I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. - MLK Jr.

submitted by [deleted] from self.quotes

In honor of our supreme court decision

all 37 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]Vulptex 3 insightful - 5 fun3 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 5 fun -  (3 children)

What a racist bigot!

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 4 fun2 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 4 fun -  (2 children)

Yes, clearly a white supremacist neo-nazi

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

If you're not with us, then you're our enemy!

[–]Ferretman 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

The black face of white supremacy.

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Okay, but first you have to define "race".

    [–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

    I have a dream Phooey will someday read about the links between decades-old class warfare and systematic discrimination (against all under-represented groups).

    [–][deleted] 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (10 children)

    You are literally saying we should do more racism to further the unracist agenda. You can't violate a principle and claim to be invoking it at the same time, this is a fallacious nonsense argument

    If someone wants to do economic equity measures I might approve.

    I am NOT ok with heuristics, just as racists heuristics are prejudicial by assuming 'all black people have low IQ's, so this black person must be dumb', so too is this a heuristic problem. Barack Obama and Lebron James kids should NOT count as any sort of 'affirmative action', many white and asian kids are far more disadvantaged than theirs.

    If racial discrimination is wrong, it is wrong, period. Once you invoke a principle, you are stuck with it. Racial discrimination is not justified as sub-ideal equity measure, when one could use real economic status as the measuring stick without resorting to what is literally racism and clearly prohibited under the constitution

    Racism is not OK, but sometimes it is, is a fucking retarded position that will lead to more racism, such as the assumption black people do not deserve their positions because they are affirmative action hires, and more racial division and resentment. You cannot build an un-racist society on a foundation of racism

    [–]twolanterns 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You can't violate a principle and claim to be invoking it at the same time,

    actually you can, just not when being ethical or consistent or honest

    look at the media today for endless examples

    [–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    I'm literally saying that you're oversimplifying this in a number of ways, and that there's much more to it, it's origin, the social problems, levelling-up, women, diversity in general (not just blacks, who often remained unqualified for hire, and were not hired, or did not survive in higher education programs they easily got into, well into the affirmative action process), etc. It's been an important anti-discrimination bill. The question are: has it surved its purpose? Is it outdated? Is it putting the wrong people in important positions? I'd agree with you that it's all of those things. I don't like it. But I also don't like the politicization of if for right wing political points by the Supreme Court Republican hacks who made a bad legal judgement, among several others, in order to help the Republican Party's anti-woman, anti-black, anti student, anti-environment, anti-education, anti-just-about-everything positions. Those assholes.

    [–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

    Supreme Court Republican hacks who made a bad legal judgement

    Thats where you arent making sense, if we are talking about a legal judgement, you don't get to consider all these things you mention - thats policy making, they are interpreting a law already on the books, which is 100% unambiguous about discrimination on race being illegal and draws no distinction between 'good' or 'bad' discrimination. The law doesn't say 'unless it advances equity', it says no. Regardless of what you or I think about what the law ought to be, this was the correct ruling. If the law ought to be different, that is a job for congress, not the Supreme Court

    The question are: has it surved its purpose? Is it outdated?

    NO! That is NOT a question for the Supreme Court, that would be unconstitutional, as that is a power delegated to Congress. If you want new laws you legislate them with a vote by elected representatives via the democratic process, not have unelected officials interpret laws to mean whatever they want.

    [–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

    interpreting a law already on the books

    Many of those laws have been discriminatory, and still are. Indeed Affirmative Action reduced discrimination by giving non-white-men opportunities they did not have before because of discrimination. It's been anti-discrimination legislation, and what the Supreme Court Republican hacks have done is kill it, which is a decision on an AA "law already on the books". SCOTUS is once again for discrimination (which is the unregulated permission to admit anyone you want into institutions or jobs, without any oversight of potential discrimination - such as refusing a more highly qualified women in favor of a less highly qualified man, etc.). You could hire the white man before, with a mere explanation of his qualifications, but now you don't have to provide the explanation. SCOTUS has returned the US to pre-AA unregulated discrimination, and indeed to pre-RvW abuses, and recently fucked over students who have crippling loans. You see the pattern? SCOTUS is indeed LEGISLATING for Republicans by re-introducing earlier abuses. The LAW is whatever we LEGISLATE it to be, not just "a law already on the books". Look at WHO put it in the books. Also look at similar laws around the world. CIVILIZED nations have anti-discrimination laws for these important reasons.

    Hence the questions remain: do they serve their purposes? Do they require revision?

    SCOTUS decisions can be overturned by Congress. SCOTUS is only one portion of government and can be wrong, as they are recently, with a number of decisions. A "law already on the books" is the US government 'check and balance' system whereby elected officials, rather than a small group of Republican hacks, are supposed to represent the will of their constituents.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

    It's been anti-discrimination legislation, and what the Supreme Court Republican hacks have done is kill it

    Because it clearly contradicts the 14th amendment, you would need legislation to revise the constitution, which the people are not going to vote for democratically. California had a vote to repeal racial discrimination in the state constitution to allow affirmative action for government, and even they wouldn't pass that.

    https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_16,_Repeal_Proposition_209_Affirmative_Action_Amendment_(2020)

    Also look at similar laws around the world. CIVILIZED nations have anti-discrimination laws for these important reasons.

    An argument to change the constitution, not have the court misinterpret it, but this would have to be passed democratically with a 2/3 majority. Certainly not decided by the court.

    The LAW is whatever we LEGISLATE it to be

    And we have legislated, with a 2/3 majority, that any racial discrimination is illegal. You can't tell me the Constitution says otherwise. This has to be the law until you can get 2/3 to modify it for an equity exception, which it does not currently have.

    Hence the questions remain: do they serve their purposes? Do they require revision?

    Again, not for the Supreme Court. That isn't their jurisdiction. This ruling was 100% consistent with the law and they did their job, which was to interpret what the highest existing law says

    [–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    You make good points about discrimination legal matters, which however must be regulated with actionable legislation like AA. Not that I am a fan of AA, but as discussed, as I would favor a revision of the law. But the serious problem in this case is the Supreme Court's judicial overrreach, what's called 'legislating from the bench' for partisan purposes, to overturn important laws (like RvW). Some of these chaps are also discussing it: https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/14nk1fz/john_roberts_begs_the_liberal_justices_to_stop/

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    to overturn important laws (like RvW).

    So to be clear, as a philosophical issue, I believe RvW ought to be the law and provide abortion protections

    Now, as a legal issue, its a bit more complex.

    The question for the courts was: Do states have a right to make any laws they like, even violating federal law, as long as they don't violate the Constitution?

    So that is what the Justices ruled, that they could. Now I am not familiar with the wording of the law on this, but I am familiar with some of the precedents used by the Dems to do very similar things. They have passed state laws for marijuana and sanctuary state/cities that are definitely in violation of federal law, and the courts have affirmed their right to do so because the Constitution doesn't say otherwise. I'm inclined to say this was the right legal ruling (unless you can cite me wording that suggests otherwise in the law itself), despite the fact that I vehemently disagree with abortion bans from a perspective of what the law ought to be. But from a legal standpoint I cant say states should be able to ignore federal marijuana laws but not federal abortion laws, thats clearly inconsistent in principle.

    Should states be able to ignore federal law? Idk, thats an even more complex question I'm not prepared to answer at the moment, but it seems like the existing precedents says they can and have been consistently applied in principle.

    I think there is a difference between a bad outcome and an incorrect legal ruling, these are not always the same thing, although ideally they would be. RvW looks to me like a bad outcome, but a correct legal ruling

    [–]YoMamma 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    I agree that these are important distinctions. There is a broader discussion regarding states' rights. One of my concerns is that states like Texas and Florida have been abusing human rights when they've broken national laws, resulting in very expensive processes of taking them to the Supreme Court for their violations of RvW &c. When Texas violated RvW, this caused a series of events that led to the Supreme Court repealing RvW. The outcome of that ruling is that women in abusive states have suffered in a number of ways.

    [–][deleted] 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    The outcome of that ruling is that women in abusive states have suffered in a number of ways.

    I completely agree with you that abortion bans lead to undesirable outcomes for society and abortion should have protections. I personally would like to see the principle of bodily autonomy protected in the constitution in this and other ways.

    [–]clownworlddropout 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

    You're talking about the asians, right? How they're systemically discriminated against because they're a minority? Because that's what our system apparently does, right?

    [–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

    I'm obviously not discussing only one group.

    [–]clownworlddropout 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

    Maybe you should consider that group. Asians preform better than white people in a lot of areas in our society, which flies in the face of your claim that our system discriminates against visible minorities. It appears that instead our society rewards merit, regardless of race.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

    Asians preform better than white people in a lot of areas in our society, which flies in the face of your claim that our system discriminates against visible minorities.

    Or Asians are a counter-example to the idea that people perform worse when they are discriminated against. Or maybe they would perform even better if not for the highly visible discrimination against them?

    We don't recognise discrimination by the mere existence of performance differences: despite only making up 13% of the population, 100% of the top 10 highest paid basketball players in the NBA are black. Obviously this proves that there is systematic racism against whites. Right?

    We recognise discrimination when it occurs by looking for bias, prejudice and undeserved differential treatment, and then see if that results in meaningful differences in outcomes. We don't assume that any and all performance difference must be caused by discrimination.

    [–]clownworlddropout 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

    Interesting, and how would you explain the disparity between blacks and whites in the NBA? Race is only a social construct, so there must be bias against whites at work here. "White men can't jump" is a racist dog whistle, surely prejudice against white men must explain this difference of outcome?

    [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

    how would you explain the disparity between blacks and whites in the NBA?

    The demographics of the NBA is about 73% black and 17% white. Based only on that we'd expect 1 or 2 of the Top 10 highest paid to be white, but that assumes everything else is equal.

    A few superstars dominate salaries. Salary deals for sports people is not just made on the basis of their skill and talent, but also on their popularity and ability to draw a crowd. Basketball is more popular to black audiences than white (47% black, 34% white) so it wouldn't surprise me if black superstars were more popular and hence paid more, and hence no whites in the top 10.

    A better test would be to look at the salaries of the top 100, skipping the top 10. I would expect that would be closer to 17% whites.

    [–]clownworlddropout 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    That 13% difference in the audience demographic is doing some heavy lifting to support your premise there. That 56% difference between black and white players is quite a number though, why are these sports teams not hiring more white men? It must be racism that's to blame, right? A disparity in outcome between races must be because of racism because race isn't real, after all.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    That 13% difference in the audience demographic is doing some heavy lifting to support your premise there.

    Not really. Given the demographics of the players, we would only expect 1 or 2 white players in the top 10, so it doesn't take much difference in either athletic talent or popularity, even just random chance, to drop them out of the top 10.

    That's why I suggested it would be better to look at the top 100 and not just the superstar top 10.

    That 56% difference between black and white players is quite a number though, why are these sports teams not hiring more white men?

    shrug

    Probably because basketball is much more popular in the inner cities, where black people tend to live, rather than in the suburbs, where whites tend to live. You don't need much space or equipment to play basketball compared to football or baseball. It's a city sport.

    So I expect that there are proportionally many more black guys trying out for the NBA than white.

    I was the one who pointed out that there is a racial discrepancy in the NBA superstars, but I used that specifically to argue against the racist woke idea that any and every discrepancy in outcome must be racism or some other -ism. I think it is unlikely that the NBA, which is still owned and managed mostly by old white dudes who think CRT is some sort of medical treatment for when you have a heart attack, are biased against whites because of their skin colour. It's possible, I guess, but I wouldn't put money on it.

    It must be racism that's to blame, right? A disparity in outcome between races must be because of racism

    I'm not the one who thinks that every disparity in outcome must be caused by racism! Perhaps you should read my earlier message in this thread again -- the mere existence of some disparity does not imply racism or some other prejudice.

    Maybe it just means that black dudes love basketball than white dudes, or white guys are too busy playing baseball or hockey to bother with basketball. Maybe it means that there are more 6'6" and taller black dudes because of genetics.

    Or simply from cultural effects: little Kareem plays street basketball because his family follows the NBA, while little Eric is spending all his time on Instagram, so even if they both grow to be 6'10" Kareem is athletic and tries out for the NBA while Eric decides his pronouns are xin/xiz and wants to be called Princess Trixiebell Starfox.

    If you go out of the inner cities, there are probably more white rodeo riders than black. I don't think that's because rural America lynches any black guys who wear cowboy boots and rides a horse. Well maybe back in the 1950s, but not today. I think its because of the distinct subcultures in America.

    because race isn't real, after all.

    A simple idea of race as in "black" and "white" isn't real. (Yes, I know, that's the language I've been using too. Sue me.) Unlike sex, which is binary (male and female), race isn't binary. There aren't two human races, or three, or ten, or a hundred. "Race" is closer to not just one spectrum but a thousand distinct and independent spectra all tangled together into a giant incomprehensible ball of genetics, ethnicities, tribes and cultures.

    With the possible exception of a few tribes deep in the Amazon rain forest, or the New Guinea highlands, we're all mongrels. Over the ten thousand years or so of human history, every tribe, "race" and culture has interbred with all the other tribes and "races" they've come across.

    And that is why twins, born of the same mother to the one father, like Lucy and Maria Alymer are possible.

    Meghan Markle has just as many Irish Celtic ancestors as American Black ancestors. Why doesn't she count as Celtic instead of "black"? Her skin is paler than many tanned "white" people.

    About 10% of pale skinned British people, and most Irish, are descended from the black-skinned, blue-eyed "Western Hunter Gatherer" genetic group. Are they black because their ancestors are black? If so, we're all black.

    Here are two actresses, Louise Beavers and Fredi Washington from the 1934 film “Imitation of Life”. Can you tell which one is white? Here are Vin Diesel and Colin Powell, the dark skinned actor on the left is white and the light skinned general on the right is black.

    [–]YoMamma 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    I'm obviously not discussing only one group.

    [–]clownworlddropout 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    You don't have a reply to that?

    [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    decades-old class warfare and systematic discrimination (against all under-represented groups).

    So how do you combat class warfare by privileging one skin colour over the others?

    "There is systematic discrimination against poor people so... we'll discriminate against whites and Asians for college admissions, that will fix it!"

    [–]Ferretman 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Well said.

    [–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    What color is the content?

    [–]MagicMike 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    When Trump was elected, I hoped he’d get at least one SCOTUS Justice. He got 3. Even out of office, he’s winning. 🏆

    [–]binaryblob 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

    It was never about the color about their skin. It was about wanting things that weren't theirs to begin with.

    The moment people without land ownership were allowed to vote it all went to shit. I am also not convinced that allowing crazy bitches (all women in existence by approximation) to vote was a good idea. The only women that are remotely smart have so much male sex hormones, they could as well be dudes. It's the same thing with allowing people under 30 to vote (or be elected) (they are idiots), people over 50 (also idiots), or people that never worked a day in their lives (most career politicians).

    How many Nobel Prizes would the US lose if every black person would be deported? Black people predominantly flip burgers in the US and deal drugs. A small minority might do somewhat more, but I doubt their existence is profitable for society as a whole. In business terms they are a cost center and certainly when the robots start flipping burgers.

    [–]weavilsatemyface 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Women have to be twice as intelligent as a man to be considered half as smart. Fortunately this is not difficult for the women. Unfortunately it's the men doing the judging, and they're too dumb to realise how stupid they are.

    [–]carn0ld03 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Martin Luther King Jr. was a degenerate whore monger and no less a fraud than his namesake. He didn't deserve martyrdom. He was as far from honorable as any man could be.

    [–]Brewdabier 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    they will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.

    Well then seeing how there's more blacks in prison and when they "protest" they always loot and burn others peoples property that is a good judge of character.

    [–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    I had a dream about Loofa Keen.

    [–]KyleIsThisTall 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

    Always were, darkie.