Glad to see progress in the fight against the New, Anti-White, Racism (1 Viewer)

[Isaac]

Just adding more racism, intended to hurt different groups, was NEVER the appropriate solution to past racism ... obviously.

It's a bit painful to think it took going all the way to the Supreme Court for people to finally realize, "Oh, gee - I guess I actually CAN'T advertise jobs 'only for blacks', or 'only for indigenous bisexual floating unicorns', or whatever the flavor-of-the-month victim group is.

And giving certain minority groups (but even there - only CERTAIN ones, not really all!) - the privilege of being evaluated on an easier-to-win scale was immoral and wrong. If some groups work hard for their results, then some groups are going to get more results. It's the way Life is. If you want to change your results, you work harder, you don't demand that everyone else's results be given to you.
At least, that's a very fair viewpoint considering that in current-day USA life, people generally really do have equal opportunity.

It was always wrong

Supreme Court Strikes Down DEI College Admissions. Is Workplace DEI Next?

Supreme Court says DEI College Admissions unconstitutional.

jonathan1909.wixsite.com

 

[The_Doc_Man]

'only for indigenous bisexual floating unicorns'

Damn, I was hoping to keep those hidden in my work force. It's so hard to keep them around New Orleans, though, because of their preferences for handlers. Do you know how hard it is to find a virgin in New Orleans?

 

[Isaac]

the "indigenous" label doesn't really carry the weight of meaning, and the trials and suffering-by-implication, that it used to.

as US society has evolved, and given the fact that every Native American has the exact same legally defined opportunities as everyone else, ya know..

Please understand that I am FULLY aware and sympathetic toward the actual current condition of reservations and reservation life. They are really a cesspool of violence, addiction, abuse and despair. The best advice I would give to anyone living on them is not to. Good rule of thumb about peer influence: The reservation will change you before you will change the reservation.

 

[Pat Hartman]

So Biden was just telling us why we should ignore the Supreme Court because their ruling was racist

 

[The_Doc_Man]

OK, now on a more serious note, this is a pendulum that was swinging one way for a while and has now swung the other way. It is a decision that forces people to make a distinction between opportunities and results. Too many people want DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) results but that has never been the purpose of the founding fathers. Equity in opportunity means "fairly competing for jobs or work" - but there is not, and never should be forced equity in results. Diversity and inclusion will come about, and equity will be reached, when job applicants come to the table with skills and a work ethic.

Before my Navy job, I was the chief software product designer for a company working in the oil industry. When we put out a call for programmers, we used to get some of the damnedest responses. For instance, someone who thought that because he could program a TI programmable hand-held calculator from the late 1970s era that he could program a full-blown computer with a formal operating system environment. We talked to him and let him down as gently as possible, but it was disheartening to see so many people with unrealistic ideas of what it actually meant to work in a specific industry. And before anyone asks, in the interview we determined that his learning curve would be too expensive for us to try to train him. We didn't have a training department with that level of support. We advised him to study a few courses in college or at a trade school and try again in a few years. This is relevant because with a DEI mandate, we would have been forced to take on a non-productive person. That is not good for a business. But that had not yet become an issue.

 

[Steve R.]

@Isaac: Busy day for me. So you got to beat me on posting this. Congratulations on your scoop.
I was just beginning my 1000+ page copious dissertation on this. I guess it's destined for the trash now.

Supreme Court Justices Thomas, Sotomayor read affirmative action opinions from the bench in rare move

Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Sonia Sotomayor read their conflicting opinions on affirmative action from the bench in a rare move.

www.foxnews.com

I'll have to add my editorial onions later. For now, attached is the decision.

 

[Isaac]

@The_Doc_Man
I couldn't agree with you more.

Where in the world did these people get the idea that the government is supposed to force equal outcomes, for situations that are largely determined by personal choices ?? I mean who is teaching them such a silly thing?

If mankind could live in a world where everyone experienced material success in great quantity equally, WITHOUT stealing from people who had fairly earned their own, I'm pretty sure we'd already have done it by now.

 

[Isaac]

So Biden was just telling us why we should ignore the Supreme Court because their ruling was racist

How do liberals even get through the day? Like sorting things out and finding their way around.

"Telling institutions to stop discriminating against whites is racist".

Umm-hmmm. Okay!

 

[Steve R.]

Based on the topic: "Glad to see progress in the fight against the New, Anti-White, Racism". The following situation is also applicable from the perspective that the pendulum appears to be moving away from always deeming the "woke" perspective entitled based on twisted convoluted assumptions concerning the Constitution.

Supreme Court Expands Legal Protections for Christian Employees

Federal law grants Christian workers greater workplace protections than employers for decades thought they were required to grant Christians, and members of other faiths as well, following a unanimous decision by the Supreme Court on Thursday.

www.breitbart.com

 

[Isaac]

Awkward:

Supreme Court Rules Against Affirmative Action With Affirmative Action Hire Sitting Right There. (Kentaji).

 

[Steve R.]

Seems that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson; all qualify as "diversity" hires, based on the continued (false) claim that certain groups have been "suppressed" from participation. Four of the nine justices are women. Two are Black. We can also toss-in that we have elected a Black president, Black vice-president, and that many people in Congress are Black and women. Even Karine Jean-Pierre haughtily proclaimed that the Biden administration was "historic" for all its diversity hires (also pointing to herself as an historic first, while ignoring the historic firsts of Republicans, such as Winsome Earle-Sears). At a certain point those hysterically screaming for "diversity" need to recognize that they have achieved that goal and need to shut-up.

If they keep blindly adhering to promoting their "victimization" even thought they have achieved success, they will, like the boy who cried wolf, eventually loose their credibility and audience. It is unfortunate that Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson are overlooking the success of the "diversity" movement and are clinging to the past.

PS: There are two deleterious indirect effects when it comes to promoting "diversity".

• Should you hire a person based on their race, some will view that as an opportunity to promote their race over others, in other words racism. This could be prevalent in certain departments, such as Human Resources. Note this racist quote by Sotomayor: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."
• A person who is a "diversity" hire, depending on their job, may feel obligated to find racism, even if it does not exist. The obvious reason, if they don't find racism, then they are out-of-a-job.

 

[ColinEssex]

I lose track of whats the right or wrong thing people say in America.
Do you still refer to non white people as 'blacks' or still say 'negros'? How do you say it in normal conversation? Do you still have segregation in Alabama or mississippi or Georgia like in the 60's? Or does it still exist but under cover.
Col

 

[Pat Hartman]

haughtily proclaimed that the Biden administration was "historic" for all its diversity hires (also pointing to herself as an historic first

I would be ashamed to be a diversity hire rather than proud of it.

Do you still have segregation in Alabama or mississippi or Georgia like in the 60's? Or does it still exist but under cover

Really old people might say negros but probably not anyone else. That was purged from the vocabulary in the 60's. The radicals of the period insisted on "black" which is of course a synonym for "negro" so whatever. Jesse Jackson (an activist from the period) coined the term "African American". However, Africa isn't a country and most other Americans feel that you are American or you are not regardless of where your ancestors originated. Current science indicates that the human race originated in Africa so technically, you are also African and we were all dark skinned in the beginning. It was only as our ancestors migrated to colder climates that our skins lightened up. Having "black" skin is about as relevant as having blue eyes or red hair or freckles. It is an immutable characteristic and no one should ever be judged by something they have no power to change. That is what makes racism so evil at its core.

No, segregation has been gone officially since the 60's. Actually it was gone in practice in most of the country by the turn of the 20th century. It was President Woodrow Wilson (Democrat) that brought it back by officially segregating the armed forces and government workforce. Even Wikipedia can't hide his racism.

However, today, after a civil war where white people fought and died to free the slaves and over a century of pretty successful integration, stupid black college students want to bring it back. They have been lobbying for "black" dorms and separate "black" graduation ceremonies. They already have "black" only clubs but "white" only clubs are racist as are "white" only dorms and graduation exercises. I guess the goal is by separating themselves, they can point at the hateful white racists who are victimizing them.

 

[Steve R.]

As a precursor to this decision by the US Supreme Court; California proposed in 2020 to eliminate its state equal rights amendment. That was three years ago. See this post. Affirmative Action defeated in California. So even in "leftist" California, the people rejected Affirmative Action. Of course, when it comes to this issue, as well as others, those on the "left" refuse to accept the will of the people as being valid. This lays waste to the Democrats whining that this US Supreme Court ruling is an abomination and that they are somehow the defenders of democracy. Democrats are the threat to democracy.

 

[AccessBlaster]

 

[Steve R.]

Jonathan Turley: SCOTUS siding with Christian web designer 'an amazing moment' for free speech

Fox News contributor Jonathan Turley applauds the Supreme Court's 6-3 decision finding the First Amendment protects a Christian graphic designer's right to decline work for a same-sex wedding.

www.foxnews.com

I'm mystified by the dissent. When [Justice Sonia] Sotomayor came up for confirmation, I noted that she had a troubling free speech case as an appellate judge. But that hasn't been as pronounced until today. I mean, her dissent really gives very little weight to the free speech concerns raised by many of us about these issues. In my view, the reason it's a free speech case is because, you know, I would feel the same way about Nazis going into a bakery and asking a Jewish baker to produce an anti-Semitic cake. Or to ask an African-American baker to produce a KKK cake. Various people have strong feelings that they don't want to be forced to express countervailing values. It doesn't mean they're right or they're wrong, but we have the ability to accommodate that. And what Gorsuch says, and it's a really beautifully written opinion, is he says we can accommodate that in this country, that we believe in pluralism, we believe in letting people have their own values. And so the distinction you drew is the most important of all. You must comply with public accommodation laws. This is a limitation of when you ask someone to do an expressive act in the form of a cake, a website, maybe a photographer. (emphasis added)

 

[Steve R.]

Another Babylon Bee headline:

Asian Americans Celebrate Affirmative Action Ruling With 5-Minute Study Break

IRVINE, CA — Jubilant revelry broke out yesterday following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling against colleges using Affirmative Action policies in their admissions, with Asian American families celebrating by cutting loose with a five-minute study break.

babylonbee.com

 

[jpl458]

the "indigenous" label doesn't really carry the weight of meaning, and the trials and suffering-by-implication, that it used to.

as US society has evolved, and given the fact that every Native American has the exact same legally defined opportunities as everyone else, ya know..

Please understand that I am FULLY aware and sympathetic toward the actual current condition of reservations and reservation life. They are really a cesspool of violence, addiction, abuse and despair. The best advice I would give to anyone living on them is not to. Good rule of thumb about peer influence: The reservation will change you before you will change the reservation.

I agree, they have a right to poverty. And, where do suggest they go to get off the Res, given the state of poverty they are in.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I lose track of whats the right or wrong thing people say in America.
Do you still refer to non white people as 'blacks' or still say 'negros'? How do you say it in normal conversation? Do you still have segregation in Alabama or mississippi or Georgia like in the 60's? Or does it still exist but under cover.
Col

Honestly, Col, sometimes I think we in the USA have also lost track of what is right or wrong to say in the USA. Between talk of negro or black, then get to transsexuals wanting different pronouns (not EITHER of the conventional ones), and from ages ago the Miss/ Mrs. / Ms. issues, I don't think we like our language to be clear. It gives people a chance to be insulted so that they can express their displeasure with you.

Segregation is now illegal in all parts of the USA and has been for a long time. You can still find some de facto segregation, but now its scope has widened since hate groups want to segregate gays from straights too. But the most recent de jure segregation went away when the COVID crisis was declared "over."

 

[ColinEssex]

Honestly, Col, sometimes I think we in the USA have also lost track of what is right or wrong to say in the USA.

I watched an episode of Columbo recently. In it they referred to females as 'broads', not heard that one before. In the UK females are referred to as 'birds', as in 'I saw this great looking bird yesterday ' - its in common use. As far as I know, we still use 'Mr/Mrs/Miss' or at least, that's the options in a drop down box on a website.
If females really wanted equality, they wouldn't walk round town practically naked in hotpants and a bra as they do here. Or, they wouldn't spend ages with makeup and wearing micro skirts to attract males on a Saturday night at a club, then they get drunk and expose themselves to all in sundry. Their mantra is 'if you've got it, flaunt it'. We had french teenage female students for over 20 years, they were just the same.
Col