The last standing racist and segregation policy in the US has come to an end.

For blacks, primarily whites since they were the ones that were responsible.

 

I said without mistaking one person for another based on their race.
Do you think college applicants being given preference due to race today, were alive in 1965? And why is this restitution due from asian applicants today, who are being discriminated against here? And will asian applicants 50 years form now be owed restitution for what happened to thise asian applicants, simply because they too are asian?

 

So you think discriminating against whites is now justified

 

Nope, do you think blacks deserved slavery and jim crow?

 

Not one living black person in the United States today was ever a slave and very few lived through Jim Crow.

No one owes anyone anything for something they didn't suffer by people that never did it

 

That is not true. You know that is not true.

 

SHOW ME EXAMPLES LIKE I HAVE WITH YOU? The Dems want MORE votes, it's the GQP who want to restrict the votes, GET HONEST

 

Thanks.

 

The old argument that current racism against some races fixes racism against other races is not a logical. Asians were mistreated as well in America. Why do you want to continue systemic racism against them in the year 2023? When do you want our country to stop being racist against Asians? A decade from now? Another century or two? When is it enough? I'm just curious when you'll have your fill of being racist against Asians because somehow your morality says it's okay.

 

Yes, being racist towards Asians is totally wrong. So why do you support it?

 

Deflection.

 

I don't.

 

Nope. Are those black individuals and the ones getting preferential treatment today in admissions the same individuals?

If not, how is it restitution for those who were wronged? And why should it be at the expense of Asian individuals who didn't wrong them? That is not restitution.

 

I also note that preferential treatment in college admissions is not doing something for "the blacks". It is doing something for some privileged black people (college applicants) while doing nothing for underprivileged black people struggling to survive. These are not the same people and pretending that they are is not justified.

 

Their descendants and correcting the general situation. Because its collateral damage.

 

People don't want to think of themselves as racist; it creates a lot of cognitive dissonance. If you follow Critical Race Theory you'll find that the leading scholars advocating this worldview, such as Ibram Kendi, believe that "the only remedy to past discrimination is present discrimination." It's a basic tenet of their morality. It's how they think they are being "anti-racist." So he's focusing on supporting "discrimination" because they believe that is moral and just. But, they don't realize that when you support racial discrimination you're actually supporting racism... as Websters, his source, is telling him. There's a reason he's only looking at discrimination, which means many things, but mostly to differentiate. When you look at "racism" it clearly says that racism is any behavior or attitude that reflects or fosters the belief of racism is included, such as RACIAL DISCRIMINATION. @Cybred complete self-owned himself. He's pretending "discrimination" is the only definition that matters when in reality he is advocating for racial discrimination which Websters says is racism.

 

We know that in law schools, for example, that Black students are more likely to drop out and less likely to be able to pass the Bar exam. So these schools are basically preying on unqualified students for their diversity metrics while taking six figures of debt from them, knowing there's a good chance that they'll never be able to pass the Bar based on their academic qualifications. This means they'll never be able to practice law and be resigned to a lower-paying job with a ton of undergrad and law school debt. They don't care about this harm they're creating though, because they want to virtue signal through public diversity metrics. And the percentages of Black law school graduates who pass the Bar exam continues to decline as universities continue to increase their level of virtue signaling. They are literally preying on unqualified students... students they would never accept if they were another race because they know their academic qualifications are subpar for the program and the profession.

People who support this believe they are helping all these students when in reality they are engaging in predatory behavior. If a bank loaned them money for a mortgage knowing their qualifications to pay it back were subpar they would be sanctioned by the government for predatory lending. This is no different. And you can file bankruptcy for a mortgage, you can't for student loans at your law school. You will pay the school every penny. You may file bankruptcy and lose your house in the process. But, you will pay it. The schools don't care about the harm, only the virtue signals.

 

Not necessarily their descendants if done by race, no. And no, it doesn't correct anything. It gives additional privilege to the privileged of the black folks and disregards the actual underprivileged (including the majority of black people who are not college applicants). And you continually avoid addressing the fact that it is done at the expense of Asian applicants who didn't do the wrong.

A better case could be made for reparations, paid by the southern states who allowed and enforced it, and paid to the actual descendants of the actual slaves, proportioned between their children according to estate law in those jurisdictions. The government is an entity that you could argue did the wrong (since the slave holders are dead and gone and it is not just to blame either their descendants). It is doubly wrong to do it at the expense of Asian applicants (via AA), whose own descendants would be entitled to compensation for horrible things done by your governments to their ancestors as well by the same logic. You would also have to give land to the Native Americans by this logic.

 

racism
noun
rac·ism ˈrā-ˌsi-zəm
also -ˌshi-

Synonyms of racism
1
: a belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

This is the only def that matters.

 

Yes. Well said.

The problem occurs when people mistake being anti-racist with being pro-[insert any particular race here]. Being against racism doesn't mean being for the rights of black people. It means being for the rights of everyone, regardless of race. The distinction is vital.

 

And it only matters to you as a way to excuse your support for racial discrimination for or against individuals who have done nothing to deserve it.

 

Not talking about slaves. Black soldiers that came back from WW II were denied all benefits from the GI bill, that affected them, children, and grandchildren so yep correction needed.

 

Nope, sorry not a racist.

 

Which you could argue should be passed to their children (including any adopted non-black children) if that is how the state estate laws work. That would be to THEIR children, the children of these soldiers, and not instead to anyone who happens to be the same race.

But if you open this door, you should be ready to do it across the board. That means for the descendants of Asians who were abused and exploited (and forced into encampments), and for the descendants of native Americans who were run off their land.

 

I don't care what you want to call it. It's unethical to racially discriminate for or against individuals who have done nothing to deserve it. That you think it's ok says all I need to know about you. I don't need to label you racist. We can all see what you are.