CDZ POLL: The "Is It Racist" Quiz

[JoeB131]

The OBN is without question alive and well, albeit transformed from what it was some 60+ years ago; however, among its members whom I know (practically every human I met prior to matriculating in college), few to none these days confer favors based, AFAIK, on race. I suppose to outsiders it may look that way, particularly when the favored and disfavored are of differing races, but I can identify only one instance in some 50 years in which race had something to do with it. Obviously, my experiences and observations are just that, and not necessarily indicative if what most OBN members do or don't do.

My experiences have been exactly the opposite. The only time they hire a minority is when they have to fill an AA requirement.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

You're right - charges of racism/misogyny etc. have been weaponized for the purpose of avoiding rational discussion and logical conclusion. As a 60's child, I believe the 'equal rights' movements succeeded far sooner than the social warriors were ready to lay down their weapons and enjoy victory.

.

It's almost paradoxical, but the only way to combat the erosion of the gains made the civil rights movement is to conserve them. That is what separates this new illiberal left from the liberal left of our youth is that the SJW's will throw in their lot with all sorts of profoundly backwards people as long as they identify them as members of a protected group. I don't know about you, but I remember the sixties as a time when people wanted to understand what liberal ideology actually entailed and when people followed liberal principles instead of just adding their voice to a chorus.

 

[JoeB131]

It's almost paradoxical, but the only way to combat the erosion of the gains made the civil rights movement is to conserve them. That is what separates this new illiberal left from the liberal left of our youth is that the SJW's will throw in their lot with all sorts of profoundly backwards people as long as they identify them as members of a protected group. I don't know about you, but I remember the sixties as a time when people wanted to understand what liberal ideology actually entailed and when people followed liberal principles instead of just adding their voice to a chorus.

Then you are remembering it wrong.

Here's the thing, as much as you guys whine about "what the kids are doing", the fact is, kids were pretty much the same when I went to college in the 1980's. I remember when our wonderful student radicals shouted down "Book of Virtues" Phony Bill Bennett in 1985 when he came to UIC.

He was Education Secretary at the time, and made some stupid statement about how kids should give up their spring breaks and stereos if they wanted to pay for college. And dumb Young Republican I was at the time, I agreed with him.

Of course, back then tuition at UIC only cost $1500 a year, as oppossed to the $20,000 it costs now!

But the kids back then. Pretty much the same as they are now. They take themselves OH SO SERIOUSLY.

 

[SeaGal]

You're right - charges of racism/misogyny etc. have been weaponized for the purpose of avoiding rational discussion and logical conclusion. As a 60's child, I believe the 'equal rights' movements succeeded far sooner than the social warriors were ready to lay down their weapons and enjoy victory.

.

It's almost paradoxical, but the only way to combat the erosion of the gains made the civil rights movement is to conserve them. That is what separates this new illiberal left from the liberal left of our youth is that the SJW's will throw in their lot with all sorts of profoundly backwards people as long as they identify them as members of a protected group. I don't know about you, but I remember the sixties as a time when people wanted to understand what liberal ideology actually entailed and when people followed liberal principles instead of just adding their voice to a chorus.

The lines have become blurred in the definitions, for sure.

I was never part of the 60's anti-establishment movement, was too busy working and trying to pay for an education - and find it ironic that the loudest voices at the time have become silent as they in turn became the establishment. Like any movement, I believe it started out with a few passionate individuals but gradually morphed into a group think cult.

The civil rights movement led by King differed in my view from the anti-war, anti-establishment crowd. Though the Left tries to claim it now - they by no means 'owned' it then. The far left of that movement scorned Kings passive resistance, and his calls for recognizing the value of character over the color of skin. Without imaginary demons to fight, todays Leftist movement would not exist.

Below is a link to a very interesting interview with Eldridge Cleaver done by Reason magazine. It's pretty long and was once entitled 'Listen to the Panther'.

REASON Interview: Eldridge Cleaver

 

[JoeB131]

I was never part of the 60's anti-establishment movement, was too busy working and trying to pay for an education - and find it ironic that the loudest voices at the time have become silent as they in turn became the establishment. Like any movement, I believe it started out with a few passionate individuals but gradually morphed into a group think cult.

If they were, then enough of them wouldn't have kept voting for Green candidates and allowing Republicans to steal elections.

The civil rights movement led by King differed in my view from the anti-war, anti-establishment crowd. Though the Left tries to claim it now - they by no means 'owned' it then. The far left of that movement scorned Kings passive resistance, and his calls for recognizing the value of character over the color of skin. Without imaginary demons to fight, todays Leftist movement would not exist.

Obviously, you aren't old enough to remember King opposed the Vietnam War.



Understandable, it was black kids who did a lot of the fighting, not the hippies on college campuses on student deferments.

 

[Mac1958]

You're right - charges of racism/misogyny etc. have been weaponized for the purpose of avoiding rational discussion and logical conclusion. As a 60's child, I believe the 'equal rights' movements succeeded far sooner than the social warriors were ready to lay down their weapons and enjoy victory.

.

It's almost paradoxical, but the only way to combat the erosion of the gains made the civil rights movement is to conserve them. That is what separates this new illiberal left from the liberal left of our youth is that the SJW's will throw in their lot with all sorts of profoundly backwards people as long as they identify them as members of a protected group. I don't know about you, but I remember the sixties as a time when people wanted to understand what liberal ideology actually entailed and when people followed liberal principles instead of just adding their voice to a chorus.

The lines have become blurred in the definitions, for sure.

I was never part of the 60's anti-establishment movement, was too busy working and trying to pay for an education - and find it ironic that the loudest voices at the time have become silent as they in turn became the establishment. Like any movement, I believe it started out with a few passionate individuals but gradually morphed into a group think cult.

The civil rights movement led by King differed in my view from the anti-war, anti-establishment crowd. Though the Left tries to claim it now - they by no means 'owned' it then. The far left of that movement scorned Kings passive resistance, and his calls for recognizing the value of character over the color of skin. Without imaginary demons to fight, todays Leftist movement would not exist.

Below is a link to a very interesting interview with Eldridge Cleaver done by Reason magazine. It's pretty long and was once entitled 'Listen to the Panther'.

REASON Interview: Eldridge Cleaver

MLK had an entirely different goal than those who now claim to be fighting for "social justice".

His goal was healing, equality and progress. Theirs is to wait for demographics to take over and institute payback.

The two couldn't be more diametrically opposed. What we have now is distorted. Mutated. Perverted.
.

 

[JoeB131]

MLK had an entirely different goal than those who now claim to be fighting for "social justice".

His goal was healing, equality and progress. Theirs is to wait for demographics to take over and institute payback.

The two couldn't be more diametrically opposed. What we have now is distorted. Mutated. Perverted.

Really? Because, frankly, who is talking about "Payback"?

Who are these people, other than some fringe characters?

Sorry, guy, I know you need the imaginary PC Policeman, the Social Justice Warrior and the Scary Muslim hiding under your bed to rationalize your positions...

But they just aren't there.

Besides, there's really no point in "getting payback" on Cleetus White Trash living in his trailer park. The One Percenters have already taken most of what he has.

 

[SeaGal]

Seriously? You used the term "officially sanctioned racism." He appends the "un-" prefix to "officially" and suddenly you don't know what the term means. Really?

Yes Xelor. Seriously. Really. Lots of folks like to toss out words or phrases because they sound good but have little relevance or meaning.

 

[SeaGal]

Define 'unofficially sanctioned racism'.

The Good old boy network. I pretty much described in detail how a qualified black woman was fired so my wonderful boss (not even the worst person I ever worked for, oddly enough. I can think of three who were worse!) could rehire one of his drinking buddies who had previously quit and had no qualifications for the position.

For starters - that's just a slang phrase without any real meaning in the US. Anecdotal evidence, while interesting, is little more than perception presented without data.

 

[SeaGal]

Obviously, you aren't old enough to remember King opposed the Vietnam War.

You realize that jumping to conclusions doesn't burn calories, just brain cells...and can be harmful to your credibility.

 

[JoeB131]

For starters - that's just a slang phrase without any real meaning in the US. Anecdotal evidence, while interesting, is little more than perception presented without data.

actually, it does have a meaning. It means you are more likely to get hired if you are friends with the people doing the hiring. And since those people tend to be overwhelmingly white, they people they hire end up being overwhelmingly white

Which is how a guy who "worked in the warehouse" got picked for production scheduler, even though he had no training in production scheduling or procurement.

Yes Xelor. Seriously. Really. Lots of folks like to toss out words or phrases because they sound good but have little relevance or meaning.

Actualy, it sounds good because it has meaning.

The meaning being that people will hire people like themselves, and when most of the people making hiring decisions are white, they will be inclined to hire- wait for it - other white people.

You see, the person I am talking about, wasn't that bad of a boss. His first three years, he did some real good. Then he stopped giving a shit, probably because the people above him didn't care about what we were doing and were going to close us down at some point anyway. (Which they eventually did in 2016).

The problem here with 'unofficially sanctioned racism' was that this guy did not go to Klan Rallies or wear a MAGA hat. But when told that he had to get rid of someone to make room for his drinking buddy to get a job, the person he picked was the black lady who had lots of experience as a buyer. (They had to get rid of one buyer to get one production scheduler).

 

[Mac1958]

Anecdotal evidence, while interesting, is little more than perception presented without data.

It depends on the goal.

These people know that attacking, mocking, insulting and punishing people in their McCarthyesque game isn't going to change any hearts or minds. They're not stupid. They know that it will only make others defensive and more entrenched.

But they also know that they have demographics on their side, so healing race relations is simply no longer a priority. It's no longer a goal.
.

 

[Correll]

Anecdotal evidence, while interesting, is little more than perception presented without data.

It depends on the goal.

These people know that attacking, mocking, insulting and punishing people in their McCarthyesque game isn't going to change any hearts or minds. They're not stupid. They know that it will only make others defensive and more entrenched.

But they also know that they have demographics on their side, so healing race relations is simply no longer a priority. It's no longer a goal.
.

Indeed by worsening race relations, they maintain their grip on the coming minority majority.


Of course this will turn American into a nation rife with political and racial tension, leading to violence and oppression.

 

[JoeB131]

These people know that attacking, mocking, insulting and punishing people in their McCarthyesque game isn't going to change any hearts or minds. They're not stupid. They know that it will only make others defensive and more entrenched.

But they also know that they have demographics on their side, so healing race relations is simply no longer a priority. It's no longer a goal.

Or, we've just concluded it's no longer feasible.

Look, if Cleetus White Trash kept voting Republican in 2008 when they were foreclosing on his double wide, what do you really think the left is going to say to him to make him get over his ingrained hatred of the darkies?

The GOP has spent 40 years using racism and misogyny and homophobia to get working class white males to vote against their own economic interests. They've found very, very clever ways to do it.

It's just that it hasn't really worked that well for them since 1988, unless they either use the Electoral College to cheat, get enough left wingers to piss away their votes on third parties, or scare the Bejeezus out of us by telling us there's a scary Muslim who wants to kill us (because we stole his land and blew up his house... but let's not talk about that, let's talk about his scary religion).

Pandering to people who are never going to vote your way anyway is really sort of a waste of time, especially if you surrender your own principles in the process, which is what your hero, Mrs. Clinton, did.

 

[Mac1958]

Anecdotal evidence, while interesting, is little more than perception presented without data.

It depends on the goal.

These people know that attacking, mocking, insulting and punishing people in their McCarthyesque game isn't going to change any hearts or minds. They're not stupid. They know that it will only make others defensive and more entrenched.

But they also know that they have demographics on their side, so healing race relations is simply no longer a priority. It's no longer a goal.
.

Indeed by worsening race relations, they maintain their grip on the coming minority majority.


Of course this will turn American into a nation rife with political and racial tension, leading to violence and oppression.

To some degree, yeah.

I think a lot of people give them a pass because it's assumed they're trying to improve things. That's a huge misconception.
.

 

[JoeB131]

Indeed by worsening race relations, they maintain their grip on the coming minority majority.

Of course this will turn American into a nation rife with political and racial tension, leading to violence and oppression.

Oh, noes.... violence and oppression?

Um, what do you think black people are living with now?

So they are "worsening race relations" by complaining about stuff like THIS ^^^^^

Um no, stuff like that is wrong, and it goes on every day.

 

[JoeB131]

To some degree, yeah.

I think a lot of people give them a pass because it's assumed they're trying to improve things. That's a huge misconception.

Or we just don't think surrendering the Sudetenland works.

Look, buddy, the only real divide is between the working people who are just trying to get by and the one percent who want to take everything.

All this nonsense about racism persists because frankly, if people voted their own economic interests, the GOP would never win another election, or even be able to steal them.

As much as we SHOULD get on Trump about his ugly racist language, he's just doing what the GOP has been doing since Nixon. He's just being less subtle about it.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Seriously? You used the term "officially sanctioned racism." He appends the "un-" prefix to "officially" and suddenly you don't know what the term means. Really?

Yes Xelor. Seriously. Really. Lots of folks like to toss out words or phrases because they sound good but have little relevance or meaning.

"Officially sanctioned racism" is your term. You first introduced it.

• Search Results for Query: officially sanctioned | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
  

  If officially sanctioned racism in our past was evil - it is no less evil now

All the other member did was put the prefix "un" on "officially," to which you responded:

Define 'unofficially sanctioned racism'.

How do you not understand how the prefix "un" alters the meaning of a word?

 

[BlackSand]

.​

Pineapple​

.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, my favorite pagan hymn:

​