California Abandons Racial Equality, but Bans Discrimination on Hair Type. Oh Man.

[PointOfViewGun]

Because racial discrimination is what the amendment outlawed.
It also mentions sex and nationality, less emotive to me but I don’t see why we can’t talk about it too.
You are not born with braids. If your work has a dress code that prohibits braids, then don’t wear braids.
If it prohibits natural african hair, that is a problem.
And obviously, if you allow discrimination based on race, but ban discrimination based on hair type, that is rank hypocrisy and demonstrable pandering to black people.

The bill didn't outlaw racial discrimination. There is plenty of laws covering that. It was aimed at stopping affirmative action back in 1995.

[Aexodus]

That is because affirmative action, if it gives certain people preferential treatment based on race, is racist.

[Sir Adrian]

This is an interesting place in the conversation, and it speaks to the core issue here.

I like to go back to the time or date when a particular equality is passed into law to look at the relationship between the established majority mainstream society and that newly enfranchised group at that moment. Does one group have access to more wealth? does one group have cultural aspects that harm another?

That balance has to be built in time by addressing the root issue not by forcibly imposing it. As every lottery winner in history has shown, if you give a poor man a wad cash, he'll end up poorer than before. If you forcibly try to educate people who do not want to be educated you will get uneducated people that you spend millions of dollars on for no real result.

We have a similar problem with gypsies and my government tried all these things, from free college to scholarships, mandatory enrollment, the works. It did not work because they did not want an education. They did not want an education because they did not grow up in an environment that appreciates the value of a good education.

Those are the issues that should be resolved, instead of pussy footing around black people and admitting and grading them based on race. In the current system the disenfranchised are coddled throughout college and high-school and once they leave the system, they're out of luck because the white and asian kids that went to school with them and did not benefit from affirmative action, meaning they had work for everything instead of having it handed over, now have twice as many skills as our guy does and will take all the jobs. And the black affirmative action kid is now forced to go work a job at MacDonalds or sell fenders of the back of the truck for Ray-Ray and he'll be poor and angry as before and raise poor and angry kids that will also go though school on affirmative action and end up exactly like him.

[PointOfViewGun]

That is because affirmative action, if it gives certain people preferential treatment based on race, is racist.

Not really. That's like being against helping the poor. It's not racist to want to help a particular race if they're situated with a disadvantage. I love how you want extreme equality only when it comes to helping minorities.

[Aexodus]

Not really. That's like being against helping the poor. It's not racist to want to help a particular race if they're situated with a disadvantage. I love how you want extreme equality only when it comes to helping minorities.

Indeed, this thread has made me aware that I am a racial equality extremist that demands equal protections for everyone.

[Sir Adrian]

Not really. That's like being against helping the poor. It's not racist to want to help a particular race if they're situated with a disadvantage. I love how you want extreme equality only when it comes to helping minorities.

There is no such thing as a whole race situated with a disadvantage. If you are referring to poor black kids, then help the poor period. Pay for the school supplies and subsidize their college education if they can't afford one, but let them work for it. Let them get into college on their own academic merit, not because of skin color. Something not earned is something not valued, and in the end it will be to the detriment of the people you claim to want help.

Using race as a criteria for anything, positive or negative is racist.

[PointOfViewGun]

Indeed, this thread has made me aware that I am a racial equality extremist that demands equal protections for everyone.

Not that but that you demand racial equality extremism only when its involving minorities. For white people you feel no reason to invoke equality.

There is no such thing as a whole race situated with a disadvantage. If you are referring to poor black kids, then help the poor period. Pay for the school supplies and subsidize their college education if they can't afford one, but let them work for it. Let them get into college on their own academic merit, not because of skin color. Something not earned is something not valued, and in the end it will be to the detriment of the people you claim to want help.

Using race as a criteria for anything, positive or negative is racist.

Then why help the poor only? Why not help every citizen?

[Aexodus]

Not that but that you demand racial equality extremism only when its involving minorities. For white people you feel no reason to invoke equality.

Give me an example.

Then why help the poor only? Why not help every citizen?

Because other people um, aren’t poor.

[Sir Adrian]

Then why help the poor only? Why not help every citizen?

Does every citizen need help?

[PointOfViewGun]

Give me an example.

You have only championed for equality when people wanna help black people. You had no problem with having other targeted groups for help.

Because other people um, aren’t poor.

So? Why should you be discriminating about other economic groups?

Does every citizen need help?

Nope. Just like not every race needs the same amount of help in average.

[Aexodus]

You had no problem with having other targeted groups for help.

This is beginning to get boring.

For the last time.

What racial discrimination is it that I am comfortable with.

So? Why should you be discriminating about other economic groups?

Because poor people haven’t much money, and I need money to buy all of my food. And most of my stuff.

[wanderwegger]

Aexodus

You say corn rows and braids are not natural hair (in reference to black people); do you also believe ponytails and braids are not natural hair for white people?

Why do you think you are solely focused on race even though the repeal addresses 4 other categories?

What do you think of the only “major” groups in California who agree with you being openly avowed racists?

It is clear from this thread alone you are fine with discrimination in forms that benefit people who conform to you morality, White, Hetero, Married etc. What about race is different to you?

For my own clarity, you would prefer an unjust world in practice to a juster world where the mechanisms of improvement are not perfect? For example, you would rather children starve than meals be given to black children because they are black. Correct?

[PointOfViewGun]

This is beginning to get boring.
For the last time.
What racial discrimination is it that I am comfortable with.

You are comfortable with other discrimination. Racial part is your attempt to frame it. You were OK with discriminating in favor of single parents.

Because poor people haven’t much money, and I need money to buy all of my food. And most of my stuff.

So does black people compared to whites.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

You are comfortable with other discrimination. Racial part is your attempt to frame it. You were OK with discriminating in favor of single parents.

That's not what he asked. You accused him of only opposing AA when it helps black people. Do you have evidence of him supporting AA for other races?

[Sir Adrian]

Nope. Just like not every race needs the same amount of help in average.

And the racist posts keep pouring out. Races don't need help Setekh, people need help. Races are not a homogeneous bloc of goob that you can just lump together whenever it suits you. You're claimign that Ice Cube's son needs help while some poor white kid from Arizona that lives off meal tickets does not simply on the basis that one is black and the other is white. It's stupid. It's racist. It's unjust. It's evil and a complete mockery of what you claim to stand for.

[wanderwegger]

And the racist posts keep pouring out. Races don't need help Setekh, people need help. Races are not a homogeneous bloc of goob that you can just lump together whenever it suits you. You're claimign that Ice Cube's son needs help while some poor white kid from Arizona that lives off meal tickets does not simply on the basis that one is black and the other is white. It's stupid. It's racist. It's unjust. It's evil and a complete mockery of what you claim to stand for.

I think the disconnect here is there are only two group. There are those who believe that systemic racial problems exist in society and need to be addressed. If such problems exist only the silliest of people would disagree that using race as a measure to take action is wrong. The majority of scientists, academics, the college educated etc fall into this group.

Than there are people who do not believe systemic racism exists (in police enforcement, in school admission etc). This group for whatever reason tends to be popular amongst avowed racists. There are good people on both sides if you ask someone like Trump.

There is, of course, a third group who is motivated by bigotry and the hate and fear part and parcel to it. But we can leave them out since their beliefs are wholly emotional.

[Aexodus]

Aexodus

You say corn rows and braids are not natural hair (in reference to black people); do you also believe ponytails and braids are not natural hair for white people?

Obviously! It’s a hair style, not a natural hair type. The reason I included the hair discrimination thing is because I view it as brazen hypocrisy, and a way to get votes, not as a way to make our society more equal. That is what the intention of that law is, as far as I can tell. I smell bad faith.

Why do you think you are solely focused on race even though the repeal addresses 4 other categories?

Because racial discrimination is heinous to me, but of course sexual discrimination is also a very bad thing. I will say that racism harms community relations and race relations in a different way to how sexism, while also harmful, also negatively affects society. I think there’s a reason the racial equality acts in the 20th century happened before the gender equality laws, because of this difference. It just seems more outrageous to me.

What do you think of the only “major” groups in California who agree with you being openly avowed racists?

I think if you want to ascribe ulterior motives to me that you say it outright. I have nothing to do with Californian political groups of any stripe.

It is clear from this thread alone you are fine with discrimination in forms that benefit people who conform to you morality, White, Hetero, Married etc.

Quote me doing this.

What about race is different to you?

Well you mentioned white and hetero, which are respectively a race and a sexual orientation, and both are immutable characteristics.

Race, is an immutable characteristic, and as a rule of thumb we should generally regard immutable characteristics as protected characteristics, and prohibit any discrimination based on them. Such as what happened to blacks in South Africa, to Jews in Germany (think the boycotts and discrimination that preceded the Holocaust), against Irish Catholics in the UK, against various foreigners and non-Han in China, and more.

For my own clarity, you would prefer an unjust world in practice to a juster world where the mechanisms of improvement are not perfect? For example, you would rather children starve than meals be given to black children because they are black. Correct?

I would prefer all children get food. As to your question, the ends do not justify the means. If all children can not be fed, then only the very poorest should get assistance.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I think the disconnect here is there are only two group. There are those who believe that systemic racial problems exist in society and need to be addressed. If such problems exist only the silliest of people would disagree that using race as a measure to take action is wrong. The majority of scientists, academics, the college educated etc fall into this group.

Than there are people who do not believe systemic racism exists (in police enforcement, in school admission etc). This group for whatever reason tends to be popular amongst avowed racists. There are good people on both sides if you ask someone like Trump.

There is, of course, a third group who is motivated by bigotry and the hate and fear part and parcel to it. But we can leave them out since their beliefs are wholly emotional.

You really ought to stop labelling everyone whose views differ from yours as racist or fascist.
I'm not a fascist, I'm not a racist, I'm not a bigot. You know nothing about me, yet you plaster me and others with those labels. I'm also not denying the existence of racism, I simply do not believe that the solution to racism is more racism.
I care not for the ideology or beliefs of others who agree with me on this issue for I am an individual, not a group.

[PointOfViewGun]

That's not what he asked. You accused him of only opposing AA when it helps black people. Do you have evidence of him supporting AA for other races?

That's what he asked for and I referred to a point he made earlier.

And the racist posts keep pouring out. Races don't need help Setekh, people need help. Races are not a homogeneous bloc of goob that you can just lump together whenever it suits you. You're claimign that Ice Cube's son needs help while some poor white kid from Arizona that lives off meal tickets does not simply on the basis that one is black and the other is white. It's stupid. It's racist. It's unjust. It's evil and a complete mockery of what you claim to stand for.

Races, genders or any particular group does if they've been subjected to systematic discrimination that put them off at a disadvantage in average. Just like not all poor people need help, not all black people or not all women need help. That doesn't mean such groups in general wouldn't benefit from affirmative action to level the game field.

[wanderwegger]

For me not wanting to address racial inequality because the best means available to us is to make the races more equal through legal means is racist. I am not the alone in this. The majority populations of western democracies also hold to this view.

People keep focusing on poverty but poverty a side effect of systemic racism not the cause. Rich black men suffer from police enforcement bias. Middle class black women receive worse care from doctors than middle class white women. Saying give money to all of the poor wouldn’t solve the problems of systemic racism.

if we can agree that systemic racism exists. The logical and rational next step is to address racism with solutions that make the world more equal for the races being exploited.

The world isn’t ever going to exist based on ideals. Only children think black and white are the two sides available. Lived experience teaches the wise that everyone is a less than perfect. Seems like a no brainer that the quickest way to address racial disparity is by addressing racial disparity. The ends often justify the means in life. War is always morally wrong as is killing however most of us are probably for not letting the Nazis rule the world during the WW2 era.

I assume I just missed it and it was mentioned that the groups behind the original proposition being repealed were led by men who in the decades since have made statements which are blatantly racist.

Until someone proposes a better solution for addressing systemic racism which focuses on all its facets not just poverty the best means available to enlightened people is to raise up the victims of racism when and where possible.