The US Supreme Court has just abolished Affirmative Action in regards to college/university admissions. Do you believe this is right or wrong?

[Foxi4]

I'm not currently making a claim against anybody, but I'd hardly call what we're discussing here "extraordinary," either. It's exceedingly common.

Frequency is not evidence of a system being in place. There are traffic accidents on the road every single day, but I guarantee you that they’re not planned ahead of schedule or part of a designed system. They’re completely incidental, despite their frequency.

Then the question becomes: how many "oversight problems" do we need to encounter before we can declare it a pattern worthy of a larger investigation? The nature of some people and institutions is that they'll keep on trying to pass the buck or feigning ignorance as long as you let them. Accountability always has to be allowed to catch up eventually, as it did with the federal investigation into MPD.

That depends. Are you trying to find racism or incompetence? People see patterns in all sorts of things, that doesn’t make astrology a science. In order to prove that you’re dealing with a systemic problem, you must necessarily prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that agents of the government acted in an unacceptable fashion because they were *told to do so*, and not just on one occasion, but as part of an established policy in the organisation. You have to prove those actions were routine as opposed to incidental. That’s a very high bar, yes, but a necessary one if you want to fulfil the requirements of the definition. If you don’t want to fulfil those requirements, you’re welcome to deal in conjecture, but don’t expect universal acknowledgment of your claims.

EDIT: There’s a reason why this matters. If a problem is systemic then one can point it out and fight it. If a problem is incidental then it’s just a “guy”, you get rid of “the guy” and the problem vanishes. Your line of reasoning throws the baby out with the bath water - you might be trying to fight problems that don’t actually exist, at least not in the system. The system might be perfectly fine as it is, it’s “the guy” that’s the problem, and any adjustments to the system might be completely unnecessary or even detrimental. In order to fight something, you have to identify what you’re actually up against.

 

[Xzi]

Frequency is not evidence of a system being in place.

It is when it stays frequent over the span of a hundred plus years, however. We both know lack of oversight is a feature of US policing, not a bug. When they are facing potential consequences, body cam footage and other evidence conveniently gets lost. God forbid an officer actually gets fired for something egregious like torture/murder, they're inconvenienced to the extent they have to move a whole two towns over before being re-hired at a new department. It's a system in desperate need of a complete overhaul from the top down, as it not only discriminates specifically against both black and brown people, but also the poor and working class in general.

The more power and authority granted to an institution, the higher the standard it should be held to. The people of France are currently demonstrating what the reaction should be after the wrongful death of one person at the hands of police. If law enforcement values the protection of objects and property more than human life, then they deserve to watch all that shit go up in flames.

 

[chrisrlink]

unlike you im not a racist im sorry and hope you change as racism has no place anywere

no i'm not racist it's called a test to see iif you were btw I don't hate all republicans just those MAGA idiots who would rather setup a banana republic with that bloated puss bag in charge, fun fact i blocked one cousin (on facebook) for trump's entire term for spouting out the conspiracy theory that the trump mail bomber during the election cycle was a democrat my family even sayed for him to get evaled cause he was that deep in the rabbit hole

 

[Foxi4]

It is when it stays frequent over the span of a hundred plus years, however. We both know lack of oversight is a feature of US policing, not a bug. When they are facing potential consequences, body cam footage and other evidence conveniently gets lost. God forbid an officer actually gets fired for something egregious like torture/murder, they're inconvenienced to the extent they have to move a whole two towns over before being re-hired at a new department. It's a system in desperate need of a complete overhaul from the top down, as it not only discriminates specifically against both black and brown people, but also the poor and working class in general.

The more power and authority granted to an institution, the higher the standard it should be held to. The people of France are currently demonstrating what the reaction should be after the wrongful death of one person at the hands of police. If law enforcement values the protection of objects and property more than human life, then they deserve to watch all that shit go up in flames.

Okay, now we’re reduced to “yes it is, no it’s not”. We’ll have to agree to disagree. I don’t think there’s a systemic racism problem here. As for the current protest in Paris, have you seen the video of the arrest? I’m not terribly surprised that the officer shot the suspect, although admittedly, that’s not the standard of behaviour in France.

 

[Xzi]

I don’t think there’s a systemic racism problem here.

Yeah, and that's always been an issue amongst the conservative-minded, though I can't berate you specifically too hard for it. Any system of law enforcement with historical roots in slave catching is inherently going to be racist to some extent, and there will always be those who join the force with the sole intent of taking it back to its roots. Every year since the Floyd murder and Chauvin conviction, US police have killed progressively more citizens. Still disproportionately black and Latino, and still a whole lot of white people too.

There's barely a few scraps worth salvaging as things stand now, and a number of cities have begun creating their own alternative emergency response teams as a result. "Protect and serve" needs to be more than just an empty slogan if cops want to prove themselves worthy of continued taxpayer funding.

 

[WalterSlovotsky]

I concur with @Foxi4 in regards to the fact that incidents, even if frequent, STILL do not fall under the definition of a "system" of behavior. Because, again, for there to be a "system", there has to be law backing behavior. Not just noticing a pattern of behavior unrelated to your imaginary system.

Now, if you want to argue that there is a CULTURE of racism ingrained in America, NOW you're making a point. But my esteemed colleague @Xzi hasn't said that. I did. There is a difference between a system backed by law, and a culture of learned or inherited behavior.

There is absolutely a culture of racism, from ALL American people, on ALL sides, ALL hating each other. You can say that white people in America have participated in a culture of racism for centuries, and you'll hear no argument from me.

But if I say the exact same culture of racism exists, and is just as rampant in the black community in 2023 as it is the white community, I wonder what you would say?

 

[Foxi4]

Yeah, and that's always been an issue amongst the conservative-minded, though I can't berate you specifically too hard for it. Any system of law enforcement with historical roots in slave catching is inherently going to be racist to some extent, and there will always be those who join the force with the sole intent of taking it back to its roots. Every year since the Floyd murder and Chauvin conviction, US police have killed progressively more citizens. Still disproportionately black and Latino, and still a whole lot of white people too.

There's barely a few scraps worth salvaging as things stand now, and a number of cities have begun creating their own alternative emergency response teams as a result. "Protect and serve" needs to be more than just an empty slogan if cops want to prove themselves worthy of continued taxpayer funding.

I seem to remember one of those “alternative emergency response teams” amounting to a roving gang of rapists led by a self-proclaimed warlord, but hey. CHAZ/CHOP sure was a “something”. In any case, people have a constitutional right to bear arms and to form militias if they so please, although what you’re suggesting goes a step beyond and well into the vigilantism territory. Not illegal by any stretch of the imagination, but probably not the default solution if you ask me.

We’ve already had our disagreement about police statistics, no need to retread the same waters for the n-th time. As far as the numbers are concerned, there is little evidence of statistically significant police bias when it comes to race. There is, however, significant evidence that the bad side of town is a bad place to be - we can focus on addressing that before anything else.

To reiterate, in order to call something “systemic”, I’d have to see some kind of widespread, routine and provable discriminatory behaviour that results either from a written or unwritten policy that the officers are either told to adhere to, or just generally agree on following as a department. It doesn’t even have to be intentional per se, which is the part you might be neglecting to account for - I believe the correct term is “unconscious bias”, though those waters are murky. Sentencing disparity between cocaine and crack cocaine comes to mind, but again, that idea was suggested by black community leaders wanting to rid their neighbourhoods of crack addiction, plus the policy didn’t specifically outline race, crack was simply more popular among black Americans. In that case, the “racist” outcome could very well have been an unexpected result of otherwise well-intentioned policy. Nothing worse than government officials with good intentions, funny how that works.

 

[Xzi]

Now, if you want to argue that there is a CULTURE of racism ingrained in America, NOW you're making a point. But my esteemed colleague @Xzi hasn't said that. I did. There is a difference between a system backed by law, and a culture of learned or inherited behavior.

Systemic racism came first, and influenced cultural racism in its wake. From the three-fifths compromise to Jim Crow laws, from stand your ground laws to qualified immunity. Hell, we never even fully abolished slavery in this country, and loopholes for that are not acceptable.

There is absolutely a culture of racism, from ALL American people, on ALL sides, ALL hating each other.

Nah, that's the oligarchs trying to keep people occupied with a culture war so they can't focus on fighting a class war. The latter continues being waged whether we choose to engage in it or not, and the former is meaningless in the face of potential human extinction. There are already too many parts of the country forced to buy bottled water in order to guarantee its cleanliness, how long until we're being given the false choice of buying their clean oxygen or dying?

 

[Foxi4]

Systemic racism came first, and influenced cultural racism in its wake. From the three-fifths compromise to Jim Crow laws, from stand your ground laws to qualified immunity. Hell, we never even fully abolished slavery in this country, and loopholes for that are not acceptable.

You do realise that the three-fifths compromise was a measure to *prevent* racist policies from spreading, not to promote them, right?

Nah, that's the oligarchs trying to keep people occupied with a culture war so they can't focus on fighting a class war. The latter continues being waged whether we choose to engage in it or not, and the former is meaningless in the face of potential human extinction. There are already too many parts of the country forced to buy bottled water in order to guarantee its cleanliness, how long until we're being given the false choice of buying their clean oxygen or dying?

The culture war is so 2016-and-late, I’m surprised that conservatives are still clinging to it while the fed is squeezing them dry with boneheaded fiscal policy. They’re too busy worrying about drag queens and not nearly busy enough doing the one thing that matters - getting their damned money back. Now we also have RFK Jr. astroturfed onto the scene complaining about how the government is stealing from people. Uh, yeah, you’re a Kennedy, buddy - you’re the one doing it. Total shambles, and a laughing stock. Republicans just can’t stop themselves from taking L’s this season of America, maybe next season some interesting things will happen on the show.

 

[Xzi]

You do realise that the three-fifths compromise was a measure to *prevent* racist policies from spreading, not to promote them, right?

Whatever positive effect it might've been meant to have was completely overshadowed by how ill-conceived it was from the start.

The culture war is so 2016-and-late, I’m surprised that conservatives are still clinging to it while the fed is squeezing them dry with boneheaded fiscal policy. They’re too busy worrying about drag queens and not nearly busy enough doing the one thing that matters - getting their damned money back. Now we also have RFK Jr. astroturfed onto the scene complaining about how the government is stealing from people. Uh, yeah, you’re a Kennedy, buddy - you’re the one doing it. Total shambles, and a laughing stock. Republicans just can’t stop themselves from taking L’s this season of America, maybe next season some interesting things will happen on the show.

No argument here, if Marianne Williamson or Howard Schultz couldn't break 1% support within the Democratic primary, I'm not sure why Republicans would expect RFK to do any better. Gotta be one of the only people to ever get stumped by a Joe Rogan question on his show.

 

[Foxi4]

Whatever positive effect it might've been meant to have was completely overshadowed by how ill-conceived it was from the start.

The general idea was to limit the influence of slave owners in government since a state head count determined the number of seats in the House of Representatives, the number of electors assigned to the state for the purposes of the Electoral College and the level of taxation. If not for the three-fifths compromise, America would’ve been a slave holding country for significantly longer than it otherwise was.

No argument here, if Marianne Williamson or Howard Schultz couldn't break 1% support within the Democratic primary, I'm not sure why Republicans would expect RFK to do any better.

RFK Jr. is an astroturfed politician with a popular name intended to dupe dummies and split the vote even further than it already is. The whole point is to neutralise the risk posed by DeSantis and minimise the possibility of Trump re-entering the scene. Anyone who doesn’t see that is certifiably stupid, but I’m afraid that this strategy will work against people whose only concern is “the children” as they chase imaginary problems. The base won’t get any “better” until focus is diverted away from those distractions and put back on what initially unified it - the swamp.

 

[Xzi]

The general idea was to limit the influence of slave owners in government since a state head count determined the number of seats in the House of Representatives, the number of electors assigned to the state for the purposes of the Electoral College and the level of taxation. If not for the three-fifths compromise, America would’ve been a slave holding country for significantly longer than it otherwise was.

It was inevitable that it would require a war to end slavery in the US, and slave owners never should've been granted as much power as they were before or after said war. The result is that far too much of US history revolves around jumping from one exploited population to the next as a source of cheap labor. Can't imagine why they kept that out of the national anthem.

RFK Jr. is an astroturfed politician with a popular name intended to dupe dummies and split the vote even further than it already is. The whole point is to neutralise the risk posed by DeSantis and minimise the possibility of Trump re-entering the scene. Anyone who doesn’t see that is certifiably stupid, but I’m afraid that this strategy will work against people whose only concern is “the children” as they chase imaginary problems. The base won’t get any “better” until focus is diverted away from those distractions and put back on what initially unified it - the swamp.

Wait, is he entering the Republican primary? Last I heard, he was throwing his hat into the Dem primary. Wouldn't surprise me if that decision flipped on a whim, though.

 

[Foxi4]

It was inevitable that it would require a war to end slavery in the US, and slave owners never should've been granted as much power as they were before or after said war. The result is that far too much of US history revolves around jumping from one exploited population to the next as a source of cheap labor. Can't imagine why they kept that out of the national anthem.

Without Lincoln there wouldn’t be a Civil War, and there probably wouldn’t be a Lincoln presidency without the three-fifths compromise because slave states would’ve had significantly more electors, not to mention more power in Congress and thus more influence in the preceding years which would’ve made victory all the more difficult.

Wait, is he entering the Republican primary? Last I heard, he was throwing his hat into the Dem primary. Wouldn't surprise me if that decision flipped on a whim, though.

Does it matter which party he’ll be running for? He’s there to steal votes of morons. That’s his only purpose, he’s not a serious candidate, that’s why he’s peppering the Internet with spicy opinions. May as well have the word “scam” tattooed on his forehead.

 

[Xzi]

Without Lincoln there wouldn’t be a Civil War, and there probably wouldn’t be a Lincoln presidency without the three-fifths compromise because slave states would’ve had significantly more electors.

Eh I think the worldwide trend toward abolishing slavery had become crystal clear before the start of the Civil War, so at most it would've taken another decade or two to break out instead. As long as we're talking hypotheticals though, abolishing slavery and establishing a nation comprised exclusively of free men in the initial draft of the constitution would've prevented a whole lot of unnecessary suffering.

Does it matter which party he’ll be running for?

Not particularly, I just kinda wanna know which channels the slow-motion trainwreck is gonna be aired on. Was equally fun watching Schultz's campaign crash and burn last time around.

 

[Foxi4]

Eh I think the worldwide trend toward abolishing slavery had become crystal clear before the start of the Civil War, so at most it would've taken another decade or two to break out instead. As long as we're talking hypotheticals though, abolishing slavery and establishing a nation comprised exclusively of free men in the initial draft of the constitution would've prevented a whole lot of unnecessary suffering.

It would’ve taken longer - as long as you admit that, we can have an honest conversation. Slavery was an issue not just in the United States, but in most major countries of the era. The Founders fully intended to phase it out from the start, and a careful reading of the Constitution makes that abundantly clear. They’re on record stating they found it an abhorrent practice, it’s all over their various writings.

Not particularly, I just kinda wanna know which channels the slow-motion trainwreck is gonna be aired on. Was equally fun watching Schultz's campaign crash and burn last time around.

We’ll see how Sanders does this time, which totally isn’t a distraction either.

 

[Xzi]

We’ll see how Sanders does this time, which totally isn’t a distraction either.

I wasn't aware there was anything indicating he intends to run. As much as I'd like to see him take Biden to task over his old record, it was clear Bernie's heart wasn't in it when it came down to a debate between just those two last time around, and he's been able to do quite a bit of good from his current position as chair of an important Senate committee.

Funny enough I think Bernie would have better-than-average odds to win the Republican nomination if he ran over there in 2024, what with several criminal cases pending against Trump and DeSantis being the bad campaigner (tool) that he is.

 

[supermist]

What you said is ABSOLUTELY RACIST, and this is why this racist ass law was abolished.

You are assuming that the white kid with a 4.2 got there because he is white, and not because of any other factor. Again, we're talking the same exact school, the same exact curriculum, the same exact teacher. One white kid with a 4.2, on free lunch because his parents are poor. One black kid with a 4.0, bringing his lunch from home every day.

The white kid gets a demerit for being white, and the black kid gets a bonus for being black. Same economic background. Same everything.

The 4.0 student does not DESERVE a bonus, just because the student with HIGHER MERIT has EARNED THAT HIGHER MERIT, and thus, deserves the fruits of his or her work. The 4.2 student will "not have a hard time finding a place to get a good education" because they EARNED it. The 4.0 student could have earned it, too, but didn't.

Equality of opportunity does not equate to equality of outcome. It's all about... say it with me... PERSONAL MERIT.

Make it make sense.

You're not comprehending this scenario, which has happened. Not all public schools offer AP courses meaning that at some public schools you literally cannot get a 4.2, meaning there's an objective disadvantage.

If you still don't get it, and don't get how affirmative action offsets this to some extent, then it's not possible to have a discussion with you on this.

 

[concept8192]

Folks love to say Whites have privilege and are racist (because of their skin color they use racist terms like "Whiteness"), but they can never give any examples. It's fine to be racist against Whites/Asians and insult Christians, but others are protected.

Let's say the U.S. was a "huwhyte privilege" country, then it's guaranteed all non-Whites would be kicked out by Whites. Instead, it's Whites moving to other states/countries because of concerns of safety and so on. This is a myth that Whites have privilege, we don't.

Even non-Whites are apparently White now:



And what is a woman? That's a question a lot seem unable to answer truthfully, too.



Come on, this is just sad.

I know I'm very late but OH NO THEY SOURCED MATT WALSH
I'll elaborate if anyone wants me to.

 

[Foxi4]

I wasn't aware there was anything indicating he intends to run. As much as I'd like to see him take Biden to task over his old record, it was clear Bernie's heart wasn't in it when it came down to a debate between just those two last time around, and he's been able to do quite a bit of good from his current position as chair of an important Senate committee.

Funny enough I think Bernie would have better-than-average odds to win the Republican nomination if he ran over there in 2024, what with several criminal cases pending against Trump and DeSantis being the bad campaigner (tool) that he is.

The opposite is true regarding Trump. If opinion polls are to be believed, each and every new case against him has strengthened the support of his base as opposed to diminishing it. The general consensus that “the state is out to get him” (which probably has a grain of truth to it, but that’s besides the point) is well and truly galvanised. As for DeSantis, he was a serviceable candidate until he started opening his mouth to bark at the wrong trees. He needs a new campaign manager, and he needs to talk less.

 

[Xzi]

The opposite is true regarding Trump. If opinion polls are to be believed, each and every new case against him has strengthened the support of his base as opposed to diminishing it.

Yeah, opinion polls at this stage of the game wouldn't mean much anyway, and it's much easier to stand by a candidate before they've been convicted of what amounts to treason. Not to diminish the majority of his base's devotion of course, I'm sure they would travel to the depths of hell and get stuck there for him. If there's a red line for those among his cultists with an ounce of sanity left, however, it's probably offering foreign officials peep shows featuring nuclear and military secrets.

Trump already lost to Biden once without that disadvantage, and lost several elections for the party prior. Odds aren't looking great to turn that trend around if he's the candidate again.

As for DeSantis, he was a serviceable candidate until he started opening his mouth to bark at the wrong trees. He needs a new campaign manager, and he needs to talk less.

LMAO more like a new personality coach AND a new campaign manager. Was it Paul Ryan who once sweat buckets while delivering the Republican response to one of Obama's speeches? Whoever it was, that's who DeSantis reminds me of. Awkward, sweaty, and the male equivalent of a Karen.