OT: Trick Question which is worse Racism or Reverse Racism ?

[aisling]

Will this last as long as my stereotype thread? We shall see.

Yeah, but that one had a point to it. This one (no disrespect to the poster) is bound to go awry in flames and misunderstandings, as it starts out by being a trick question......

[gjm]

I think it is 'Hug a gingger day' today.

[starving student]

Will this last as long as my stereotype thread? We shall see.

Yeah, but that one had a point to it. This one (no disrespect to the poster) is bound to go awry in flames and misunderstandings, as it starts out by being a trick question......

not so it's a trick question but the trick is not to make you go awry in flames and misunderstandings, all we have to do to prevent that is to carry on a mature discussion and not flame or be uncivil to each other, we should at least be able to control ourselves that much.


anyway there's some good discussion going on

[djsynchro]

It depends on the colour of your skin

[Pitch Black]

Are we confusing "reverse racism" with "affirmative action" here?

I would broadly define "reverse racism" as (for example) the black folks hating the white folks, the inverse of white hating black.

But "reverse racism" defined as "affirmative action" is another question entirely.

Starving Student - for clarity, which were you referring to in your original question?

[starving student]

just to let folks know there's no need to be afraid, this thread was inspired by the case before the supreme court right now about reverse racism and a newhaven firemans descrimination case.


@android bishop: still waiting on your responses my man.

another thing i'd like to know your take on is that if you erase race out of legislation built to fight hatecrimes then on what basis would you prosecute a discrimination case where the discrimination is race because the racial discrimination is the crime in such a case right?

[Angstrom]

Dear Lord, thanks for the planet and everything.
if you are reading this thread, could you do me a favour and make Android Bishop black.
Thanks, Amen , etc.

[starving student]

Are we confusing "reverse racism" with "affirmative action" here?

I would broadly define "reverse racism" as (for example) the black folks hating the white folks, the inverse of white hating black.

But "reverse racism" defined as "affirmative action" is another question entirely.

Starving Student - for clarity, which were you referring to in your original question?

I'd like to say one or the other Pitch Black but that's kind of the crux of the issue, it depends on how folks are defining things for themselves. some of us believe they are the same thing, some of us believe there is no such thing as 'reverse racism'

[Android Bishop]

I think android has put alot of thought into this issue and has some intresting points I'd like to hear what he has to say.
like regarding the changing 'hatecrimes' to being labeled just as crimes thats intriguing, do you believe that crime punishments should not be retroactive as well?

btw lets not insult anyone folks cause these things affect us all

hating somebody isnt a crime. We have the freedom to hate whoever we want in this country. Beating them up or killing them, however, is a crime. Therefore, it is simple legal consistency to charge the individual for the CRIME ITSELF. Just because they hate someone or yelled out racial slurs while they were committing the crime doesnt matter, doing those things are legal and as such shouldn't be subject to further punishment. I wont even get into the problems that arise from this, such as legal double standards and the dubiousness of actually proving that there was a legitimate prejudicial motive behind the crime.

[LoopStationZebra]

"The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!"

[starving student]

Dear Lord, thanks for the planet and everything.
if you are reading this thread, could you do me a favour and make Android Bishop black.
Thanks, Amen , etc.

contrary to popular belief there are many blacks who agree with most of what AB has said, a summary of my main misunderstandings with his point of view is this, I understand the notion of leveling a playing field, and I understand the notion of not having race based legislation as a part of leveling a playing field if it serves no purpose, but if the race based legislation does have a purpose what would be done about the purpose once the legislation is eliminated, or is it the case of people who believe that race based legislation is what caused race based infractions, descrimination, and other race based crimes in the first place?

it's just that people making the argument that race based legislation should be eliminated always seem to leave that part out of there reasoning at least with in most discussions that I've been a part of thats why I really want to know what Android Bishops opinion is.

[starving student]

I think android has put alot of thought into this issue and has some intresting points I'd like to hear what he has to say.
like regarding the changing 'hatecrimes' to being labeled just as crimes thats intriguing, do you believe that crime punishments should not be retroactive as well?

btw lets not insult anyone folks cause these things affect us all

hating somebody isnt a crime. We have the freedom to hate whoever we want in this country. Beating them up or killing them, however, is a crime. Therefore, it is simple legal consistency to charge the individual for the CRIME ITSELF. Just because they hate someone or yelled out racial slurs while they were committing the crime doesnt matter, doing those things are legal and as such shouldn't be subject to further punishment. I wont even get into the problems that arise from this, such as legal double standards and the dubiousness of actually proving that there was a legitimate prejudicial motive behind the crime.

I agree but what about crimes where the gist of the crime is racial discrimination, for instance it is not a crime to not give someone a job, but it is a crime to not give someone a job based on the color of their skin, is it your opinion that people should not be descriminated against based on race based legislation but that they should be allowed to be discriminated against based on racial discrimination?

[starving student]

"The new phone book's here! The new phone book's here!"

that was your 666 post..............hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

[Android Bishop]

What's wrong with this is that racism and the deleterious effects are long lasting. The privileges aloted to families of fortune is far more outrageous to me than affirmative action. The disparity between jail term for blacks vs, white is far more outrageous to me than a few kids getting into some thirdrate Cal State program. I think that in little as 40 years ago blacks were segregated and not allowed in white schools merits them being allowed extra privileges for at least a century. My 2 bits

1) The privledges of families of fortune aren't allotted, they are developed by the families themselves through their actions. They exist because those families built up their resources and influence over generations. Society didn't just up and decide "hey you know what? Lets make the Henderson's the most wealthy and influential family in America." They got there via their own initiative. And they have the right to pass that down to their heirs, the same as you would if you spent your life building a fortune to leave to your own children.

2) Nobody is arguing that there are disparities. However, the legal structure is in place for any person of any color or background to make something of themselves based on their initiative in this country. By giving arbitrary incentives and reparations, you are only adding to the problem by adding yet another institution that creates a divide based on race. Once you have that in place, it is difficult to get rid of and therefore exacerbates the problem even longer.

3)If you want to fix these disparities, you have to create support structures that focus on people's economic situation and not race. The reason why black people make up a majority of the prison population is due to many factors (and yes one is racism), but the biggest one is because they are poor and thus more likely to commit crimes and less likely to be able to afford good attorneys. I've been through the legal system. Believe me, most of the black people in prison are, in fact, criminals. The reason why I got out quick isn't because I'm white, it was because I had enough money to get myself a kick ass attorney. By providing support based on economic factors, rather than racial ones, you are targeting the ROOT of the problem and eliminating an institutional race barrier in the process.

[Android Bishop]

I agree but what about crimes where the gist of the crime is racial discrimination, for instance it is not a crime to not give someone a job, but it is a crime to not give someone a job based on the color of their skin, is it your opinion that people should not be descriminated against based on race based legislation but that they should be allowed to be discriminated against based on racial discrimination?

your question line there is really hard to understand when I'm stoned. Can you please explain further what you are asking me? I dont want to type out an answer if I completely miss the point of the question.