No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

[Correll]

The incident was caused by the legal theory of Disparate Impact, that makes the employer responsible for having equality of outcome despite any inequalities in the labor force caused by say, the shit urban schools.


Thus, the city, felt they HAD to discriminate against the white firefighters.


That theory was not something that only happens in New Haven, but is universal in our society.


The court system initially ruled in favor of anti-white discrimination.


When it reached the Supreme Court, the ruling, as normal in such cases, was by party lines with the dem appointed judges all in favor of blatant anti-white discrimination,

while the gop appointed judges ruled against the discrimination, BUT narrowly, not against the Disparate Impact Theory itself.


This shows that anti-whites discrimination is supported by both sides of the political divide.

None of that post validates the claims that "white racism is pretty much a dead issue" or that this country "has for generations been actively discriminating against whites."

As far as the New Haven firefighters, so far as I know they won their case, and were given back pay to the tune of $2 million. And while the case did not invalidate disparate impact, my reading of it is that it created a stronger standard to fill in such cases. Employers will have a harder time using fears of a disparate impact law suit as a defense for race-based decisions.

It demonstrates both the intent and the practice of the Law.

Yes, the fire fighers won. After they took it all the way to the Supreme Court. ANd they won by a 5-4 split.


The basic issue that Disparate Impact is still a valid grounds for suing puts the employers, ALL EMPLOYERS in the same boat where they can be held accountable for the failure of blacks to be qualified.


AND, as demographic shift continues, do you doubt that it will be long before a major liberal court reverses that ruling?

Disparate impact is not, so far as I'm aware, exclusive to blacks or any one race.

It is exclusive to "protected classes" which means anyone not a white male.



Blacks and browns are the primary focus.

You talk about protected classes. Why are there protected classes? What are they being protected against?

Why would white men not be a protected class?

They are protected against the boogeyman of white racism.

THe result is a form of Privilege, in the medieval sense of the word.


White men are not protected because they are who the policies and laws are designed to discriminate AGAINST.

 

[Montrovant]

The government owes blacks money? Just en masse, huh? Does it owe the same money to other minorities? Will the funds used be pulled specifically from the taxes of whites?

Yes the government at every level owes lacks money.

The government is paying Native Americans money Montrovant. OK? Every year. OK?

The government paid every Japanese citizen 25,000 for WW2 Montrovant. OK?

No one asked these question when these things happen.

We are not going to turn this into the usual standardized white racist ranting about reparations. You pay them every year,

This is the thread topic:

No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

You are the one that brought it up. You certainly do like to try to force everyone to discuss only what you want to discuss, but don't hold yourself to the same sort of standard.

I suggest you go back and read the post I made to that person before you make another comment. Seems that you lost your mind because I mentioned that blacks are owed money and that's all you remember. You don't seem capable of remembering the part where I told the person that I have responded to his opinion but we will not be discussing reparations in this thread..

I am not forcing you to do anything but what the rules of this forum require of us who are the OPS of a thread.

Sorry, you are right that boed brought the subject up.

I did not say you were actually forcing anyone to do anything, rather that you are attempting to. On multiple occasions you have told people what they can or cannot post. They do not have to listen to you, but you have tried to get them to talk about what you think they should talk about, while being perfectly willing to go off topic when it suits you.

Yes I have told people what they can or cannot post. As the OP I am required to keep the threads I start on topic,

I don't go off topic. I do not take kindly to personal attacks.

That is what I got told by a moderator. So if you don't like me doing that, stay on thread topic. Because I don't see you telling people these threads aren't about slavery wen they decide to make comments bout how they did not own slaves om every tread, decide to launch personal attacks or how we blacks should be grateful to whites for dying to give us freedom from slavery..

A moderator told you that you have to try to police your threads, telling other people what to post?

I have never been told I am responsible for telling people when they are off topic, and frankly, I would either not listen to such instruction or quit coming to this site if it were a requirement. I am responsible for my own posts, no one else's.

You have gone off topic plenty, even if it is in reply to someone else.

You keep saying that slavery is not the topic, but that doesn't mean slavery cannot be connected to the topic, nor does it mean that slavery is somehow disallowed as a topic in the thread.

Yes, people have said blacks should be grateful to whites for slavery. That is a despicable sentiment. There are always some racists in any thread about race on this board.

You have launched your own personal attacks. In fact, I believe you were one of the first ones to do so in this thread, way back in the beginning with your off topic claims about DontTazMeBro for which you provided no evidence. Forgive me if I don't have sympathy for your concerns about personal attacks.

Perhaps you should look to the beam in your own eye?

 

[flacaltenn]

Mod Note:

There are too many topics going on in this thread. There's a FORUM full of threads on each of them.
Moderation can't enforce "on topic" content, if there is just a running battle goin on.

So write SPECIFIC OPs. Limit the discussion. The threads will last longer..

Closed..

 

[Montrovant]

None of that post validates the claims that "white racism is pretty much a dead issue" or that this country "has for generations been actively discriminating against whites."

As far as the New Haven firefighters, so far as I know they won their case, and were given back pay to the tune of $2 million. And while the case did not invalidate disparate impact, my reading of it is that it created a stronger standard to fill in such cases. Employers will have a harder time using fears of a disparate impact law suit as a defense for race-based decisions.

It demonstrates both the intent and the practice of the Law.

Yes, the fire fighers won. After they took it all the way to the Supreme Court. ANd they won by a 5-4 split.


The basic issue that Disparate Impact is still a valid grounds for suing puts the employers, ALL EMPLOYERS in the same boat where they can be held accountable for the failure of blacks to be qualified.


AND, as demographic shift continues, do you doubt that it will be long before a major liberal court reverses that ruling?

Disparate impact is not, so far as I'm aware, exclusive to blacks or any one race.

It is exclusive to "protected classes" which means anyone not a white male.



Blacks and browns are the primary focus.

You talk about protected classes. Why are there protected classes? What are they being protected against?

Why would white men not be a protected class?

They are protected against the boogeyman of white racism.

THe result is a form of Privilege, in the medieval sense of the word.


White men are not protected because they are who the policies and laws are designed to discriminate AGAINST.

Not all protected classes are based on race, so saying "they are protected against the boogeyman of white racism" is faulty.

White men can, in fact, be members of a protected class. More than one.