The End of Equal Justice for All

[The_Doc_Man]

Actually, to a virulent member of the BLM movement, yes.

 

[Isaac]

Is it unpopular to say you want equality for all?

Yep. Unfortunately.

 

[Jon]

Well said Doc. I may be viewed as a white supremacist for saying all lives matter, equality for all. It shows how perverted views have become when saying you believe in equality is considered racist! So, based on this type of thinking, I believe none of it is about equality at all, as explained in my previous posts on this thread.

I've read several things where they think just saying all lives matter is a racist statement. The whole thing has got ridiculous. It all reminds me of Nazi Germany, where the mainstream view was the persecution of one group of people for who they are. In this case, it is the persecution of non-believers. Just look at the violence, extortion, and threats towards those who disagree with the BLM movement. People getting sacked for saying all lives matter. Defund the police (helps if you are a criminal!).

I find the whole aggression towards fellow citizens really quite ugly.

 

[Jon]

Yep. Unfortunately.

But how mad is that? It is a perversion of social values. it is a contradiction of their own values.

 

[Steve R.]

Let me reiterate, the Biden team is purposely discriminating (in terms of selection) based on gender. That is illegal.

 

[Jon]

How are they doing that?

 

[Isaac]

Deliberately selecting only women for a post rather than the best qualified

 

[Steve R.]

How are they doing that?

Clearly, to make the headlines, the Biden team purposely selected women to fill those jobs. There is no apparent pretense that the people being hired would be hired based solely on qualifications. So, if you clearly select people for a job based on certain criteria (such as gender) that is illegal. (Of course, no lawsuit will be filed against the Biden team by some men's rights group. It would be great if that were to actually happen. )

Gender Discrimination: Applicable Laws

 

[Jon]

So the Democrats fight for and bring in Civil Rights laws only to break them later on? Does that mean the Democrats never believed in equality in the first place? I am just trying to get my head around how people think it is bad to discriminate and then discriminate themselves. Unless, of course, it is nothing about equality but all about power, saying anything to advance your own position.

That is why I say things as they are, but might get called a white supremacist for it. Saying "all lives matter" is the very definition of equality. Therefore, I do no care what anyone else says about it. They can call me anything they like, and I know they are 100% wrong. You can slap any distorted framework around it, equality is an absolute, not a relative quantity. Saying the context is different is just another excuse to avoid equality. It just leads to inequality. It just astonishes me what people seem to be able to convince themselves of.

it seems that there was gross inequality, laws were changes to address this, we get some semblance of equality, but then there is a surge for inequality again, from the Democrats. Wasn't it in California that they wanted to repeal the law that says you cannot discriminate based on race, age and gender?

 

[Isaac]

Because as I've said before, in these modern times, many people seem to think that the proper way to correct past discrimination is to implement MORE discrimination - just going the opposite direction.

And, also, what you said. The groups whose rights & outcomes they want to elevate, it is hoped, do or will vote Democrat as a result.

 

[Steve R.]

So the Democrats fight for and bring in Civil Rights laws only to break them later on?

It's more a case of relative justice. Democrats will only fight for so-called "civil rights" if they can manipulate that concept to promote their political agenda. (i.e. it's too incomprehensibly "difficult" to get voter id, therefore none should be required.)

PS: The purposeful selective hiring of woman by the Biden team, I would equate to the deliberate ignoring of laws. Much like how many Democrats impose COVID-19 restrictions on the public, but then go out an "break" those (illegal) edicts as if they don't apply to them.

Does that mean the Democrats never believed in equality in the first place?

Democrats circa 1960s probably actually believed in Civil Rights. However, since Obama, it appears that so-called "civil rights" has metastasized into: "I belong to ethnic group Z, therefore the government owes me special consideration". As @Isaac just crossed posted with me: "in these modern times, many people seem to think that the proper way to correct past discrimination is to implement MORE discrimination".

 

[Jon]

Discrimination based on what? If it is discrimination based on gender, for example, how is it fair, as I mentioned earlier in this thread, that millions of men died from the two World Wars? If it is discrimination based on race, how is it in the UK, with a 3% black population, that the mens national 400 metres team of 4 people was all black, and the womens 400 metres team of 4 people was all black? Is that discrimination? Shouldn't there be "positive discrimination" where we give the slow white guys a place on the team, for civil rights purposes? What about the very high percentage of black footballers in the UK premier league. My fave team is half black, half white! So 50% are black, while the population is only 3% black. Why are BLM not rioting over this inequality?

Yes, I know my comments sound ridiculous. But that is because it never was about equality. It was only about getting more for your own group.

 

[Pat Hartman]

since men are programmed to think along the lines of giving women what they ask for & want,

Just FYI, men are raised by their mothers more frequently than by their fathers

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

It is a first, at least in context. It's the first time a team (except for the early astronauts) was selected based entirely on their genitalia rather than their qualifications. At least there was a reason for wanting only male astronauts

 

[Steve R.]

Yes, I know my comments sound ridiculous.

No your comments are not ridiculous. We have relative morality (ethics). A case of massive cognitive dissonance inflamed by mob hysteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

1. At one time, there were all male classes (schools).
2. Women demanded that they be allowed to attend.
3. They were allowed to attend.
4. Women, began to feel "uncomfortable" in a mixed setting, they then began to demand women only classes to reduce "sexism".
5. Now women get to exclude men from their classes (schools) and that is considered, unbelievably, acceptable.

 

[Pat Hartman]

And blacks get to exclude whites from their dorms? And the Congressional Black Caucus somehow isn't balanced by the Congressional White Caucus.

 

[Steve R.]

And blacks get to exclude whites from their dorms? And the Congressional Black Caucus somehow isn't balanced by the Congressional White Caucus.

Black Caucus', are by definition, racist organizations.

 

[Pat Hartman]

Black Caucus', are by definition, racist organizations.

That's my opinion also but I think the PC police will differ.

 

[Jon]

I didn't really mean I thought my comments were ridiculous. Rather, they sound ridiculous in the context of BLMers supporting increased pro-inclusion of whites in the 400 metres teams and premier league football teams. That would, given all that we have seen, look ridiculous. But if they were about equality, it would actually be ridiculous for them NOT to do that. Having said all that, I do believe their stated objectives are different to what people think. I think many people think it is about eradicating racism, but it is not. It is about eradicating racism towards blacks only. It is not about intervening in violence inflicted on communities with a different skin colour. In other words, their own stated objective discriminates based on race. Or did I misread their mission statement, given below?

From their site:

...whose mission is to eradicate white supremacy and build local power to intervene in violence inflicted on Black communities by the state and vigilantes

I would be classed as a white supremacist because I have a view that differs from theirs, and they want to silence and oppress those who disagree, using threats of violence, accusations of racism and other general unpleasantries. Can they not see the irony in what they do?

 

[Jon]

Just a quick follow up. I don't believe BLMers should be asking for more whites in the 400 metres teams in the UK. Why? Because I believe a position should be earned on merit, not skin colour. If 8 black candidates earned the 8 positions in the team (i.e. 100% of the available places), as has happened in the UK, despite blacks being only 3% of the UK population, then it is because they earned it. I bring it up just to illustrate the principle that you can't apply one standard one way around, but not the other way around. I hope that made sense! Perhaps that is why "positive discrimination" brings up so much controversy.

Then again, what about the composition of a jury? Look at the OJ Simpson case. Everybody voted down racial lines. Blacks thought OJ was innocent, whites thought he was guilty. I watched a drama series on the case on Netflix. It was very good! I had big discussions with my socialist friend, who said he was guilty as hell, but I thought he might be innocent! "If the glove don't fit..."

Hmmm, maybe we should have a thread on it...

So, if everybody is voting down racial lines, then you need a balanced jury. But how do you balance it? Based on skin colour? I'm curious over what they do. I always thought Mike Tyson was innocent during his ra** trial. Read a ton about it. But the location of where you do trials can tilt the outcome, due to the demographics and beliefs of locals.

 

[Isaac]

But how do you balance it? Based on skin colour? I'm curious over what they do

I think generally speaking, if our legal adversarial system is working properly, each side's attorney(s) use whatever tools they can to fight for the best jury selection possible (for their client), during jury selection. And I am sure skin color factors into it pretty often : )