Completely agree, but it just feels like there is nothing to do to change this course of actions. Other than self segregate, which is doing some racist to stop racism.

There are these really good looking and well spoken (I found out later) black guys in suits on street corners in the hood out here, that I started noticing when I was like 5, handing out brochures. Young me asked mom what these guys were up to, she just gave me a real funny look and told me it doesn't matter.

Fast forward 15yrs, i'm driving all alone, and roll down the window, and get the most articulate 1min appeal for voluntary segregation I have ever heard.

That kinda weirded me out in a lot of ways. And then I tried to imagine some nazi trying to do the same exact thing on the street corner by where I live.

The interface where racism meets culture is some weird shit.

Las Vegas on MLK Blvd.

Malcolm X is probably my favorite character from that time period. I don't agree with all his early work, but the dude was able to accept new information, and change his mind. And he was a creature of his times, MLK was great and all...but they needed a leader with teeth too. There was good reason to be angry back then.

There is a comedian who makes a joke about how MLK streets in every city are always deep in the hood, and generally percieved as dangerous. And it is generally a true observation. I also think this is no accident, that tptb want to subtly associate MLK with all the worst and most dangerous parts of the people he represented, under the cover of honoring him.

It's seriously fucked up when you think about it. Killing him wasn't enough.

Pidgin.

The generally-agreed-upon structure allows us to communicate. How is that fascistic?

Sweet Jesus.

Maybe he was demonstrating?

I agree with the first paragraph and disagree with the 2cd.

It is not "impossible for an African American to commit a crime". That very thought negates reality based solely on racial bias.

I am a realist. And the reality is that the poor inner city black community has a cultural problem. This cultural problem may have been cleverly brainwashed into them, nevertheless. There is no society in which the gang banger, stick up man, dope dealing predatory culture is normal or sustainable. It is not self defense against the structural racism of white society. It is the culture of predatory pack animals. This has nothing to do with race but with the mental philosophy of the culture.

But the social engineers like to surround the more wealthy parts of large cities with this kind of culture to create fear and to use that fear to siphon off protection fees.

Yes although I am sure there was more effort into it than just the media glorifying the "gangsta" lifestyle. I'm sure it was a systematic long term psychological agenda that really seemed to start/ramp up when crack was first introduced.

If you read about the feudalism of medieval times you had your lords and barons in their castle who extracted taxes. But the people didn't revolt against them unless they got out of hand because there was always a threat from marauders. The Kings empire was to large and spread out for the kings guard to protect. So when the marauders came the lord/baron opened the castle gates and allowed the people protection inside while also having some type of a military force of his own to help. This justified his taxes.

If you look at history and compare it to today you see some similarities. But we don't naturally have marauders so it is my opinion that the social engineers created some using drug addiction and job scarcity as the main driving force.

I think the social engineers were scared when the hippie movement created a strong bond of black and white working together. And the gangster fast money culture was the psychological operation to separate and weaken that.

This would be right. You could call it the "Nixon plan."

Who said anyone could not commit a crime beyond the elite and the financial players?

Also, please tell this to the porn, mafia, and pharma industries.

I understand what you're getting at conceptually, and personally think we should judge people only by their actions. Bringing race into the equation at all distracts from whatever action actually occurred. Should someone have a provable racial bias behind their actions then they should be judged as such, but to imply raccial bias in the absence of any clear evidence is unjust.

Race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, favorite tv show, deep dish vs. thin crust preference; doesn't matter. Don't be a dick, and generally try to be helpful to others.

"problematic"

So are we going back to SJW territory, now?

I'd rather just have Ethnostates. Muslim/Arab countries for the muslim arabs, africa for the africans, europe for whites, israel for jews, and if people want to live in mixed/diverse places, they can choose that too.

For me, I would end up moving to a place that has the least amount of crime, rapes, 3rd world mentality. So obviously, anything Muslim, 3rd world, or high crime would be off my list

I believe there is a division among the Left as to the things you state. The larger issues you highlight concerning race are indeed important, and I feel that it's important we not forget about the structural cultural racism that has always inhabited the Republic, for as Mark Twain said, the two great issues of the American story are "Race and space".

That said, the ultra focus on Identity Politics at the expense of economic politics is a mistake I feel the Left must correct, and one that has been building for quite some time. Came across an interesting article a while back detailing this difference- between Aristotelian and Wittgenstein Liberals- those who focus on the bigger picture and those who only focus on ID politics.

Link- https://shakemyheadhollow.wordpress.com/2015/01/26/aristotle-wittgenstein-and-identity-politics/

Some snips

Aristotle’s interest in natural philosophy and classification leads him to distinguish essential traits from accidental traits. Having four legs and a tail are “essential” traits of a cat; having a calico coloring is an “accidental” trait, a trait that applies to the individual but doesn’t define the category.

snip (recommend reading as there's important background skipped here by me)

Unlike Aristotle, Wittgenstein points the way to postmodernism, where the ground of meaning is infinitely displaced by a series of signifiers, where there is no ultimate reference point, and where relativism – metaphysical and cultural – becomes hard to shake off.

snip

“Identity politics,” together with “multiculturalism,” took hold in academia in the 1980s, and proposed that objectivity is impossible because everyone is a priori “politically situated” by their race, gender, class, etc. This theory is rooted in the ideas of Wittgenstein rather than those of Aristotle

snip

The other branch of liberals – Enlightenment rationalists, 1960s liberals – who bank on the Aristotelian notion of shared humanness, would, quite the contrary, praise Styron for struggling to get beyond the “accidental” features of race and grasp experience from the point of view of our shared humanness.

final snip

One other (unhappy in my opinion) consequence of the rise of “identity politics” within liberalism is the way in which it ceded the high ground that liberals held in the 1960s and 70s. Take the issue of double standards. My Aristotelian liberals (if you’ll permit the conceit) were the outspoken enemies of double standards on race and gender. This includes Wollstonecraft and Equiano in the Enlightenment period as well as the Civil Rights and feminist movements of the 1960s/70s.

Came across an interesting article a while back detailing this difference- between Aristotelian and Wittgenstein Liberals- those who focus on the bigger picture and those who only focus on ID politics.

awesome article. I used to be on the left and a Democrat when I was young and naive, and then as as I started getting red pilled and started studying a variety of views, eventually left the party and centered in on being more of a libertarian or rather something new which I like to call an Alt-Centrist.

I really hope and pray the left finds its soul, common sense, and goes through some sort of purge of the bullshit identity politics it has become. They need more Tulsi Gabbards, and Less Maxine Waters, Pelosi, or Zionist occupation agents like Schumer and Feinstein.

I doubt it will happen anytime soon. Liberal cities like San Fran are covered in feces, homelessness, and hypodermic needles. Cities like Chicago have the second highest property taxes in the country while having one of the highest murder rates in the country with a flood of people moving out of the state because the liberal policies are shit for the middle class and retirees..

Anyhow, what do you think is the future of the democrats? I think Hillary will run in 2020 and they will make sure the voting machines are rigged in her favor.

Anyhow, what do you think is the future of the democrats? I think Hillary will run in 2020 and they will make sure the voting machines are rigged in her favor.

There has been a battle raging against the Dem Party for two years now by the grassroots. Eight State Parties have been taken, the bylaws are close to changing the power of Super Delegates, and it is my belief that Bernie will certainly run in 2020. HRC might try but she will lose in the Primaries- she won't even beat the other Corporatists who will run like Kamala, Booker, Kennedy III, Deval etc.

and it is my belief that Bernie will certainly run in 2020. HRC might try but she will lose in the Primaries- she wouldn't even beat the other Corporatists who will run like Kamala, Booker, Kennedy III, Deval etc.

idk about Bernie tbh.

https://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Particularly-important-for-progressives-to-embrace-Zionism-Bernie-Sanders-says-482778

https://electronicintifada.net/blogs/michael-f-brown/bernie-sanders-throws-palestinians-under-bus

Also socialism wouldn't work in America. I'm all for single payer healthcare or some socialist form of medicine, but a full blown socialism in the U.S. will eventually become a tyrannical dictatorship or evolve into communism.

My biggest thing is the Zionist occupation of the U.S. I'd rather there be a law that no dual citizens can be president of be in the Gov

He did end up standing up for Palastinians:

https://www.vox.com/2016/4/15/11437832/bernie-sanders-just-shattered-an-american-taboo-on-israel

But not sure if that's just lip service

I don't believe Bernie is a Zionist. He has been quite critical of Israel in the past and in the 2016 primaries. Also, what Bernie advocates isn't Socialism but Social Democracy, which I see as a stepping stone to a decentralized post automation society. Tulsi would also be considered a SocDem.

Also, what Bernie advocates isn't Socialism but Social Democracy

social democracy or the Nordic Model?

Regardless it wont work. U.S. doesn't have a homogeneity model of people, the taxes will have to massively go up, including on the corporations who will flee their headquarters to lower tax countries, which will then perpetuate even higher taxes on the rest of the people. This also requires having serious checks and balances on immigration. The more people that come into the U.S. from Mexico and else where = larger tax payer burden

which I see as a stepping stone to a decentralized post automation society.

This is the only way I see any sort of decentralized system working, is in a post automation society. But socialism will just get hijacked by the same top 1% sociopathic scammers.

Even in the Scandinavian countries, they have elites at the top who live cush lives by skimming all the tax dollars, corporations, etc.

I'm all for an Alt-Model, but full out socialism, or even SocDem won't work in the end. If anything, there will be a honeymoon period, (only if we are post automation) before the same fuckers at the top regain control and influence

So leveraging stable and permanently rooted business would work?

The promise of equality under the law is written into the Constitution. That was part of the great experiment we call America. Affirmative action and diversity quotas are intended to make sure the Land of Opportunity provides opportunity to all it's citizens and doesnt favor certain groups. Because we have a history in America of excluding minorities. Affirmative action came about after the civil rights act passed, ya know, because we were denying opportunity to minorities. We wouldnt even let some of them vote.

Crime is driven by poverty. The numbers prove it. In largely homogenous cultures where race isnt a determining factor, it's the poor that commit crime, not a particular race.

Pigeo dialects spring up everywhere around the world. The entire country of Malta speaks a pigeon dialect called Maltese which incorporates english, italian, spanish and arabic. This is because Malta has at various times been under the control of the English, Italians, Spanish and Arabic. This is what happens when various cultures come together in numbers.

The real racists are the ones trying to excuse away their bullshit racism.

Give me a break. There's tons of data and evidence showing crime is driven by poverty and anthropolgical studies showing the development of pigeon dialects throughout history. India by itself proves the both the cases of crime being driven by poverty in racially homogeneous cultures and the formation of thousands of pigeon dialects in regions around the country.

Keep fabricating complete bullshit out of thin air you cant actually prove.

Poor people commit crime because they need to put food on the table.

The FBI says West Virginia has a violent crime rate 24% higher than the national average and a property crime rate 30% higher. There are safe cities in West Virginia where those rates are lower, but the region itself actually has a higher rate than the national average.

It's not an old trope. The poor probably cant afford to live in the cities. Again, we're back to poverty being the reason for the absence of crime in affluent areas.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016

Equal opportunity, not equal outcome. Our past is not something that can be made up for. Slavery, Jim Crow, you name the crime were done by powerful people (elite). The average person was not involved. Even if they were they are long dead.

Affirmative action takes away equal opportunity in an attempt to create equal outcome. In the end it does neither. What it does do is create a situation where a well qualified black person in a high position is looked as having it based on their skin color. That is not progress. This does not help race relations on either side.

Affirmative action was about providing opportunity to minorities, and it did just that. We have had Presidents, Supreme Court Justices, CEO's and many other Americans who benefited from Affirmative action as a result. When a black man became President, that was tangible progress. When we had a black man become Secretary of State, that was progress. When we had a Latina reach the Supreme Court, that was progress.

They didnt reach those positions based solely on their skin color, they received subsidized education which put them into those positions based affirmative action.

I understand the intentions of affirmative action. But I also realize that even with the best of intentions an idea may fail to realize what it was meant for and instead cause more problems than it potentially solves.

Also I believe there is a difference between school subsidies and affirmative action, no?

Affirmative action says that if two otherwise equal candidates apply for a position and one is a minority and the other is white, the minority candidate must be awarded the position. So either they are awarded the position based on their race, or the other is denied the position based on their race. This is just plain wrong. That white person had nothing to do with the institution of slavery, or the Jim Crow or numerous other legislation that was allowed by the very government that now creates this rule. Two wrongs do not make a right is something we learn early, and apparently forget.

I agree all your examples are progress, however I disagree that AA was a major or even small factor in this.

If we use affirmative action in the private sector, why not public office? If that was the case I would have to vote for Obama over McCain. Which I did actually, but because I believed he was best for the job.

Progress does happen, but it cannot be forced progress.

In many cases admissions policies and grants are coupled because those students typically cannot afford to pay for the education.

That is the real problem for all children in America: College education is unaffordable without third party support.

This is why I support fully subsidized college education, so that opportunity exists for all students.

Admissions policies at some school have also been racist in the past. Affirmative action forced those schools to open enrollment to other minorities. Affirmative action has worked for whites too, especially in the medical and science schools where the majority of students are actually over-represented by Asian Americans.

Ok, so I dont have a problem with private subsidies for students based on race, and can understand and accept public ones as well. I don not however accept that this is the reason opportunity exists for all students. I can live with this tho.

Admission policies being racist in the past is a travesty. I do not think it is fixed by being racist in the future.

How have whites been helped by affirmative action? I honestly dont know and have never heard this claim.

I think an over-representation of any group in any given field is not a bad thing. If all asians qualify for the best medical/science programs than the rest of us need to try harder. Not take away from any Asian that has earned it based on their race.

I am against racism in all its forms. As I would hope everyone is.

At UCI they had to let in more white students because there were so many Asian Americans.

Was affirmative action the best policy? Probably not. But it sure was cheaper than coughing up hundreds of billions to throw into the education system to make sure the opportunity for higher education existed for all American children who got the grades. To say affirmative action policies were racist when they were product of prior racist admissions policy is denying the reason they even came into existence in the first place.

Unless we're ready to put the money, we can only address these imbalances through things like admissions policies.

I disagree with white students getting anything above asian students because of their race. I dont understand how anyone thinks thats ok.

Again missing the point trying to fix a past mistake. You say institutions discriminated against minorities in the past so in order to make up for it discriminate against white students now. This is not punishing the guilty party here. This is punishing an innocent party.

If you claim it was institutions that had the racist policies (i agree) and that needs to be corrected then they need to offer free education for those groups affected or add capacity to admit students without affected other qualified students. But even that would probably create problems.

The past sins are not something that can be atoned for. Even if it were possible those alive today are under no moral obligation to make up for the sins of people alive before them. Its flawed logic to think we can do anything about this. We cant. The best we can do is be aware of it, and move on as best we can.

I know this isnt a warm and fuzzy conclusion and I may sound cold in saying it, but a lot of times thats how the truth sounds.

The policies address student population imbalances, in UCI's case the student body was overwhelmingly asian american. So as a result of a law suit, they had to open enrollment to more white students.

I'm not saying discriminate against white students now. If white kids get left out because there is limited capacity, then the true solution is expanding capacity to accommodate the demand. In order to really expand the opportunity, we need to subsidize the cost of education entirely for the kids who make the grade. We can offset that through job placement into community centers or public service in order to provide labor at a reduced rate to the taxpayer while gaining work experience. That in the absence of funding and political will to do make an overhaul of education like that, the only way to address the problem is to adjust things like admission policies to make sure that opportunity gets spread equitably for all kids, some of whom came from less privileged circumstances.

On the whole we've established that these policies have led to a greater good and progress in society by providing opportunity to people who didnt have it before. We have a supply, demand and cost problem as it relates to education and it is the greatest ladder of opportunity for any kid to succeed in all of America. Until we address that problem, we're left with bandaid solutions like admissions policies. Abandoning affirmative action doesnt address the opportunity gap either.

The policies address student population imbalances, in UCI's case the student body was overwhelmingly asian american. So as a result of a law suit, they had to open enrollment to more white students even if they underperformed their asian american counterparts.

Do we know why this was done? Was this soley because they were Asian? Or did the Asian kids just have better grades and got in?

On the whole we've established that these policies have led to a greater good and progress in society by providing opportunity to people who didnt have it before.

Who?

I never claimed that abandoning affirmative action addresses the opportunity gap. I said that the practice of using race as a factor in anything is racist. The fact that no pro-AA person admits that is strange. I would respect it more if they said "we have to fight past racism, with racism" but they dont.

The idea government is needed to solve every problem we face is creating more problems which we will almost certainly look to the government to solve.

Do we know why this was done? Was this soley because they were Asian? Or did the Asian kids just have better grades and got in?

The asian american students were outperforming.

We already went over how Colin Powell, Barack Obama and Justice Sotomayor were helped by affirmative action policies and achieved their status through merit as a result of favorable admissions policies.

I disagree with the notion that using affirmative action policies is racist when race was a determining factor in admissions policies before. If those admissions policies are representative of the racial makeup of the community that seems fair, not racist.

The government is uniquely qualified to address the problem of lack of opportunity and access to higher education. You havent provided any solutions that address the problem, all you can do is criticize a policy as racist.

I get that you're against them, but maybe you should tell me what you are for.

I dont understand how it is not racist to give a white student admission over an Asian student who outperforms him based on the fact that his Asian couterparts are the majority in the school. Its not his fault. All he did was get good grades and apply for school. The white kid may should have not gotten in, but clearly his grades arent terrible so he could try somewhere else.

Its a fundamental disagreement we have. What I am saying is that we cannot right these wrongs, but slowly over time things get better. I disagree that Colin Powell, Barrack etc would not have done well without AA. But overall I believe that no action can fix the past. So I am not proposing action. I thought I made that clear. No action is better than the wrong action.

Well, not exactly, no action would result in more racist admissions policies just like we saw in the past. I think a student body that is represented by the same kinds of splits as the general population is fair.

I also think the better solution is allowing for a full meritocracy to exist by making sure we can provide higher education to all the kids who make the grade so we dont even need an admissions policy because access to education is a limited commodity.

Now hold on, thats not a fair statement to assume that if we get rid of AA the schools will just go back to being racist.

I personally believe more in the human race than that. I have changed quite a bit over the years in my thinking and it was done organically. If it were forced on my it would not have worked. I have seen intolerant people become more tolerant, you name it. I mean look at how your grandparents thought of things vs. your parents vs you. As much doom and gloom people like to throw around about our time, we actually are a very evolved people comparing 30,40, 60 years. I think this trend will continue as it tends to.

If a school was instituting racist admission policies I personally wouldnt attend if accepted (I am white). But more so public pressure would be applied to that college as we see happen all the time to racist practices real or perceived by companies, or schools. People vote with their wallet. A degree from a school that has racist admission programs is almost certainly not allowing the best and the brightest. Its impossible if only select races are considered. So companies hiring would acknowledge that, it may take time but it would happen.

Basically, actions have consequences. Our society is overall not racist. Our society organically weeds out institutions that are, or changes them.

I personally believe more in the human race than that.

I'm sorry man, as much as I have faith in the human race, we've proven time and time again to be corrupt and cheat. Already we've seen states that are no longer regulated under the civil rights and voter registration act putting in place racist policies to restrict minority voting.

I dont vote my wallet. I vote my conscience. You defining an admission policy that reflects the general population is not inherently racist in intent, it's trying to mirror the general population. The real racists are the ones that deny students based on race and to say it wont happen anymore because of your belief in the human race when it has happened isn't enough.

Higher education is already a pay to play service most of the middle class cannot afford without securing funding. That is really the problem. We have to create an education that allows a meritocracy to define policy, but with a limited commodity, we have to be fair in the distribution of opportunity and doing based on the general population is an attempt to be fair, not racist.

The real solution lies in expanding capacity and affordability to meet demand.

All good. You argue your point intelligently without resorting to personal attacks or any other self righteous behavior. All we can do is respect each others opinions at this point.

Good thing for me is affirmative action is pretty much on the bottom of any list I would create that makes changes here. Not something I am gonna lose sleep over.

Things like affirmative action are correctives meant to help level the playing field (which has always fucked minorities in the US), not specifically an effort to "make them like us." I find liberals who are gung ho about gentrification as a means to "improve" impoverished areas as a far more nefarious deal, as it's a money game that swallows up cultures.

Your opening statement could easily be an indictment against some factions of the right, who bash immigration because of a lack of "integrating" (read: erasing your cultural identity, language, history in favor of ours). Right and left both play these games with minorities all the time. It seems to always come down to $$$, like most American things.

So you are okay with racial discrimination as long as it benefits certain people?

Just because we've become an allegedly "enlightened" society in terms of racial equality (note: we absolutely have not), this does not mean hundreds of years of state-sanctioned prejudice are erased from the record or have no bearing on the present. AA is intended as a corrective, I understand why it's done, but it's not my policy. Should probably be tapered down at some point IMO.

If I'm being brutally honest, African and Native Americans should get reparations all over the place, half the country should be handed back to Mexico, etc.

Do you not think the 50+ years of government housing, food, child assistance, parental assistance, and medical care is enough in reparations? How about the 300,000 men who died fighting over the rights of minorities? Why should we "give" half the country to Mexico? The Mexicans didn't build this country, white Europeans did. Unless you advocate for some weird global nativist reorganization where all immorally stolen land and goods are forcefully taken from people who didn't take it, given to people who never owned it, and everyone moves back to their ancestral origin.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Sad sacks of shit.

People on the left don't realize that expecting people from a different culture to automatically fit into their culture is a form of neo colonialism. It's literally impossible to get someone from a different culture to just "become" culturally the same as the native population.

What you are describing here is not "neocolonialism" but "assimilation" (see #3).

And no, it is not impossible -- though it is not always easy. In fact, FAILURE to properly assimilate immigrant or other foreign cultures into a single, unified society is a recipe for disaster. Failure to do so will inevitably lead to balkanization - a nation divided along racial, linguistic, cultural or other characteristics.

That's why the diversity industry has to impose things like affirmative action and diversity quotas to adjust to the structural racism of white society.

Promoting "diversity" (highlighting, "celebrating" and reinforcing cultural differences) is antithetical to assimilation. It promotes disunity by encouraging members of various segments of society to retain a mindset of "separateness"-- to see themselves as different and distinct from the other segments of society. Naturally, this leads to competing perceived interests among groups, to resentment, disharmony, and strife.

And that is EXACTLY what the "architects of the Left" have been trying to do.

When this happens, the nation as a whole is weakened both domestically and internationally, facing vast civil unrest, and quite possibly civil war.

The massive influx of immigrants into Europe over the past several years will lead to disaster and the destruction of that continent UNLESS they can either A) repatriate these immigrants (very unlikely) or properly assimilate them into the respective European societies -- and the only way I can see this happening is to prevent their clustering into ghettos or ethnic enclaves by dispersing them thinly among the native populations so that they and their offspring can acclimate to their new cultural/ civil environment, and become A PART OF, rather than APART FROM, the societies of their host countries.

As to the rest of your statement, I suggest you give some serious though to the theories you have presented.

While not required, you are requested to use the NP (No Participation) domain of reddit when crossposting. This helps to protect both your account, and the accounts of other users, from administrative shadowbans. The NP domain can be accessed by replacing the "www" in your reddit link with "np".

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

Sad sacks of shit.

At UCI they had to let in more white students because there were so many Asian Americans.

Was affirmative action the best policy? Probably not. But it sure was cheaper than coughing up hundreds of billions to throw into the education system to make sure the opportunity for higher education existed for all American children who got the grades. To say affirmative action policies were racist when they were product of prior racist admissions policy is denying the reason they even came into existence in the first place.

Unless we're ready to put the money, we can only address these imbalances through things like admissions policies.

Well, not exactly, no action would result in more racist admissions policies just like we saw in the past. I think a student body that is represented by the same kinds of splits as the general population is fair.

I also think the better solution is allowing for a full meritocracy to exist by making sure we can provide higher education to all the kids who make the grade so we dont even need an admissions policy because access to education is a limited commodity.