How "Race Neutrality" Is Used to Further White Advantage

[IM2]

This is why I oppose what right wingers call colorblind meritocracy.

The Republicans want judges to define 'Black' | Opinion​

The Republicans and their allies hope to take the country back to the time of asking judges to define race. That hope lies in the Supreme Court case concerning gerrymandering, Ardoin v. Robinson.

While we know race is a social construct and nonsensical, we can’t ignore race and the legacy of racial distinctions without reproducing the faux neutrality central to white supremacy. Pretending the laws that don’t mention race are neutral usually results in privileging the white cishet men who have historically made the same law.

Since the end of Jim Crow segregation, conservatives have had to enforce racism through “facially neutral” legislation (that is, laws that don’t mention race). They have had to rely on the discriminatory outcomes of neutral law that’s still racially targeted, such as voter ID requirements or mandatory minimum sentencing, all under the guise of “colorblindness” and the promise that the law does not see race.

The Voting Rights Act was a gold standard for race-conscious law in that it required the consideration of race when examining the impact of congressional district maps or voting restrictions.

That it worked meant it has also been repeatedly targeted by the Republicans.

The only way to address racial harm without reproducing white supremacist racism is by relying on the self-identification of those within the racialized groups. The court redefining Blackness is trying to subordinate Black people and define their group identity for them. Blackness must be defined by Black people.

MSN

www.msn.com

So now the no government right wing wants the government to define what black is. Never mind that whites check off boxes and if a case was bought before the supreme court demanding the court to define whiteness the whining would be insufferable. But white privilege doesn't exist.

 

[themirrorthief]

This is why I oppose what right wingers call colorblind meritocracy.

The Republicans want judges to define 'Black' | Opinion​

The Republicans and their allies hope to take the country back to the time of asking judges to define race. That hope lies in the Supreme Court case concerning gerrymandering, Ardoin v. Robinson.

While we know race is a social construct and nonsensical, we can’t ignore race and the legacy of racial distinctions without reproducing the faux neutrality central to white supremacy. Pretending the laws that don’t mention race are neutral usually results in privileging the white cishet men who have historically made the same law.

Since the end of Jim Crow segregation, conservatives have had to enforce racism through “facially neutral” legislation (that is, laws that don’t mention race). They have had to rely on the discriminatory outcomes of neutral law that’s still racially targeted, such as voter ID requirements or mandatory minimum sentencing, all under the guise of “colorblindness” and the promise that the law does not see race.

The Voting Rights Act was a gold standard for race-conscious law in that it required the consideration of race when examining the impact of congressional district maps or voting restrictions.

That it worked meant it has also been repeatedly targeted by the Republicans.

The only way to address racial harm without reproducing white supremacist racism is by relying on the self-identification of those within the racialized groups. The court redefining Blackness is trying to subordinate Black people and define their group identity for them. Blackness must be defined by Black people.

MSN

www.msn.com

So now the no government right wing wants the government to define what black is. Never mind that whites check off boxes and if a case was bought before the supreme court demanding the court to define whiteness the whining would be insufferable. But white privilege doesn't exist.

AND DONT GET CAUGHT with a job, thats acting white...you get more street cred in prison btw

 

[AMart]

Hello crybaby negro!!! lol

 

[Delldude]

This is why I oppose what right wingers call colorblind meritocracy.

The Republicans want judges to define 'Black' | Opinion​

The Republicans and their allies hope to take the country back to the time of asking judges to define race. That hope lies in the Supreme Court case concerning gerrymandering, Ardoin v. Robinson.

While we know race is a social construct and nonsensical, we can’t ignore race and the legacy of racial distinctions without reproducing the faux neutrality central to white supremacy. Pretending the laws that don’t mention race are neutral usually results in privileging the white cishet men who have historically made the same law.

Since the end of Jim Crow segregation, conservatives have had to enforce racism through “facially neutral” legislation (that is, laws that don’t mention race). They have had to rely on the discriminatory outcomes of neutral law that’s still racially targeted, such as voter ID requirements or mandatory minimum sentencing, all under the guise of “colorblindness” and the promise that the law does not see race.

The Voting Rights Act was a gold standard for race-conscious law in that it required the consideration of race when examining the impact of congressional district maps or voting restrictions.

That it worked meant it has also been repeatedly targeted by the Republicans.

The only way to address racial harm without reproducing white supremacist racism is by relying on the self-identification of those within the racialized groups. The court redefining Blackness is trying to subordinate Black people and define their group identity for them. Blackness must be defined by Black people.

MSN

www.msn.com

So now the no government right wing wants the government to define what black is. Never mind that whites check off boxes and if a case was bought before the supreme court demanding the court to define whiteness the whining would be insufferable. But white privilege doesn't exist.

Chip on your shoulder there, Brother?

 

[MarathonMike]

This is why I oppose what right wingers call colorblind meritocracy.

The Republicans want judges to define 'Black' | Opinion​

The Republicans and their allies hope to take the country back to the time of asking judges to define race. That hope lies in the Supreme Court case concerning gerrymandering, Ardoin v. Robinson.

While we know race is a social construct and nonsensical, we can’t ignore race and the legacy of racial distinctions without reproducing the faux neutrality central to white supremacy. Pretending the laws that don’t mention race are neutral usually results in privileging the white cishet men who have historically made the same law.

Since the end of Jim Crow segregation, conservatives have had to enforce racism through “facially neutral” legislation (that is, laws that don’t mention race). They have had to rely on the discriminatory outcomes of neutral law that’s still racially targeted, such as voter ID requirements or mandatory minimum sentencing, all under the guise of “colorblindness” and the promise that the law does not see race.

The Voting Rights Act was a gold standard for race-conscious law in that it required the consideration of race when examining the impact of congressional district maps or voting restrictions.

That it worked meant it has also been repeatedly targeted by the Republicans.

The only way to address racial harm without reproducing white supremacist racism is by relying on the self-identification of those within the racialized groups. The court redefining Blackness is trying to subordinate Black people and define their group identity for them. Blackness must be defined by Black people.

MSN

www.msn.com

So now the no government right wing wants the government to define what black is. Never mind that whites check off boxes and if a case was bought before the supreme court demanding the court to define whiteness the whining would be insufferable. But white privilege doesn't exist.

So you really don't know what Kanye West said about Jews, got it.

 

[EMH]

"This is what I believe"


Insert CRT parroted bullshit


The only thing parroting has ever proven is that the individual doing the parroting has a

BIRDBRAIN


You are to Politics what crick is to algore's fraud....

 

[Dogmaphobe]

What utter stupidity that being color-blind is actually racist.

 

[fncceo]

Wait, I'm confused ... I was taught my entire life that the highest good is to not judge a person by the color of their skin, but by their deeds and ideas.

Now, that's a bad thing?

Get back to me when you've made up your mind about how you want me to think.

 

[martybegan]

This is why I oppose what right wingers call colorblind meritocracy.

The Republicans want judges to define 'Black' | Opinion​

The Republicans and their allies hope to take the country back to the time of asking judges to define race. That hope lies in the Supreme Court case concerning gerrymandering, Ardoin v. Robinson.

While we know race is a social construct and nonsensical, we can’t ignore race and the legacy of racial distinctions without reproducing the faux neutrality central to white supremacy. Pretending the laws that don’t mention race are neutral usually results in privileging the white cishet men who have historically made the same law.

Since the end of Jim Crow segregation, conservatives have had to enforce racism through “facially neutral” legislation (that is, laws that don’t mention race). They have had to rely on the discriminatory outcomes of neutral law that’s still racially targeted, such as voter ID requirements or mandatory minimum sentencing, all under the guise of “colorblindness” and the promise that the law does not see race.

The Voting Rights Act was a gold standard for race-conscious law in that it required the consideration of race when examining the impact of congressional district maps or voting restrictions.

That it worked meant it has also been repeatedly targeted by the Republicans.

The only way to address racial harm without reproducing white supremacist racism is by relying on the self-identification of those within the racialized groups. The court redefining Blackness is trying to subordinate Black people and define their group identity for them. Blackness must be defined by Black people.

MSN

www.msn.com

So now the no government right wing wants the government to define what black is. Never mind that whites check off boxes and if a case was bought before the supreme court demanding the court to define whiteness the whining would be insufferable. But white privilege doesn't exist.

How much black blood makes a person black? I'm asking because only people like you and the KKK fucks care about that.

 

[Oddball]

What utter stupidity that being color-blind is actually racist.

Everything is wasis, for Rochester..

 

[Dogmaphobe]

Everything is wasis, for Rochester..

View attachment 715597

He knows he is too stupid to compete on a level playing field, so needs to be favored over others.

He sure gets that favoritism here, that's for sure.

 

[westwall]

This is why I oppose what right wingers call colorblind meritocracy.

The Republicans want judges to define 'Black' | Opinion​

The Republicans and their allies hope to take the country back to the time of asking judges to define race. That hope lies in the Supreme Court case concerning gerrymandering, Ardoin v. Robinson.

While we know race is a social construct and nonsensical, we can’t ignore race and the legacy of racial distinctions without reproducing the faux neutrality central to white supremacy. Pretending the laws that don’t mention race are neutral usually results in privileging the white cishet men who have historically made the same law.

Since the end of Jim Crow segregation, conservatives have had to enforce racism through “facially neutral” legislation (that is, laws that don’t mention race). They have had to rely on the discriminatory outcomes of neutral law that’s still racially targeted, such as voter ID requirements or mandatory minimum sentencing, all under the guise of “colorblindness” and the promise that the law does not see race.

The Voting Rights Act was a gold standard for race-conscious law in that it required the consideration of race when examining the impact of congressional district maps or voting restrictions.

That it worked meant it has also been repeatedly targeted by the Republicans.

The only way to address racial harm without reproducing white supremacist racism is by relying on the self-identification of those within the racialized groups. The court redefining Blackness is trying to subordinate Black people and define their group identity for them. Blackness must be defined by Black people.

MSN

www.msn.com

So now the no government right wing wants the government to define what black is. Never mind that whites check off boxes and if a case was bought before the supreme court demanding the court to define whiteness the whining would be insufferable. But white privilege doesn't exist.

Yeah, we know. You suck so badly at everything that even a completely neutral endeavor is beyond you.

Sucks to be you.

 

[IM2]

Yeah, we know. You suck so badly at everything that even a completely neutral endeavor is beyond you.

Sucks to be you.

Native American sellouts have always existed. As you were shown, there has been nothing neutral about these policies.

 

[theHawk]

But white privilege doesn't exist

White Privilege does exist, that’s why blacks like yourself live in America, so you can get as much White Privilege as possible. You won’t find any in Africa, or in Haiti. So if you really hate White
privilege, why not move there?

If you want to denounce white privilege, you’d stop speaking English, stop wearing Western clothing, stop using devices and technology created by whites, and you’d stop participating in our capitalist society, and you’d give your land and belongings to a Native American.

 

[westwall]

Native American sellouts have always existed. As you were shown, there has been nothing neutral about these policies.

As you have ignored, who cares. The past is the past.

Only failures wallow in it.

 

[there4eyeM]

Calling "white privilege" the natural advantages enjoyed by any majority part of a population anywhere, any time in history is racist in itself. There are always disparities between majorities and minorities. That doesn't make it right, but it also doesn't make it "white". Even the term "white" is a misnomer and fundamentally racist.