Because as long as they do that, you feel pleased as punch to view all whites by the words you typed above.

You are part of the problem. No. You ARE the problem.

I'm afraid you are the problem. I have not attributed anything to you. I have said whites decided they were better or supreme. Now does that mean I automatically assume all whites do this? No. But you chose to assume this. First of all learn this, whites like most of those here a USMB make up behaviors for us then pin them on our entire race. Whites have done the things I said, you don't have to like hearing it, but it should never have happened. You want to compare me to white racists, when I only stated what whites have done, not attributed any behavioral trait to an entire race to claim I am superior. White people today, and apparently that includes you, seem to think they can now redefine what racism is.

The “not all whites” argument
Saturday December 17th 2011 by abagond

The “not all whites” argument is a common straw man argument on this blog. I will make some statement about whites and then be informed that “not all whites” are like that, that they are Individuals. Like there is some special rule of English that “whites” always means “all whites”. Even when I say “some whites” or “most whites” it can still be taken to mean “all whites” – since clearly I only put in those words as a cheap trick to fool people.

In America, according to the government numbers, whites are supposedly better at reading than blacks. I would never know that from this blog: Only rarely do black commenters seriously misunderstand me while it is quite common for whites. And this imagined “all” before “whites” – which is not in any grammar book I know of – is one of the main causes.

Example: When I say, “Whites owned slaves” it hardly means they all owned slaves. As far as I know no more than 2% of White Americans ever did. Yet that does not make the statement untrue or meaningless. Because quantity is not the issue – it was never stated. To make quantity the issue is a derailment. To assume it means “All whites owned slaves” is putting words in my mouth and creating a straw man argument.

The “not all whites” argument

Not only are you using a poor argument to fuel your hatred, which is a moral problem, but you are using a logically failed argument to fuel your hatred. See: Affirmative Action, a system put in place that gives systemic preferential treatment to minorities.

But I'm sure AA doesn't count. When you're a hammer, everything is a nail, amirite?

 

[IM2]

You got this ass backwards. Whites used race as a qualifier and still do. In this system people do have the right to protest and to air grievances and petition the government to correct wrongs. That is what we have done. Your assessment is wrong on its face regarding how things happened. I start my argument with the truth. I am saying that whites are where they are because they made rules that excluded everyone else from he same opportunities hey had for 188 years by written law. That is weak, not power. When you start an argument with a false premise the rest of your statement is fake as well.

You want give whites credit for things when in fact these things were caused by pressure put on whites. And slaves did actually escape. We blacks don't look at things as you do. If you start another families house on fire, you aren't going to get credit because you called the fire department. Whites were made to clean up unnecessary messes they created, they didn't do any favors by ending things that never should have been.

I cannot have it backwards, because you just used the qualifier 5 words into your response. Hush with your gibberish.

Yes you have it backwards. Whites made race a qualifier. They continue to do so. That's what sane people call telling the truth.

 

[IM2]

The thing is God has give man responsibilities. Therefore we have the capacity to fix this problem. The reality of God tells us there is a right and wrong to all things. If there is a problem, there is a wrong side and a right side There is no both sides. So on this case there is one side that is wrong and one that is not.

So when we talk about race and how wrong it is see it, we must look at the fruits. One side decided they were better or supreme. They made laws and policies denying rights to all they saw as such.. They continue doing so. There is no equivalence to be had in this situation.

Who is the "they" in this situation?

Whites.

So you attributed to me, a white person, this:

One side decided they were better or supreme. They made laws ad policies denying rights to all they saw as such.. They continue doing so. There is no equivalence to be had in this situation.

That means you view my behavior by my race. You realize this, right? You are just as bad as whites who view blacks' behavior by THEIR race, but maybe you don't mind that--because it serves your purposes. Because as long as they do that, you feel pleased as punch to view all whites by the words you typed above.

You are part of the problem. No. You ARE the problem.

I'm afraid you are the problem. I have not attributed anything to you. I have said whites decided they were better or supreme. Now does that mean I automatically assume all whites do this? No. But you chose to assume this. First of all learn this, whites like most of those here a USMB make up behaviors for us then pin them on our entire race. Whites have done the things I said, you don't have to like hearing it, but it should never have happened. You want to compare me to white racists, when I only stated what whites have done, not attributed any behavioral trait to an entire race to claim I am superior. White people today, and apparently that includes you, seem to think they can now redefine what racism is.

The “not all whites” argument
Saturday December 17th 2011 by abagond

The “not all whites” argument is a common straw man argument on this blog. I will make some statement about whites and then be informed that “not all whites” are like that, that they are Individuals. Like there is some special rule of English that “whites” always means “all whites”. Even when I say “some whites” or “most whites” it can still be taken to mean “all whites” – since clearly I only put in those words as a cheap trick to fool people.

In America, according to the government numbers, whites are supposedly better at reading than blacks. I would never know that from this blog: Only rarely do black commenters seriously misunderstand me while it is quite common for whites. And this imagined “all” before “whites” – which is not in any grammar book I know of – is one of the main causes.

Example: When I say, “Whites owned slaves” it hardly means they all owned slaves. As far as I know no more than 2% of White Americans ever did. Yet that does not make the statement untrue or meaningless. Because quantity is not the issue – it was never stated. To make quantity the issue is a derailment. To assume it means “All whites owned slaves” is putting words in my mouth and creating a straw man argument.

The “not all whites” argument

Not only are you using a poor argument to fuel your hatred, which is a moral problem, but you are using a logically failed argument to fuel your hatred. See: Affirmative Action, a system put in place that gives systemic preferential treatment to minorities.

But I'm sure AA doesn't count. When you're a hammer, everything is a nail, amirite?

You assume hate which is a moral problem you have because you can't accept truth. Affirmative Action doesn't do what you say. And your claim ignores the reason why the policy was created. Why was the policy crated Sue? And if you are a white female do you understand that YOU have been the one provided the most "preference" by this policy?

 

[IM2]

You want give whites credit for things when in fact these things were caused by pressure put on whites. And slaves did actually escape. We blacks don't look at things as you do.

Hello, IM2.

When writing about "we blacks"" are you including a LARGE population of apparent slow-to-evolve, freedom-loving "Pro Black, Woke or Conscious Black Community" minded American citizens, ILLOGICALLY believing they have a right, as well as duty to LOUDLY and HATEFULLY demean, denigrate, bully, taunt, harass, and in some instances threaten with violence, our successful, accomplished black or American friends, neighbors and co-workers of African descent?

"Sell-out" "C^^n" and "Uncle Tom" are just a few HATEFUL, denigrating terms "Pro Black or Conscious Black Community" American citizens use to LOUDLY demean and intimidate our accomplished, successful black or American friends, neighbors and co-workers of African descent choosing to peacefully pursue THEIR OWN unique vision for L, L, (Love) & Happiness.

Peace.

Apparetly you are talking about yourself.

 

[SweetSue92]

Who is the "they" in this situation?

Whites.

So you attributed to me, a white person, this:

One side decided they were better or supreme. They made laws ad policies denying rights to all they saw as such.. They continue doing so. There is no equivalence to be had in this situation.

That means you view my behavior by my race. You realize this, right? You are just as bad as whites who view blacks' behavior by THEIR race, but maybe you don't mind that--because it serves your purposes. Because as long as they do that, you feel pleased as punch to view all whites by the words you typed above.

You are part of the problem. No. You ARE the problem.

I'm afraid you are the problem. I have not attributed anything to you. I have said whites decided they were better or supreme. Now does that mean I automatically assume all whites do this? No. But you chose to assume this. First of all learn this, whites like most of those here a USMB make up behaviors for us then pin them on our entire race. Whites have done the things I said, you don't have to like hearing it, but it should never have happened. You want to compare me to white racists, when I only stated what whites have done, not attributed any behavioral trait to an entire race to claim I am superior. White people today, and apparently that includes you, seem to think they can now redefine what racism is.

The “not all whites” argument
Saturday December 17th 2011 by abagond

The “not all whites” argument is a common straw man argument on this blog. I will make some statement about whites and then be informed that “not all whites” are like that, that they are Individuals. Like there is some special rule of English that “whites” always means “all whites”. Even when I say “some whites” or “most whites” it can still be taken to mean “all whites” – since clearly I only put in those words as a cheap trick to fool people.

In America, according to the government numbers, whites are supposedly better at reading than blacks. I would never know that from this blog: Only rarely do black commenters seriously misunderstand me while it is quite common for whites. And this imagined “all” before “whites” – which is not in any grammar book I know of – is one of the main causes.

Example: When I say, “Whites owned slaves” it hardly means they all owned slaves. As far as I know no more than 2% of White Americans ever did. Yet that does not make the statement untrue or meaningless. Because quantity is not the issue – it was never stated. To make quantity the issue is a derailment. To assume it means “All whites owned slaves” is putting words in my mouth and creating a straw man argument.

The “not all whites” argument

Not only are you using a poor argument to fuel your hatred, which is a moral problem, but you are using a logically failed argument to fuel your hatred. See: Affirmative Action, a system put in place that gives systemic preferential treatment to minorities.

But I'm sure AA doesn't count. When you're a hammer, everything is a nail, amirite?

You assume hate which is a moral problem you have because you can't accept truth. Affirmative Action doesn't do what you say. And your claim ignores the reason why the policy was created. Why was the policy crated Sue? And if you are a white female do you understand that YOU have been the one provided the most "preference" by this policy?

You said whites continue to make laws denying rights to black people. Is AA an example of a law that continues to deny rights to black people?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You posted it, so it isn't my problem if you don't understand what you posted. I mean damn, if the white people were 100% white supremacists automatically just because they lived in this country when white supremacist laws were in existence, then you have to understand that makes everyone (including your ancestors that might have lived here as well) white supremacists. And if there is any truth to your logic, as long as you live here, it must be because you agree with the laws and the way they are written (don't get me wrong, I think that is incredibly stupid, but you posted it). 100% is 100% and since you want to be equal, own it.

The U.S. isn't a white supremacist country because of who lives here, it's because of the laws that were passed based on the racist belief of white superiority and black inferiorty. THAT is what makes the origins of the U.S. white supremacist - the fact that the founders not only believed it, but that they created laws to enforce these beliefs.

I live here because I have as much right to this country as anyone else who was born here. And things don't change by abandoning them and going somehwhere else. That doesn't mean I agree with all of our laws, few people do, instead we work to do what we can to eliminate the inequalities.

 

[SweetSue92]

You posted it, so it isn't my problem if you don't understand what you posted. I mean damn, if the white people were 100% white supremacists automatically just because they lived in this country when white supremacist laws were in existence, then you have to understand that makes everyone (including your ancestors that might have lived here as well) white supremacists. And if there is any truth to your logic, as long as you live here, it must be because you agree with the laws and the way they are written (don't get me wrong, I think that is incredibly stupid, but you posted it). 100% is 100% and since you want to be equal, own it.

The U.S. isn't a white supremacist country because of who lives here, it's because of the laws that were passed based on the racist belief of white superiority and black inferiorty. THAT is what makes the origins of the U.S. white supremacist - the fact that the founders not only believed it, but that they created laws to enforce these beliefs.

I live here because I have as much right to this country as anyone else who was born here. And things don't change by abandoning them and going somehwhere else. That doesn't mean I agree with all of our laws, few people do, instead we work to do what we can to eliminate the inequalities.

I don't disagree with this at all but the degree to which the world lambasts America for the world's race problems is ridiculous. Great Britain was egregious for their slave trade and colonization for pity's sake, but any random Brit on the internet acts like they've never heard of such a thing if you don't bring it up.....

The Tall Poppy Syndrome, basically.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

You are far too crazy and uneducated and ignorant to diagnose anyone with any kind of psychological condition

Now that is actually funny. Our government created this national snitch program (See Something Say Something) in which it encouraged a bunch of uneducated and ignorant ass amatuers to go running around, spying on Muslims and reporting them to the government sans any unlawful behavior, no qualifications or training necessary yet you think that only a psychiatrist can deem you a threat. You think the police are psychiatrists?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Not only are you using a poor argument to fuel your hatred, which is a moral problem, but you are using a logically failed argument to fuel your hatred. See: Affirmative Action, a system put in place that gives systemic preferential treatment to minorities.

But I'm sure AA doesn't count. When you're a hammer, everything is a nail, amirite?

I've posted the text of the affirmative action "law" below. Let me know where it states that preference is to be given to minorities. And just FYI, white women have been the biggest beneficiaries of the affirmative action program, the fact that it also helped minorities is almost a side affect.

The value of slavery?

My feeling is reparations are made to survivors not descendents...and in a sense reparations have already been made through affirmative action legislation.

Affirmative action doesn't compensate anyone for any harm done to them prior to the passage of our current civil rights legislation. In short in codifies discriminatory hiring, firing, promotion, etc. practices in employment at the federal level and creates a private cause of action which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has authority to investigate. In some of the most egregious cases the EEOC may bring suit on behalf of the complaintant. And contrary to popular belief it doesn't elevate "unqualifed" black people over "qualified" white people. In fact the law itself is race neutral. Companies were instructed to

"take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
​

White women have benefited more than any other group as a result of this legislation.

I know you're not going to believe me so here's this as well
Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR)

Findings

• The study found that compliance reviews initiated against an establishment in the 1970s significantly increased the share of women and African Americans it employed as managers, not only in the 1970s but also through the 1980s and 1990s. A first compliance review in the 1970s increased the odds of white women in management by an estimated 34 percent, of African American women by 18 percent, and of African American men by 28 percent.
• Compliance reviews initiated in the 1970s led to significantly greater increases in female and African American employment shares than did reviews conducted in the 1980s.
• Larger numbers of lawsuits significantly increased employment shares for women and African Americans.

 

[katsteve2012]

You are not fighting for equality, you are fighting for absolute domination.

Is that what white racists fear? That the day may come when the positions held by whites & blacks in our society become reversed and the things that whites have done to blacks will then be done to them?

You should watch the movie Invictus, it's about the fall of apartheid in South Africa and shows how Nelson Mandela insisted that the whites who had lost power not be treated the way that they had treated blacks.

Otherwise your paranoia will continue to grow, it's always showing.

White people are treated worse in South Africa today than blacks were in the Jim Crow South, idiot.

Invictus is outdated garbage.

THIS is South Africa today:

Bullshit. Have you ever even been to South Africa? Or for that matter, away from the comfort of your computer screen "universe"?

Probably not.

 

[Meathead]

Not only are you using a poor argument to fuel your hatred, which is a moral problem, but you are using a logically failed argument to fuel your hatred. See: Affirmative Action, a system put in place that gives systemic preferential treatment to minorities.

But I'm sure AA doesn't count. When you're a hammer, everything is a nail, amirite?

The value of slavery?

My feeling is reparations are made to survivors not descendents...and in a sense reparations have already been made through affirmative action legislation.

Affirmative action doesn't compensate anyone for any harm done to them prior to the passage of our current civil rights legislation. In short in codifies discriminatory hiring, firing, promotion, etc. practices in employment at the federal level and creates a private cause of action which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has authority to investigate. In some of the most egregious cases the EEOC may bring suit on behalf of the complaintant. And contrary to popular belief it doesn't elevate "unqualifed" black people over "qualified" white people. In fact the law itself is race neutral. Companies were instructed to

"take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
​

White women have benefited more than any other group as a result of this legislation.

​

Ironically, black lives mattered more as slaves.

 

[SweetSue92]

Not only are you using a poor argument to fuel your hatred, which is a moral problem, but you are using a logically failed argument to fuel your hatred. See: Affirmative Action, a system put in place that gives systemic preferential treatment to minorities.

But I'm sure AA doesn't count. When you're a hammer, everything is a nail, amirite?

I've posted the text of the affirmative action "law" below. Let me know where it states that preference is to be given to minorities. And just FYI, white women have been the biggest beneficiaries of the affirmative action program, the fact that it also helped minorities is almost a side affect.

The value of slavery?

My feeling is reparations are made to survivors not descendents...and in a sense reparations have already been made through affirmative action legislation.

Affirmative action doesn't compensate anyone for any harm done to them prior to the passage of our current civil rights legislation. In short in codifies discriminatory hiring, firing, promotion, etc. practices in employment at the federal level and creates a private cause of action which the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has authority to investigate. In some of the most egregious cases the EEOC may bring suit on behalf of the complaintant. And contrary to popular belief it doesn't elevate "unqualifed" black people over "qualified" white people. In fact the law itself is race neutral. Companies were instructed to

"take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, color, religion, sex or national origin.
​

White women have benefited more than any other group as a result of this legislation.

I know you're not going to believe me so here's this as well
Clearinghouse for Labor Evaluation and Research (CLEAR)

Findings

• The study found that compliance reviews initiated against an establishment in the 1970s significantly increased the share of women and African Americans it employed as managers, not only in the 1970s but also through the 1980s and 1990s. A first compliance review in the 1970s increased the odds of white women in management by an estimated 34 percent, of African American women by 18 percent, and of African American men by 28 percent.
• Compliance reviews initiated in the 1970s led to significantly greater increases in female and African American employment shares than did reviews conducted in the 1980s.
• Larger numbers of lawsuits significantly increased employment shares for women and African Americans.

So black people did fairly well in employment, especially by the last bullet. But I was specifically speaking about enrollment in universities. Remember, the poster said there are laws put in place by whites that give systemic preference to white. I think AA is a law that flies in the face of this.

However, I can think of a ruling that blacks should absolutely oppose because it oppresses them: Roe v Wade. However I'm sure that's a big shrug, right, all those black babies that have been aborted?

 

[katsteve2012]

That is just the tip of the iceberg.

I have no doubt that you demons would do this to us and worse, but what would happen to us if the leftists had their way is beyond your imagination.

Nothing that you think happened to black people even approaches the evil that is bubbling up against indigenous Europeans thanks to the traitors and the determination of Islam to finish what they attempted to do before the Crusades pushed them back.

You think I'm a demon? Are you under the care of a physician because if not I can probably help you with that.

What you're experiencing is projection, you're projecting the negatives attributes and actions of your own as a member of the white race onto the black race. And just to be clear, my discussions of racism are limited to the United States because this is my country and the only place where I have jurisdiction to work to attempt to improve things for myself as well as others.

The unfortunate aspect to some of the work I do though is that when I am successful it also improves things for people such as yourself who would demonize me even when the work I do helps to improve your life and the lives of those like you.

There is no reasoning with the likes of him, so why even attempt to be civilized?

By his own admission, he was born into an upper middle class environment, somewhere in the deep south, and appears to have been indoctrinated with an attitude of entitlement and unearned privilege.

Everything that he posts, reeks of the stench of what the era that people of my generation and prior , experienced south of the Mason Dixon line.....which was really anywhere south of Canada.

If he EVER experienced REAL discrimination he would either curl up in a fetal position, or put on fatigues and become a mass shooter.

The absolute worst of a new generation of alt right wackos, that are just as feral and dangerous as the rabid klansmen and uncivilized racist bigots of past centuries.

His reference to you as a "demon" is nothing but "code" for language that is not allowed in this forum.



They have just reinvented themselves and changed their message to "sound" less offensive in today's enviromnment.

This is nothing new.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

So black people did fairly well in employment, especially by the last bullet. But I was specifically speaking about enrollment in universities. Remember, the poster said there are laws put in place by whites that give systemic preference to white. I think AA is a law that flies in the face of this.

You should watch the movie Hidden Figures if you get the opportunity. Equal employment "opportunities" is not about the ability to obtain employment in fields that are deemed suitable for blacks, but in whatever field we have an aptitude and passion for. Yes things improved initally but those figures are the public sector (government). My grandfather, had he not be killed at the end of WWII would not have been able to obtain employement as a commercial airline pilot even though he more than proved his abilities in military because the airlines refused to hire black pilots until the after the passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and a landmark lawsuit.

However, I can think of a ruling that blacks should absolutely oppose because it oppresses them: Roe v Wade. However I'm sure that's a big shrug, right, all those black babies that have been aborted?

That is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen posted on an internet message board and is nothing more than a deflection.`

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

If he EVER experienced REAL discrimination he would either curl up in a fetal position, or put on fatigues and become a mass shooter.

I though it but didn't type it, thanks for saying it....

 

[katsteve2012]

If he EVER experienced REAL discrimination he would either curl up in a fetal position, or put on fatigues and become a mass shooter.

I though it but didn't type it, thanks for saying it....

No problem. I don't post very much in this cesspool anymore, but when I do, I will say whatever I think.

 

[IM2]

Whites.

So you attributed to me, a white person, this:

One side decided they were better or supreme. They made laws ad policies denying rights to all they saw as such.. They continue doing so. There is no equivalence to be had in this situation.

That means you view my behavior by my race. You realize this, right? You are just as bad as whites who view blacks' behavior by THEIR race, but maybe you don't mind that--because it serves your purposes. Because as long as they do that, you feel pleased as punch to view all whites by the words you typed above.

You are part of the problem. No. You ARE the problem.

I'm afraid you are the problem. I have not attributed anything to you. I have said whites decided they were better or supreme. Now does that mean I automatically assume all whites do this? No. But you chose to assume this. First of all learn this, whites like most of those here a USMB make up behaviors for us then pin them on our entire race. Whites have done the things I said, you don't have to like hearing it, but it should never have happened. You want to compare me to white racists, when I only stated what whites have done, not attributed any behavioral trait to an entire race to claim I am superior. White people today, and apparently that includes you, seem to think they can now redefine what racism is.

The “not all whites” argument
Saturday December 17th 2011 by abagond

The “not all whites” argument is a common straw man argument on this blog. I will make some statement about whites and then be informed that “not all whites” are like that, that they are Individuals. Like there is some special rule of English that “whites” always means “all whites”. Even when I say “some whites” or “most whites” it can still be taken to mean “all whites” – since clearly I only put in those words as a cheap trick to fool people.

In America, according to the government numbers, whites are supposedly better at reading than blacks. I would never know that from this blog: Only rarely do black commenters seriously misunderstand me while it is quite common for whites. And this imagined “all” before “whites” – which is not in any grammar book I know of – is one of the main causes.

Example: When I say, “Whites owned slaves” it hardly means they all owned slaves. As far as I know no more than 2% of White Americans ever did. Yet that does not make the statement untrue or meaningless. Because quantity is not the issue – it was never stated. To make quantity the issue is a derailment. To assume it means “All whites owned slaves” is putting words in my mouth and creating a straw man argument.

The “not all whites” argument

Not only are you using a poor argument to fuel your hatred, which is a moral problem, but you are using a logically failed argument to fuel your hatred. See: Affirmative Action, a system put in place that gives systemic preferential treatment to minorities.

But I'm sure AA doesn't count. When you're a hammer, everything is a nail, amirite?

You assume hate which is a moral problem you have because you can't accept truth. Affirmative Action doesn't do what you say. And your claim ignores the reason why the policy was created. Why was the policy crated Sue? And if you are a white female do you understand that YOU have been the one provided the most "preference" by this policy?

You said whites continue to make laws denying rights to black people. Is AA an example of a law that continues to deny rights to black people?

I believe I asked you a couple of questions. Why is it that whites here feel they don't have to answer our questions, then ask a question and talk crazy if we don't answer it?

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It?
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the program benefits the women who fought against it most of all.

By Chloe Angyal

"And yet, just as most people think of Title IX as being about athletics funding (there’s a lot more to it than that), the general perception of affirmative action is that it’s “just” about race.

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America."

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

But the battle to erase race from the application review process for admission comes with an interesting paradox: "The primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been Euro-American women," wrote Columbia University law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw for the University of Michigan Law Review in 2006.

A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.

A 1995 report by the Department of Labor found that 6 million women overall had advances at their job that would not have been possible without affirmative action. The percentage of women physicians tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.

Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

Affirmative Action doesn't do what you say. And your claim ignores the reason why the policy was created. Why was the policy created Sue? And if you are a white female do you understand that YOU have been the one provided the most "preference" by this policy?

 

[SweetSue92]

So black people did fairly well in employment, especially by the last bullet. But I was specifically speaking about enrollment in universities. Remember, the poster said there are laws put in place by whites that give systemic preference to white. I think AA is a law that flies in the face of this.

You should watch the movie Hidden Figures if you get the opportunity. Equal employment "opportunities" is not about the ability to obtain employment in fields that are deemed suitable for blacks, but in whatever field we have an aptitude and passion for. Yes things improved initally but those figures are the public sector (government). My grandfather, had he not be killed at the end of WWII would not have been able to obtain employement as a commercial airline pilot even though he more than proved his abilities in military because the airlines refused to hire black pilots until the after the passage of the civil rights act of 1964 and a landmark lawsuit.

However, I can think of a ruling that blacks should absolutely oppose because it oppresses them: Roe v Wade. However I'm sure that's a big shrug, right, all those black babies that have been aborted?

That is one of the most ignorant statements I've ever seen posted on an internet message board and is nothing more than a deflection.`

So bringing up the number of black babies that have been eliminated due to abortion is "ignorant"? Why is that ignorant?

Or do you mean it is INCONVENIENT. For you. Yes, I think that's what you mean.

 

[SweetSue92]

So you attributed to me, a white person, this:

One side decided they were better or supreme. They made laws ad policies denying rights to all they saw as such.. They continue doing so. There is no equivalence to be had in this situation.

That means you view my behavior by my race. You realize this, right? You are just as bad as whites who view blacks' behavior by THEIR race, but maybe you don't mind that--because it serves your purposes. Because as long as they do that, you feel pleased as punch to view all whites by the words you typed above.

You are part of the problem. No. You ARE the problem.

I'm afraid you are the problem. I have not attributed anything to you. I have said whites decided they were better or supreme. Now does that mean I automatically assume all whites do this? No. But you chose to assume this. First of all learn this, whites like most of those here a USMB make up behaviors for us then pin them on our entire race. Whites have done the things I said, you don't have to like hearing it, but it should never have happened. You want to compare me to white racists, when I only stated what whites have done, not attributed any behavioral trait to an entire race to claim I am superior. White people today, and apparently that includes you, seem to think they can now redefine what racism is.

The “not all whites” argument
Saturday December 17th 2011 by abagond

The “not all whites” argument is a common straw man argument on this blog. I will make some statement about whites and then be informed that “not all whites” are like that, that they are Individuals. Like there is some special rule of English that “whites” always means “all whites”. Even when I say “some whites” or “most whites” it can still be taken to mean “all whites” – since clearly I only put in those words as a cheap trick to fool people.

In America, according to the government numbers, whites are supposedly better at reading than blacks. I would never know that from this blog: Only rarely do black commenters seriously misunderstand me while it is quite common for whites. And this imagined “all” before “whites” – which is not in any grammar book I know of – is one of the main causes.

Example: When I say, “Whites owned slaves” it hardly means they all owned slaves. As far as I know no more than 2% of White Americans ever did. Yet that does not make the statement untrue or meaningless. Because quantity is not the issue – it was never stated. To make quantity the issue is a derailment. To assume it means “All whites owned slaves” is putting words in my mouth and creating a straw man argument.

The “not all whites” argument

Not only are you using a poor argument to fuel your hatred, which is a moral problem, but you are using a logically failed argument to fuel your hatred. See: Affirmative Action, a system put in place that gives systemic preferential treatment to minorities.

But I'm sure AA doesn't count. When you're a hammer, everything is a nail, amirite?

You assume hate which is a moral problem you have because you can't accept truth. Affirmative Action doesn't do what you say. And your claim ignores the reason why the policy was created. Why was the policy crated Sue? And if you are a white female do you understand that YOU have been the one provided the most "preference" by this policy?

You said whites continue to make laws denying rights to black people. Is AA an example of a law that continues to deny rights to black people?

I believe I asked you a couple of questions. Why is it that whites here feel they don't have to answer our questions, then ask a question and talk crazy if we don't answer it?

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It?
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the program benefits the women who fought against it most of all.

By Chloe Angyal

"And yet, just as most people think of Title IX as being about athletics funding (there’s a lot more to it than that), the general perception of affirmative action is that it’s “just” about race.

But affirmative action has been quite beneficial to women, and disproportionately beneficial to white women. Women are now more likely to graduate with bachelor’s degrees and attend graduate school than men are and outnumber men on many college campuses. In 1970, just 7.6 percent of physicians in America were women; in 2002, that number had risen to 25.2 percent. But — and this is a big but — those benefits are more likely to accrue to white women than they are to women of color, and that imbalance has very real effects on employment and earnings later in life. In other words: affirmative action works, and it works way better for white women than it does for all the other women in America."

Affirmative Action Is Great For White Women. So Why Do They Hate It? | HuffPost

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

But the battle to erase race from the application review process for admission comes with an interesting paradox: "The primary beneficiaries of affirmative action have been Euro-American women," wrote Columbia University law professor Kimberlé Crenshaw for the University of Michigan Law Review in 2006.

A 1995 report by the California Senate Government Organization Committee found that white women held a majority of managerial jobs (57,250) compared with African Americans (10,500), Latinos (19,000), and Asian Americans (24,600) after the first two decades of affirmative action in the private sector. In 2015, a disproportionate representation of white women business owners set off concerns that New York state would not be able to bridge a racial gap among public contractors.

A 1995 report by the Department of Labor found that 6 million women overall had advances at their job that would not have been possible without affirmative action. The percentage of women physicians tripled between 1970 and 2002, from 7.6 percent to 25.2 percent, and in 2009 women were receiving a majority of bachelor's, master's, and doctoral degrees, according to the American Association of University Women. To be clear, these numbers include women of all races; however, breaking down affirmative action beneficiaries by race and gender seems to be rare in reported data.

Contrary to popular belief, affirmative action isn't just black. It's white, too. But affirmative action's white female faces are rarely at the center of the conversation.

White women benefit most from affirmative action — and are among its fiercest opponents

Affirmative Action doesn't do what you say. And your claim ignores the reason why the policy was created. Why was the policy created Sue? And if you are a white female do you understand that YOU have been the one provided the most "preference" by this policy?

OF COURSE white women have benefited most by the numbers--blacks are only 12% of the population, so what do you expect?? What a silly basis for your argument. And did I say I oppose AA? I don't believe I did. Why do you assume so much?