The End of Equal Justice for All

[Steve R.]

Martin Luther King in his "I have a Dream Speech" proclaimed: "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." Indeed, that was what the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s was about; bringing equality. Today, the Civil Rights movement has become corrupted, it is now about obtaining preferential treatments that are now to be "entitled" based on past "identity" grievances ("social justice").

Essentially, this post is a continuation of the threads "Democrats Depreciating the "Rule of Law"" and "White Lives Don't Matter - apparently", where the supposed neutrality of the law is now being subverted by the deceitful claim for "social justice". The shallowness and inappropriateness of "social justice" was recently exposed by The Hill in the article: "California's Prop 16 would allow discrimination against women".

Proposition 16 seeks to repeal the provision of the California Constitution that prohibits discrimination and preferential treatment on the basis of race and sex in public education, employment and contracting. That provision was put there by Prop 209 in 1996.
Little has been said about how this repeal effort could have the unintended consequence of furthering discrimination against women in college admissions.

The significance of this article is that there is a finally a degree of recognition of "unintended consequence" in the media resulting from the selective application of the law. Usually, the media simple pushes the one-sided politically correct dogma of the unrelenting need for "social justice" to end so-called "white male privilege". Now, through this article, we can begin to see the emergence of what could happen if we allow decisions based on "color of their skin" or other ambiguous criteria. Each "identity group" will begin to demand its so called "just share" and "protection" from the perceived adverse effects of any law. "We need a law to protect our XYZ community from the evils of ABC". Recall Orwell's: "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.” Should this downhill trend of allowing decisions to be based on vague undefined rationale to achieved a vague undefined societal objective continue, in the end, the rule-of-law will cease to exist.

-------------------------------------

A side notation concerning the avalanche towards "social justice": Newsom signs law mandating more diversity in California corporate boardrooms. Where is the concern that we have diversity concerning all aspects; such as having 50% of the players of professional teams (football) be women or that a certain percentage of players on a basketball team be short? Seems that most persons grandiosely advocating "social justice" are really full of empty hot-air. First, they don't seem to comprehend that they are disingenuously fostering discrimination under the ludicrous proposition that they need it to end discrimination. Very Orwellian. Second, they don't really mean what they say and they simply make gratuitous meaningless gestures to mislead the public.

 

[Isaac]

Today, the Civil Rights movement has become corrupted, it is now about obtaining preferential treatments that are now to be "entitled" based on past "identity" grievances ("social justice")

Well said.

First, they don't seem to comprehend that they are disingenuously fostering discrimination under the ludicrous proposition that they need it to end discrimination

Again, well said.

I'm a little less generous; I believe many of them absolutely comprehend it, and don't care at all. They openly and admittedly seek--not equality, but a new kind of inequality in order to correct some lack of equality from the past. Rather than being committed to true equality of opportunity--the rest to be achieved via hard work and self qualification, like everyone else--AKA, the same thing every other group (who has suffered oppression in the past), has successfully used to well achieve, the moment they were allowed.

 

[Pat Hartman]

The Constitution promises equality of opportunity. The current Social "Justice" trend promises equality of outcome. Nothing is ever going to make me drop dead gorgeous or size 2 or a billionaire. I guess I'll have to spend the rest of my life hating the world for that injustice.

I was once hired for a job because I was female. Of course they didn't tell me that. I had to figure it out for myself which turned out to be pretty easy since the new HR system was my responsibility. The company's EEO stats apparently were terrible and so the department manager dictated that the next manager MUST be female. My manager would never have hired a woman by choice. It was the worst three months of my life. Luckily the job market was good so I wasn't stuck in that hellhole.

 

[Steve R.]

The following article first, exposes the obvious bias in news reporting by some media sources. Second, and perhaps more significant, if you are hiring a group of people based specifically on criteria such as race, sex, sexual orientation, you are guilty of discrimination. So the "left", when it is to their advantage glorifies discrimination under the auspices of "social justice". Martin Luther King, and other old Civil Rights advocates must be turning over in their graves now.

Media Say Biden’s Female-Led Comms Team Is A First. It’s What Trump Has Now

Former Vice President Joe Biden will make history by having a female-led communications team in the White House, the Washington Post reported on Sunday. The only problem with the claim is that President Trump’s communications team is led across the board by women right now.

Rather than admit that these stories were wrong and that Trump was the first president to have all-female leadership of his communications team, reporters pointed to lower-level men in the White House communications team to deflect.

 

[moke123]

Nothing is ever going to make me drop dead gorgeous or size 2

Everyone can have a smoking hot body someday (when cremated)

 

[Isaac]

The following article first, exposes the obvious bias in news reporting by some media sources. Second, and perhaps more significant, if you are hiring a group of people based specifically on criteria such as race, sex, sexual orientation, you are guilty of discrimination. So the "left", when it is to their advantage glorifies discrimination under the auspices of "social justice". Martin Luther King, and other old Civil Rights advocates must be turning over in their graves now.

Media Say Biden’s Female-Led Comms Team Is A First. It’s What Trump Has Now

.... And that's why they call it "Fake News". So glad Trump coined that term. He wasn't the first to suggest it, of course, conservatives have been making the same point for 50 years.

 

[moke123]

mis-quoted. They didn't say female-led comms team.

Are Devin O'malley, Judd Deere and Brian Morgenstern female?

 

[Isaac]

Nope, it wasn't misquoted. The article was clearly touting the idea that Biden's comm team was female led. Which Trump's already is.

Again, Fake News.

 

[moke123]

"I am proud to announce today the first senior White House communications team comprised entirely of women. These qualified, experienced communicators bring diverse perspectives to their work and a shared commitment to building this country back better," Biden said in a statement.

Fact Check: Does Trump Have an All-Female Senior White House Press Team?

Kayleigh McEnany claimed Biden-Harris administration will not have the first all female senior communications team as Trump and Pence already do.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Isaac]

Wrong again. "senior" is the key.

From the article, to their credit: "Whether McEnany was being misleading about the female members of staff for the Trump and Pence teams depends on what she characterized as "senior" in her original tweet".

Miller just barely left, so I'll give them that.

They are right - Biden's claim is nonsense.

 

[Jon]

I'm a little less generous; I believe many of them absolutely comprehend it, and don't care at all. They openly and admittedly seek--not equality, but a new kind of inequality in order to correct some lack of equality from the past.

I'm with Isaac on this one. I don't believe it is about equality at all, but rather a power grab to get as much as you possibly can. Humans have been fighting other humans for power ever since we were created by aliens. Look at 3rd-wave feminism. There are equal rights and equal laws already, but instead they are on a relentless power grab, striving for more power using fake news wage gap theories that operate on uni-dimensional lines. They are not after equality. They are after the persecution of men, based on a sexist agenda using a perversion of rationality. I think it stems from an inbuilt hatred of men. But then what do I know, I am just an old white male.

Fortunately, the vast majority of women do not view themselves as modern day (3rd-wave) feminists because they see them for what they are. Why not just strive for equality, rather than equality for women only? It reminds me of Black Lives Matter, when all our lives matter. Leaving people out of the agenda based on sex, race or age is discriminatory, isn't it?

Or am I just a Nazi because I believe in equality for all, including the Aryans! [Chuckling to myself here!]

You see, when a group proposes to seek equality based on race, sex or age, they are not really seeking equality at all. They are only seeking to improve their own groups position. For example, I don't see any feminists trying to improve the position of men on areas where men are the underdogs. That suggests to me it has nothing to do with equality between the sexes. It is just about more power for their own group.

There was no equality during the first and second World Wars, where men were dying in the millions on the front lines. I didn't see the feminists complain about that inequality!

 

[Isaac]

#MeToo, Jon. As a man, we know our lived experience actually does prove this to be true. There is a LOT of man-hating attitudes out there.
Just as I need to be open to women's opinions on their lived experiences and what treatment they receive, they must be open to ours.

You see, when a group proposes to seek equality based on race, sex or age, they are not really seeking equality at all. They are only seeking to improve their own groups position

Well and succinctly stated.
Maybe not true 100% of the time, but generally true nowadays, when equal opportunity already exists for everyone.

 

[Jon]

I've extended my post further, with extra bits thrown in as they come to mind. Nice to get it off my chest!

 

[Jon]

I've had long conversations with a socialist friend of mine about equality and inequality. I know my views tend to diverge a bit from the mainstream, but that is because people gravitate towards the common view. However, I do not believe that is where the "truth" lies.

My belief is that people should think more independently, rather than just regurgitating what everybody else says.

Let me throw in a wild example here, since it just popped into my head! Ok, the feminists say they are after equality between the sexes. Well, men live about 3 years less on average than women. So, why am I not seeing tens of thousands of feminists marching through the streets of the capital campaigning for shifting more medical resources towards men so that we reduce that inequality? I think we know the answer. It is because they don't care. They really don't care about equality at all, even when it comes to life and death!

Instead, they are trying to get more resources allocated to their own medical needs. In a zero sum game, that means less for men. How crue is that?l!

 

[Isaac]

You're right - and that's without even digging to the level of, "Should the government legislate toward equality of RESULTS or equality of OPPORTUNITY?" (Isn't it up to the person to work the opportunity for the result?)

 

[The_Doc_Man]

I think we already know that Jon's viewpoint also applies to the Black Lives Matter movement as it has evolved. Originally, it was probably even a bit justified. But now it is mutating.

 

[Jon]

There is no equality. Let's take pension annuities. Because women live longer than men, men are subsidising part of their pension annuity. Both pay in equal amounts, but one sex will, on average, live longer and so get more money. How is that fair? The EU directive on gender neutral annuities, in its aims to avoid discrimination based on sex, is discriminating against men since they will get a poorer return on their investment relative to women. So it isn't a question of avoiding discrimination. It is a question of choosing to discriminate against men.

 

[Isaac]

As I always say, these issues swing on a political pendulum. Too far one way, then too far another way, then back the original way.

While it's very unpopular NOW to say what you've said, (although obviously true), it will only be a matter of time before--maybe not this year, maybe not this decade, but at SOME point--men will finally have accumulated enough adverse impacts that enough of them will think this way and then they will rise up to demand some return to a middle ground.

It may take a while, since men are programmed to think along the lines of giving women what they ask for & want, but it will happen.

 

[Jon]

By the way, I am not trying to make this a case of men verses women. Instead, I am highlighting injustices caused by social justice warrior type thinking, where they devalue those who are not in their valued group.

 

[Jon]

While it's very unpopular NOW to say what you've said

Is it unpopular to say you want equality for all?