Do You Believe In Civil Rights?

[jc456]

Do you believe that civil rights needs more attention, or it already have had enough and it's time to move on?

Why/why not?

I believe there are inequalities which cannot be legislated away. We will always be burdened with bigots, and no law will make them change.

We can enforce behaviors, but that is very dangerous ground, and I do think the federal government has overstepped in that department. I teach my children all about the black civil rights struggle. I have given them detailed knowledge of the unholy horrors blacks had to endure to get the same freedoms we enjoy. I tell them these things happened in my own lifetime to give them a sense of perspective of how much our country has grown since that period. But at the same time, I rankle at the federal government trying to control my behavior.

There is something more powerful than laws which we have not pursued enough.

Education. Contrary to what some people may believe around here, I have a great deal of faith in the intelligence of the American people. I think education is the solution to almost all of our problems, not just our racial problems.

But even where we have been educating people on matters of race, it has been mostly one way. Teaching us whites about tolerance, while overlooking or outright condoning the bigotry and hate directed at us.

In addition to conscious bigotry, there are also racial and cultural biases which cause people to treat those who are unlike them differently without being aware of it. White cops give black drivers more tickets, for example. I don't believe this is always deliberate, and that is where education comes in.

I don't think more laws are necessary. But we definitely need more education.

We all have behaviors of which we are unaware until someone points them to us. That is probably one of the biggest benefits of marriage. To have someone there to point out, "You behaved like an asshole just then."

I also think it is time for the black community to admit it has been fostering some incredibly self-destructive behaviors. Behaviors which are becoming downright cultural. Once behaviors become part of a culture, they are a real ***** to put a stop to.

To be honest with you Marc, I think at this point the black community is doing more damage to the black community than whites are.

And that feeds right into the bigots' propaganda.

well I will tell you the way the BLM is behaving, you can write off the current population that is walking and talking. Shit now you have to wait for an entirely new generation to be born. See, the fact that the BLM can't exist with current WLM and feels they don't have to coexist, isn't going to ever win you points moving forward. Just saying.

 

[Darkwind]

Do you believe that civil rights needs more attention, or it already have had enough and it's time to move on?

Why/why not?

Too often, civil rights are code for giving blacks more entitlements, so before I answer this, do Me a favor.

When asking questions like this, it is best that you articulate what it is you mean by civil rights. What specifically, in regard to the civil rights of citizens are you targeting? When I know where you want to go with this, I can then explain My position on civil rights.

 

[Fang]

Depends on who we're talking about and for what reason. We always need to make sure people's civil rights aren't trampled on. But it also seems there a lot of overreach today as well.

 

[danielpalos]

any examples?

 

[9thIDdoc]

I believe in equal rights. Somehow Civil Rights has come to mean (to some) special treatment for some. That's what actual civil rights was intended to stop.

To who? Cite some examples please.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act only attempted to stop certain types of discrimination at certain times and places against certain classes of people. It discriminated in favor of certain classes of people and made discrimination the law of the land. Discrimination and equality are opposites so in any discussion of civil rights it is important how we define the term.
An example would be 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms which is a Civil Right that was not addressed by the 1964 act. Race or sex based hiring quotas are examples of discrimination (inequality) meant to comply with the Civil Rights Act.

 

[dblack]

I believe in equal rights. Somehow Civil Rights has come to mean (to some) special treatment for some. That's what actual civil rights was intended to stop.

To who? Cite some examples please.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act only attempted to stop certain types of discrimination at certain times and places against certain classes of people. It discriminated in favor of certain classes of people and made discrimination the law of the land. Discrimination and equality are opposites so in any discussion of civil rights it is important how we define the term.
An example would be 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms which is a Civil Right that was not addressed by the 1964 act. Race or sex based hiring quotas are examples of discrimination (inequality) meant to comply with the Civil Rights Act.

That's the irony of the point of view that everyone should be "treated" equally. It requires government to do the opposite.

 

[danielpalos]

I believe in equal rights. Somehow Civil Rights has come to mean (to some) special treatment for some. That's what actual civil rights was intended to stop.

To who? Cite some examples please.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act only attempted to stop certain types of discrimination at certain times and places against certain classes of people. It discriminated in favor of certain classes of people and made discrimination the law of the land.

how did that happen?

 

[danielpalos]

I believe in equal rights. Somehow Civil Rights has come to mean (to some) special treatment for some. That's what actual civil rights was intended to stop.

To who? Cite some examples please.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act only attempted to stop certain types of discrimination at certain times and places against certain classes of people. It discriminated in favor of certain classes of people and made discrimination the law of the land. Discrimination and equality are opposites so in any discussion of civil rights it is important how we define the term.
An example would be 2nd Amendment rights to keep and bear arms which is a Civil Right that was not addressed by the 1964 act. Race or sex based hiring quotas are examples of discrimination (inequality) meant to comply with the Civil Rights Act.

That's the irony of the point of view that everyone should be "treated" equally. It requires government to do the opposite.

no, it doesn't.

equal protection of the law is what we are supposed to be getting.

 

[Correll]

the right wing is welcome to post some actual examples, not just right wing fantasy.

Why ask for examples, why not ask for academic studies?

 

[MarcATL]

"Civil Rights" as used, means rights for minorities and claims of "white privilege". It's institutionalized racism through giving special rights to select groups and special hiring or educational slots for select groups. It's added additional penalities for "hate crimes" so that a crime against one American citizen is punished less than an attack against another American citizen.

What we need is true "civil rights", enforcement of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause. There is no way to fix the wrongs of the past, but we can stop doing those wrongs in the present.

Really? WoW!!

How did you calculate all that?

I'm also curious to the difference between civil rights and "Civil Rights" as you put it.

Read it again. When discussing "Civil Rights Movement" do you think most Americans think of it as civil rights for all or as civil rights for black people?

Who's civil rights were being trampled at the time? Were there any other group being trampled?

To answer your question...civil rights for all. Clearly.

 

[MarcATL]

Then where is BLM regarding black on black murders. The silence in the inner cities on that issue is deafening. The group doesn't want any honest discussion as that might take self reflection instead of deflection. Do all lives matter to BLM. So far their actions and rhetoric would prove otherwise.

The same place you are regarding white on white murders.

 

[Flash]

I believe in individual rights and for the government to stay the hell out of my life and not to tell me who I should associate with, hire , fire or to take my money to give to other people.

 

[MarcATL]

You'd be more likely to get a unified response if you broaden the question of Civil Rights into the larger question of Civil Liberties. It's because of the observation that I gave before, that you've apparently skipped right over. That is -- that ALL people should have recourse against incompetent, inflexible, and uncaring govt administration of justice. And when the RECOURSE against having bad charges and bad warrants apply to EVERYBODY.. When massive spy palaces are being built to collect bulk data on EVERYONE are opposed. When inconsistent and poorly adjudicated drug laws are reformed for EVERYONE. When the criminal justice has better "customer relations" for EVERYONE.. When EVERYONE is free from asset forfeiture and eminent domain abuses..

That's why so many Civil Libertarians would rather JOIN with you on Civil Liberties, than on just Civil Rights. Because the latter is currently handled AS a race issue by the "system"..

Didn't ignore it, simply disagree with your premise.

I see absolutely no difference between civil rights and civil liberties. Simply semantics.

 

[dblack]

That's the irony of the point of view that everyone should be "treated" equally. It requires government to do the opposite.

no, it doesn't.

Yes, it does.

equal protection of the law is what we are supposed to be getting.

We're talking about the conception of civil rights that seeks to ensure that all people are treated equal by the rest of society, rather than ensure equal protection of the law.

 

[owebo]

You'd be more likely to get a unified response if you broaden the question of Civil Rights into the larger question of Civil Liberties. It's because of the observation that I gave before, that you've apparently skipped right over. That is -- that ALL people should have recourse against incompetent, inflexible, and uncaring govt administration of justice. And when the RECOURSE against having bad charges and bad warrants apply to EVERYBODY.. When massive spy palaces are being built to collect bulk data on EVERYONE are opposed. When inconsistent and poorly adjudicated drug laws are reformed for EVERYONE. When the criminal justice has better "customer relations" for EVERYONE.. When EVERYONE is free from asset forfeiture and eminent domain abuses..

That's why so many Civil Libertarians would rather JOIN with you on Civil Liberties, than on just Civil Rights. Because the latter is currently handled AS a race issue by the "system"..

Didn't ignore it, simply disagree with your premise.

I see absolutely no difference between civil rights and civil liberties. Simply semantics.

Civil liberties are what we the people can do....

Civil rights are what the government can't do....

Nothing semantic about it.....

 

[Disir]

the right wing is welcome to post some actual examples, not just right wing fantasy.

I'm left wing. I just don't tolerate BS.

 

[MarcATL]

1) 80 percent illegitimacy rate, for starters. This is simply staggering. From this flows much poverty. And from poverty comes crime, drug abuse, depravity, and hopelessness.

2) Deriding success achieved outside the black community. The proverbial bucket of crabs. When one begins to climb out, the others pull him back into the bucket.

3) Choosing the wrong martyrs. A thug shot by the cops is not a hero. Michael Brown was a thug. He was not Emmitt Till.

4) Choosing the wrong leadership. Defending obvious criminals and bad actors in positions of power just because they are black. I realize this is not strictly a black thing. Far from it. But if you are in a disadvantageous position on an unlevel playing field, you do not have the luxury of choosing scumbags to be your mouthpiece. Whenever you re-elect a piece of shit like Marion Barry, or defend a crook like William J. Jefferson, you are communicating that's the best you can do. That is the wrong message. Not just the wrong message to the world, it is the wrong message to tell yourselves.

Numbers 1 and 4 are the two which break my heart the most.

Now we're getting somewhere.

1. So how do you think that tragic statistic came to be?

Through an appalling amount of irresponsible unprotected sex with multiple partners.

3. The example you're using was a rather recent one. I don't think our problems stem from stuff like that. Using that same example, the problem comes from the fact that cops are so willing to end black children's lives so easily, whereas a white kid doing the exact same thing would have met a much nicer fate.

I have said on this forum in the past that cell phones are finally validating what people have been saying about cops for decades. That does not take away from the fact that Michael Brown was a thug. Choose your battles carefully, or your protests are counterproductive.

Speaking of counterproductive, burning down neighborhoods and the shops of perfectly innocent businesses is incredibly counterproductive. Don't shit in your own nest!

4. Interesting. I'm curious to know who you think are wrong and who would you suggest as right.

There hasn't been any real quality leadership in the black community since MLK. Jesse Jackson and Andrew Young undid a lot of progress MLK achieved.

I like what I've seen from Booker, though.

How come you don't include Malcolm X in that list?

 

[flacaltenn]

You'd be more likely to get a unified response if you broaden the question of Civil Rights into the larger question of Civil Liberties. It's because of the observation that I gave before, that you've apparently skipped right over. That is -- that ALL people should have recourse against incompetent, inflexible, and uncaring govt administration of justice. And when the RECOURSE against having bad charges and bad warrants apply to EVERYBODY.. When massive spy palaces are being built to collect bulk data on EVERYONE are opposed. When inconsistent and poorly adjudicated drug laws are reformed for EVERYONE. When the criminal justice has better "customer relations" for EVERYONE.. When EVERYONE is free from asset forfeiture and eminent domain abuses..

That's why so many Civil Libertarians would rather JOIN with you on Civil Liberties, than on just Civil Rights. Because the latter is currently handled AS a race issue by the "system"..

Didn't ignore it, simply disagree with your premise.

I see absolutely no difference between civil rights and civil liberties. Simply semantics.

There is a world of difference. Because the "civil rights" as espoused by black movement leaders LEAVE out the broader issues in Civil Liberties. Including asset forfeiture, eminent domain, spying on citizens, etc. Have never HEARD the NAACP take those issues to the mat. Even THO --- the first 2 of those DIRECTLY affect the black communities disproportionately.

And you don't do "justice reform" just as a Civil rights issue for the benefit of one class. Just as you don't "fix" Fergusons by declaring the problem to be RACISM.. CLEARLY, the problems in Ferguson stem largely by failure of govt. NOT by racism..

 

[g5000]

1) 80 percent illegitimacy rate, for starters. This is simply staggering. From this flows much poverty. And from poverty comes crime, drug abuse, depravity, and hopelessness.

2) Deriding success achieved outside the black community. The proverbial bucket of crabs. When one begins to climb out, the others pull him back into the bucket.

3) Choosing the wrong martyrs. A thug shot by the cops is not a hero. Michael Brown was a thug. He was not Emmitt Till.

4) Choosing the wrong leadership. Defending obvious criminals and bad actors in positions of power just because they are black. I realize this is not strictly a black thing. Far from it. But if you are in a disadvantageous position on an unlevel playing field, you do not have the luxury of choosing scumbags to be your mouthpiece. Whenever you re-elect a piece of shit like Marion Barry, or defend a crook like William J. Jefferson, you are communicating that's the best you can do. That is the wrong message. Not just the wrong message to the world, it is the wrong message to tell yourselves.

Numbers 1 and 4 are the two which break my heart the most.

Now we're getting somewhere.

1. So how do you think that tragic statistic came to be?

Through an appalling amount of irresponsible unprotected sex with multiple partners.

3. The example you're using was a rather recent one. I don't think our problems stem from stuff like that. Using that same example, the problem comes from the fact that cops are so willing to end black children's lives so easily, whereas a white kid doing the exact same thing would have met a much nicer fate.

I have said on this forum in the past that cell phones are finally validating what people have been saying about cops for decades. That does not take away from the fact that Michael Brown was a thug. Choose your battles carefully, or your protests are counterproductive.

Speaking of counterproductive, burning down neighborhoods and the shops of perfectly innocent businesses is incredibly counterproductive. Don't shit in your own nest!

4. Interesting. I'm curious to know who you think are wrong and who would you suggest as right.

There hasn't been any real quality leadership in the black community since MLK. Jesse Jackson and Andrew Young undid a lot of progress MLK achieved.

I like what I've seen from Booker, though.

How come you don't include Malcolm X in that list?

I read his autobiography before it was cool to read it.

It was written as told to Darth Vader. I'm sure you get that joke.

I have a great deal of respect for Malcolm X. He showed real character. One of the toughest things for a man to do is admit when he is wrong, and Malcolm did that. More than once! That's what made him a great man.

And he paid the heaviest price for his integrity and honor.

It did cross my mind to mention Malcom. It really did. How could I not, considering your avatar?

Unfortunately, I think too many people in the black community follow the ideals of the old, radical Nation of Islam Malcolm and not the wizened Malcolm.

Also, I think if Malcolm had not been killed, he would have gone down the same marxist road as Andrew Young. So (and please don't take this the wrong way) his death was timely.

 

[flacaltenn]

Bottom line is Marc --- a coalition of these interests IS necessary.. And things like justice/prison reform have to be attacked not primarily as RACE issues, but as Civil Liberties issues..