OPINION: Being black means constantly rendering yourself unthreatening to white people

[protectionist]

BS and you know it. If you are so unhappy with your failures, get off your fat white butt and earn your own way. (Yeah, I'm really sick of lazy ass crackers whining because they think the world owes them an easy ride.

As to the OP - Its not possible to appear nonthreatening because whites can lie and get away with it. Especially cops. We need to demand cops wear body cams that are always turned on. Meanwhile, people need to be ready with their cell cameras and then refuse to hand over the footage to cops.

View attachment 198172

So you are a dupe of the Obama/Sharpton/Jackson/Holder race hustlers propaganda team. How anybody could claim that Blacks don't have preference over whites in Affirmative Action is beyond belief. Liberals go around denying things that have been a fact for 50 years. They'll say anything.

Why do you thing AA has been banned in 8 states ? (and should be in all 50)

Body cams are better for the cops than they are for the public. They keep the mouthy whiners from lying abut them. It's because of cameras, they many have have been shown to have shot suspects in self-defense. Propaganda dupes still walk around claiming the cops were brutal, even after the videos showed they acted in self-defense.

 

[protectionist]

Well I know a negro biker gang leader who tried to assault me about a week ago but he could not catch me. I walk backwards really fast, thanks to basketball in middle and high school.

When the bro then asked me why I was such a coward, I explained to him that state law requires that I first withdraw, and then use my oleoresin capsicum spray on him, before I can use my baton and then shoot him.

I think he probably sh!t his draws.

So not all negroes know their place.

This one didn't.

No Stand Your Ground ?

 

[Likkmee]

We need to examine this from a black man ( notniggerr) point of view.

 

[protectionist]

The agency wasn't looking at just numbers, it was looking at increases in opportunities of which white women lead the way in percentage points.

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.

The entire post is here

You are using an Incorrect term to describe black people. The term "African-Americans" is faulty, and should not be used. The correct word is "blacks". Please keep that in mind.

Also, all these things you are talking about, are malicious and illegal racial and sex discrimination. You should be ashamed if you condone it.

 

[protectionist]

Thank you and yes I have looked at the per capita numbers. I worked in a white male dominated environment as the ONLY minority in the entire western division, and achieved what I did strictly by delivering results.

I paid my own way to obtain my undergraduate degree, and the company that I worked for paid partially for my graduate pursuits as a condition of being promoted.

The only reason that I even dignified "Protectionist" with a rebuttal is that he completely denies that white females have benefitted more than most groups from AA.

Secondly, "hundreds of millions: of whites" have not been marginalized by the initiative as he claims, because if this was true there would be supporting information out there revealing those facts.

1. The term "white females" includes ALL white females, which includes the daughters, granddaughters, mothers, wives, etc (dependents) of white males discriminated against in AA. These, by far, outnumber the relatively small number of white females benefitting from AA. Then, you also have the large #s of white females who are discriminated against because they're white, wherin that AA program makes no preference for sex (like the one in my graduate school 41 years ago). Some people have to be told twice.

2. Of course, hundreds of millions of whites have been discriminated against by AA, just by virtue of its existence for 50+ years. Can you guess how many whites have gone in and out of the US workforce over that long duration, and really, ALL whites have been discriminated by AA, whether they were ever in the workforce or not, just because the policy is THERE and against them. It's easily hundreds of millions (which would only need to be 200 million, and there's that many right now in America, let alone all those who were here (but have since died) over the past 50 years.

You need to be a little deprogrammed from the university mind-set that makes you think everything needs a university or think tank study. Hundreds millions of whites in America over the past 50 years includes hundreds of millions who are now dead. This doesn't need "supporting information", it just need a brain in the head. Do you need supporting information to know if cats have fur ? If rocks are hard ? If days are light, and nights are dark ? Please get real.

 

[ptbw forever]

We need to examine this from a black man ( notniggerr) point of view.

Stop legitimizing that idiot.

 

[protectionist]

GOOD! Not a bad idea if cops were to kick more ass. I would have loved to see them kicking ass on the rioters that Democrat mayors allowed to riot and destroy, while forcing their cops to take no action.

Baltimore Mayor Gives Protestors 'Who Wish to Destroy Space To Do That'

She's not the only one. Ferguson mayor allowed looters to loot, rioters to riot. Missouri governor moved the National Guard miles AWAY from the rioting. Tampa mayor (et al) allowed BLM to block traffic for hours. San Jose mayor Sam Liccado allowed illegal alien thugs waving Mexican flags, to attack Trump rallygoers. So did Rahm Emanuel in Chicago. partial list.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

As to the OP - Its not possible to appear nonthreatening because whites can lie and get away with it. Especially cops. We need to demand cops wear body cams that are always turned on. Meanwhile, people need to be ready with their cell cameras and then refuse to hand over the footage to cops.

Been there done that, repeatedly.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a free app you can download onto your phone which allows you to record audio/video and then easier transmit to the ACLU servers so that even if your phone is unlawfully seized a copy of the video is secured by a third-party.
ACLU Apps to Record Police Conduct

I don't know about the laws outside of Washington State but here all police interactions have been ruled "public" meaning that there i no expectation of privacy that would prohibit or render your recordings unlawful.

 

[protectionist]

Been there done that, repeatedly.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a free app you can download onto your phone which allows you to record audio/video and then easier transmit to the ACLU servers so that even if your phone is unlawfully seized a copy of the video is secured by a third-party.
ACLU Apps to Record Police Conduct

I don't know about the laws outside of Washington State but here all police interactions have been ruled "public" meaning that there i no expectation of privacy that would prohibit or render your recordings unlawful.

Recordings benefit police. They show self-defense.

 

[katsteve2012]

Thank you and yes I have looked at the per capita numbers. I worked in a white male dominated environment as the ONLY minority in the entire western division, and achieved what I did strictly by delivering results.

I paid my own way to obtain my undergraduate degree, and the company that I worked for paid partially for my graduate pursuits as a condition of being promoted.

The only reason that I even dignified "Protectionist" with a rebuttal is that he completely denies that white females have benefitted more than most groups from AA.

Secondly, "hundreds of millions: of whites" have not been marginalized by the initiative as he claims, because if this was true there would be supporting information out there revealing those facts.

1. The term "white females" includes ALL white females, which includes the daughters, granddaughters, mothers, wives, etc (dependents) of white males discriminated against in AA. These, by far, outnumber the relatively small number of white females benefitting from AA. Then, you also have the large #s of white females who are discriminated against because they're white, wherin that AA program makes no preference for sex (like the one in my graduate school 41 years ago). Some people have to be told twice.

2. Of course, hundreds of millions of whites have been discriminated against by AA, just by virtue of its existence for 50+ years. Can you guess how many whites have gone in and out of the US workforce over that long duration, and really, ALL whites have been discriminated by AA, whether they were ever in the workforce or not, just because the policy is THERE and against them. It's easily hundreds of millions (which would only need to be 200 million, and there's that many right now in America, let alone all those who were here (but have since died) over the past 50 years.

You need to be a little deprogrammed from the university mind-set that makes you think everything needs a university or think tank study. Hundreds millions of whites in America over the past 50 years includes hundreds of millions who are now dead. This doesn't need "supporting information", it just need a brain in the head. Do you need supporting information to know if cats have fur ? If rocks are hard ? If days are light, and nights are dark ? Please get real.

As the old saying goes, "even a broken clock is right one time per day."

In your case that is questionable.

Whatever alternate reality that you reside in sounds like a happy place.

Somewhere that you can ignore verified truth and proven facts and create your own version of history.

SMGDH at such willfull ignorance.

 

[IM2]

BS and you know it. If you are so unhappy with your failures, get off your fat white butt and earn your own way. (Yeah, I'm really sick of lazy ass crackers whining because they think the world owes them an easy ride.

As to the OP - Its not possible to appear nonthreatening because whites can lie and get away with it. Especially cops. We need to demand cops wear body cams that are always turned on. Meanwhile, people need to be ready with their cell cameras and then refuse to hand over the footage to cops.

View attachment 198172

So you are a dupe of the Obama/Sharpton/Jackson/Holder race hustlers propaganda team. How anybody could claim that Blacks don't have preference over whites in Affirmative Action is beyond belief. Liberals go around denying things that have been a fact for 50 years. They'll say anything.

Why do you thing AA has been banned in 8 states ? (and should be in all 50)

Body cams are better for the cops than they are for the public. They keep the mouthy whiners from lying abut them. It's because of cameras, they many have have been shown to have shot suspects in self-defense. Propaganda dupes still walk around claiming the cops were brutal, even after the videos showed they acted in self-defense.

AA was created to provide the equal opportunity whites like you were not giving anyone else. And you still would not give it if not for the policy. You deny shit that has gone on for now 242 years based on race pimps like Limbaugh and many others who run and control the race hustling game.. And for body cams, the police are crying because they have to wear them and can't get away with besting and killing.

You keep talking about AA being banned in 8 states. I doubt that. You already admit to not using facts. However the US Supreme court continues to uphold the policy.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

How anybody could claim that Blacks don't have preference over whites in Affirmative Action is beyond belief. Liberals go around denying things that have been a fact for 50 years. They'll say anything.

So now you've gone from being willfully ignorant to just straight up lying unless you can point out to me (or any of us) where in the text below Affirmative Action gives preference to Blacks over Whites

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take "affirmative action" to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin". This prevented employers from discriminating against members of disadvantaged groups. In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[11]
​

Your argument keeps failing on the fact that whites were never entitled to 100% of everything in the first place in spite of what they intended when they created this nation.

 

[IM2]

How anybody could claim that Blacks don't have preference over whites in Affirmative Action is beyond belief. Liberals go around denying things that have been a fact for 50 years. They'll say anything.

So now you've gone from being willfully ignorant to just straight up lying unless you can point out to me (or any of us) where in the text below Affirmative Action gives preference to Blacks over Whites

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take "affirmative action" to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin". This prevented employers from discriminating against members of disadvantaged groups. In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[11]
​

Your argument keeps failing on the fact that whites were never entitled to 100% of everything in the first place in spite of what they intended when they created this nation.

The racist section here doesn't seem to understand this simple concept.

 

[katsteve2012]

How anybody could claim that Blacks don't have preference over whites in Affirmative Action is beyond belief. Liberals go around denying things that have been a fact for 50 years. They'll say anything.

So now you've gone from being willfully ignorant to just straight up lying unless you can point out to me (or any of us) where in the text below Affirmative Action gives preference to Blacks over Whites

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take "affirmative action" to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin". This prevented employers from discriminating against members of disadvantaged groups. In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[11]
​

Your argument keeps failing on the fact that whites were never entitled to 100% of everything in the first place in spite of what they intended when they created this nation.

And, in addition to the facts that you point out, he also appears to believe that from it's very inception, even before the ink was dry on AA legislation, that magically overnight, white people were immediately displaced in the workforce and colleges all over America by "unqualified" black people.

Ignorance at it's worst.

Truthfully, I have better things to do than argue with an embittered, illogical person, who has a persecution complex. I'm not a therapist.

Some of the racist nuts here, ranging from him to others who are self appointed spokespeople for others, really serve no purpose to even attempt to talk to except for semi humorous entertainment.

MLK once stated:

"There is nothing more dangerous than sincere ignorance and concientous stupidity"

 

[IM2]

In other words, when whites critique affirmative action, we typically ignore everything that came before such efforts — and which unjustly skewed the historical balance of power and access in our favor — and even that which continues to favor us now, from funding and other advantages in the schools that mostly serve our children, to preferential treatment in the housing market, to ongoing advantages in employment.

For instance, with black and Latino students far more likely than whites to attend concentrated poverty schools, and with the typical black or Latino student attending school with twice as many low income students as the typical white student, and being twice as likely to be taught by the least experienced teachers and half as likely to be taught by the most experienced, it is more than a bit disingenuous to suggest that it’s black and brown kids receiving “preferential treatment” in education.

With companies filling up to half of their new jobs by way of recommendations made by pre-existing employees — a practice that benefits those persons connected to others already in the pipeline, who will disproportionately be white — and with informal, typically white-dominated networks providing the keys to the best jobs in the modern economy, and with research indicating that employers are more likely to hire people they’d like to “hang out with,” than those who are necessarily the most qualified (which will tend to replicate race and class homogeneity), and with blacks significantly underrepresented in management positions, even and especially in work settings that include large numbers of blacks, it stands as uniquely craven to complain about how persons of color are receiving unjust head starts in the labor market. That even middle class blacks, relatively protected by their economic and educational status from overt mistreatment, still suffer disparate rates of job dismissal (even when their performance indicators are comparable to those of whites), lower mobility when compared to similar whites, and regular harassment on the job, makes such arguments all the more repugnant.

With people of color significantly more likely than whites to be steered to subprime mortgage loans — even when their credit scores and incomes are comparable to (or better) than their white counterparts — makes it downright indecent to argue that it’s whites who are getting the shaft and people of color who are reaping the benefits of some iniquitous system of preference.

And yet, that’s what one can hear, over and again, from the very white Americans who regularly bemoan what they call the “victim” mentality of black folks and other “racial minorities.”

As in, “If I were just black, I’d have gotten into Harvard!” Or, “If my buddy John had been named Juan, he’d have gotten that construction contract,” which arguments brazenly ignore that whites still far outnumber blacks at places like Harvard and white owned businesses continue to receive over 90 percent of government contracts (3). Oh, and such idiocy also, and conveniently, ignores one more not-so-minor matter: namely, that if one had been black, or if one’s friend had been Latino, one’s life and that of said friend would have been completely different, and not only on that day that you or he applied to Harvard or for that particular contract, but every day before that.

Whine Merchants: Privilege, Inequality and the Persistent Myth of White Victimhood

 

[katsteve2012]

Been there done that, repeatedly.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has a free app you can download onto your phone which allows you to record audio/video and then easier transmit to the ACLU servers so that even if your phone is unlawfully seized a copy of the video is secured by a third-party.
ACLU Apps to Record Police Conduct

I don't know about the laws outside of Washington State but here all police interactions have been ruled "public" meaning that there i no expectation of privacy that would prohibit or render your recordings unlawful.

Recordings benefit police. They show self-defense.

Of course we know that all police officers are never in the wrong,, and they are just poor victims who the public habitually lies about...ROFLMAO.

 

[squeeze berry]

if it was wrong to give whites preference over 5 decades ago it is wrong to give racial preference to minorities now

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

if it was wrong to give whites preference over 5 decades ago it is wrong to give racial preference to minorities now

Except that is not what happened "5 decades ago"

In 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson issued Executive Order 11246 which required government employers to take "affirmative action" to "hire without regard to race, religion and national origin". This prevented employers from discriminating against members of disadvantaged groups. In 1967, gender was added to the anti-discrimination list.[11]​

[snipped] ... whites were never entitled to 100% of everything in the first place in spite of what they intended when they created this nation."

 

[katsteve2012]

if it was wrong to give whites preference over 5 decades ago it is wrong to give racial preference to minorities now

In all honestly, didn't white people have preference for far more than 5 decades in the history of America?

And does minorities being given equal access by law, really equate to preferential treatment? Or is the concept of true equalization being misconstrued as "preferential treatment" and anti white discrimination?

 

[squeeze berry]

if it was wrong to give whites preference over 5 decades ago it is wrong to give racial preference to minorities now

In all honestly, didn't white people have preference for far more than 5 decades in the history of America?

And does minorities being given equal access by law, really equate to preferential treatment? Or is the concept of true equalization being misconstrued as "preferential treatment" and anti white discrimination?

How can white people that are less than 70 years old have had preferential treatment for over 5 decades? Not too many of the over 70 crowd is left and those that are still alive just might have earned their successes or failures in life due to their own choices, effort or abilities. Same goes for whites under 70. You will not be able to prove that whites have preferential treatment now or the last 5 decades. Unequal outcome is not the same as unequal treatment.

There are racial disparities if you look at demographic data. By why is that?
Does whitey conspire to keep asians, Indians and hispanics down too? It certainly does not appear that way if you look at data.


You already understand that white women benefit from affirmative action because of their gender and not because of being white. That would be institutional sexism . Institution racism is also affirmative action.