Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
02-01-2014, 11:46 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 10:49 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 10:37 PM)frankksj Wrote:  and your corrected statement should be "illusions that violence can do nothing good".

NO sir. My statement is my statement. You don't get to decide what my "corrected" anything is. Your ASTOUNDING arrogance that you get to do that, just shows what an intellectually dishonest troll you are. You are a lost cause. Thanks for proving it, again.

("Your *corrected statement* in-fucking-deed. LMAO)

YES, when you make a blatantly false, inaccurate, lie, I _DO_ get to correct it, so long as I make it clear that it's my corrected version. Explain to me how your actual statement claiming my position is that 'government can do no good' is not proven wrong by my post here where I talk about the great and wonderful things the government accomplished.

You won't be able to. The fact is your statement WAS a lie. The only thing we can agree on is your claim that attributing false positions to one's opponents makes one a troll.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 10:16 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(01-01-2014 10:46 AM)frankksj Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 10:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  Peaceful means were tried for a fucking century after the Civil War. How many more decades of mistreatment would be OK? You are blinded by ideology.

And why do you think it was that in the US, where slaves were freed at gunpoint through a bloody civil war, a century later blacks were still virtual slaves, shot for disobeying a white man, raped, hanged, tortured, segregated? Yet, in other countries where slaves were freed at the same time through peaceful means, generally by buying the slaves' freedom, they didn't have such deep filled hatred and animosity towards blacks? Hmmmm...

In my opinion, you (collectively referring to the pro-violence side) CAUSED the problem. If the North had accepted the South's offer and paid $5 billion to free all the slaves, not only would it have saved the North an estimated $10 billion (according to this studyby a Harvard Economist), but, instead of leaving the south in complete ruins with all their infrastructure destroyed, the South would have been infused with a large amount of capital to invest in new, modern infrastructure.

Poverty and violence breeds intolerance and hatred. The fact that the South was reduced to a destitute, smoking pile of rubble, left in shambles, all because the North refused to pay the market value for what Southerners viewed as their 'property', imo, that fostered the animosity and hatred that led to Jim Crow laws and the oppression of the South. If, instead, the North had left the South wealthy and prosperous, and both sides put their efforts into advancing civilization and not killing each other, imo, the South wouldn't have become such a backwards, racist, hate-filled place.

But you're not even willing to consider any solution that doesn't involve violence. Why not try? Compare the 'buy slaves freedom' vs the 'fight a civil war', with pros and cons. I listed the pros of the former and the cons of the latter. Now you try. List the 'pros' to spending $10 billion fighting a civil war and killing and maiming millions vs. spending $5 billion to buy their freedom.

I can safely predict, as always, you'll run from the challenge. You'll refuse to weigh the pros and cons in a pragmatic manner. You'll refuse to even consider what might have been with a peaceful alternative. You'll just continue to insist that 'federal law and arms' was and is the only solution.

To the best of my knowledge, the South NEVER proposed to the North that they do that, not in any formal diplomatic channel. I've seen that study before and heard Ron Paul screaming about it; it's an old libertarian saw. And there are a lot of problems with it.

First and foremost, it gives into the moral rot of slavery, as in doing so you are, at least technically, acknowledging that human beings are property and it is legal for the state to do so.

Secondly, you have to think that, if the Union gave them that money, how do you enforce that? You're demanding the South to comply with that but slaves were privately owned, not the property of individual southern states. So local and state governments would have to make indivdual slaveowners - to borrow your own words 'at the point of a gun' - relinquish their slaves and accept some arbitrary payment. Again, force is necessary to accomplish this. And that assumes that the South will play fair in the whole deal (see my statement below about white southern culture) and release the slaves with no strings attached such as post reconstruction convict leasing and corrupt laws which would force freed blacks back into involuntary servitude.

Finally we have to discuss white southern culture here, which seems to be quietly tossed under the bus (or told to sit in the back of it, at least). The assumption that force is not necessary here is ridiculous once you understand this culture. Southern locals are completely oblivious of it but as a western yankee turned southern transplant I see it clear as day. For decades it's been an unsaid, almost invisible policy among southern white males that there are two cultures here in the South, the white and the negro. Negroes are inferior, arguably subhuman, and it is perfectly natural to subjugate them as you would domestic cattle. The negro is never to be an equal of the white and anybody who would attempt that is violating the laws of nature and God. This is GOD'S COUNTRY and GOD'S CULTURE and it is for the white man. And to hell with whatever any outsider thinks about it. This is Mississippi/Alabama/Florida/Georgia/South Carolina/North Carolina/Virginia/Louisiana/Arkansas/Missouri/Oklahoma/Texas. This is how we run things down here. Violence is permitted, and must be used, to ensure white supremecy. This is to be done by the state or by vigilante justice, which ever is available and most expedient. We are very belligerant and hostile to outside intervention and we will not allow this to violate our sacred culture and heritage.

Faced with this kind of belligerant, obstinate, cruel, vile crap, the force of the state was, in my opinion, the only means to break it. Federal prosecution for civil rights violations finally served notice to the southern good ol' boys club that, like it or not, you WILL not deny people their constitutional rights and if you do so, you will be hauled out into the light of day and punished for it. Now is this the cleanest way to handle this? No. But I believe it was the only means left to break the backs of this culture of southern white supremecy.

To give the libertarians credit, I will say that federal enforcement actions drove a lot of this southern white bigotry underground. I've often said that racism in the south is a lot like a submarine; it knows if it surfaces, it get's nailed for it, so the best policy is to run silent, run deep. These cultural attitudes still are very ingrained down here and many southern whites don't ever realize they are espousing intolerance. The good news is that much of the younger generation growing up in the south rejects the old culture and traditional racist white southern values will probably die out in 20 years. But never say never; its 150 years ago and the South still can't get over the fact it lost the Civil War.

To sum up, it would be a pleasant fiction to think that you could end racism and discrimination simply by public disapproval from the outside, but sometimes it takes harder mesures to break its influence.

"IN THRUST WE TRUST"

"We were conservative Jews and that meant we obeyed God's Commandments until His rules became a royal pain in the ass."

- Joel Chastnoff, The 188th Crybaby Brigade
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(02-01-2014 09:52 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(02-01-2014 04:48 PM)BnW Wrote:  No, I don't believe there should be gay affirmative action. I have no idea what the relevance is of that question to anything that was discussed previously, though.

The relevance is that if there was gay affirmative action, no matter how well intentioned, like all such intervention, there are unintended consequences. Blacks were in the same situation when affirmative action was imposed. Yes, it accomplished good things, and helped right some of the wrongs they had suffered. BUT, it also had unintended negative consequences, just like gay affirmative action would. You can't say that it was the right thing to do without considering the negative effects.

I never, at any point, said anything about affirmative action in any of these discussions so I'm still not sure how it is relevant to anything I said. If your point is that actions have consequences and some can be negative -- ok, fine. So what?

Regarding your comments earlier on civil rights, there are a few things I want to respond to.

1. The idea that giving credit to the government for passing laws diminishes what the civil rights effort did. You may want to go look at some history because you're argument makes zero sense. The whole point of the Civil Rights movement was to pass that type of legislation. Yes, people liked Dr. King talked about a time when people would be judged by the content of their character vs. the color of their skin and I'm sure he would love to have that. But, he was not an idiot and he was not protesting to change peoples minds. He was protesting to create legal protections that outlawed discrimination. Those laws are the legacy of the civil rights movement. That's why, years after it probably outlived its usefullness, a lot of people were pissed when the Voting Rights act was over turned by the SCOTUS last summer.

2. The idea that without government interference equality would have come anyway. There are two problems with this argument. First and foremost, you have no way of proving that. But, the idea that 200 years of racial prejudice was going to just slip away in a generation is highly unlikely. The Civil Rights Act was passed in the early 1960s and 50 years later the EEOC is still prosecuting cases based on racial discrimination. Yes, there is less prejudice now than there was in 1960, at least overt prejudice. Part of that is because we broke down the barriers and more people grew up knowing people of color, and the world didn't end. If we didn't force the issue who knows how long it would have taken. I'll do with the second problem in my point 3 below.

3. You argued that people resent the use of force and that will retard the process of acceptance. My response to that is as follows: so fucking what? Here is the 2nd problem with your argument above - the idea that it's ok for the government to sit by and do nothing so the people being shit upon can wait a generation or so while hearts and minds recalibrate and prejudice is no longer acceptable. Tell me, how long are you willing to wait to be treated equally, to not lose a job because of your color, to be denied the right to marry because of your sexuality? 10 years? 20 years? What is the acceptable amount of time for a minority to have its rights trampled until the majority comes around and sees the error of their way? I don't care one fucking bit if people are upset because they are forced to hire blacks or issue marriage license to gays. The idea that these groups should wait it out so no one feels "forced" is about the dumbest argument I've ever heard of.

By the way, your statement at some point about how blacks were training with whites during WWII is flat out wrong. There was heavy discrimination against blacks in the military during the WWII era. Truman didn't desegregate the troops until 1948 and it took years for things to really change for blacks in the military.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 07:03 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(01-01-2014 08:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 08:02 AM)djkamilo Wrote:  Frank is right the culture made the change then the politicians (even the conservative ones) jumped on the bandwagon.

Frank I noticed that you appealed to civil right leaders changing minds in society. It started me thinking how do leaders fit in the libertarian framework? Isn't there a tendency to idolize these leaders in a way that allows for them to centralize power? And is there a correlation between religion and a centralized power scheme?

No, Frank is not right. Some segments of society had moved forward, but change in the South required force of law and of arms. Nothing would have changed there for decades without that. It was already a century since the Civil War and the only thing that had changed was that there wasn't de jure slavery. Oh, right - that took federal law and arms, as well.

Racism is still very much alive in the south today. Without the force of the evil government schools would still be segregated to this day in many places. When I lived in Georgia the only black people in my church were those who worked there (ie janitors, cooks, and nursery maids) my friend Samara's church had no white people at all. It's not just churches either high school proms, certain shopping centers, and I'm sure there are more places.
Franks assertion that things would have just cleared themselves up without government interference is laughable at best.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
03-01-2014, 07:39 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(03-01-2014 10:16 AM)Carlo_The_Bugsmasher_Driver Wrote:  I've seen that study before and heard Ron Paul screaming about it; it's an old libertarian saw. And there are a lot of problems with it.

You make good points. But the bottom line is that slavery existed throughout the Western world, and only the US abolished it through a civil war. The rest of the world most frequently bought the slave's freedom. Agreed, it's giving into the 'rot of slavery', but we have to be pragmatic. The notion that it was unenforceable is just silly. It was enforced in many countries, as well in Washington DC, and a handful of Northern states that chose this approach to end slavery. So it clearly WAS a viable option. And, I've seen copies of meeting notes proving the North did consider this, but walked away because the cost was too high.

As far as the cultural problems in the South, I don't disagree with you. But you can't confuse cause and effect. Germans are generally an intelligent, sophisticated bunch. Yet look at what happened to them in the 1920's and 1930's when their economy collapsed from printing too much money, and because of tough restrictions post WWI. When they were poor and destitute they became the most hate-filled, evil people this past century. IMO, it's wrong to say Germans were poor because they were hate-filled, but rather they were hate-filled because they were poor. If the South hadn't been reduced to a destitute, smoking pile of rubble, I don't think we would have that mentality in the South. Of course, I can't prove it. It's just an opinion.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
03-01-2014, 07:43 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(03-01-2014 04:43 PM)BnW Wrote:  Here is the 2nd problem with your argument above - the idea that it's ok for the government to sit by and do nothing

That's a strawman. That was NOT my argument. I said I would have liked to see the government try extreme, but non-violent means first. I mentioned, for example, turning the concept of segregation on its head by making the all-black schools the finest in the nation so whites WANTED to go to black schools. I'm sure if we gave peaceful solutions a chance we could have come up with tons of creative approaches to try before resigning ourselves to sending in the troops. But I don't see that the Federal government ever really tried to get creative and aggressive, until they sent the troops in.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
04-01-2014, 09:34 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Actually, it was your argument. You didn't phrase it that way exactly but, at its crux, that was your argument. It's not my fault words have meaning.

Anyway, to your latest post - so, your solution to segregration is more discrimination???? And, since when is it ok for government to pick winners and losers in the market? Shouldn't the market determine which is the "best" university. Government shouldn't be involved. And, how do they do that anyway? All they can spend is other peoples money, collected in the form of taxes. What if people dont' want to pay taxes to support black universities? What if they dont' pay? Your whole point through all your posts has been that any time the government gets involved and requires something it is force, and all force is wrong. So, your solution to one form of force is another form of force? You're pretty much just making shit up now, aren't you?

Finally, your comment about violence is totally, completely wrong. The government didn't come up with guns a-blazing truncheans flying to enforce civil rights legislation. You're confusing that with their reaction to the anti-war movement or local governments reactions to stop civil rights protests. But, for civil rights, government didn't show up with guns until it was necessary to stop the violence. The federal government didn't start the violence during enforcement of those laws, they put a stop to it. Get your facts straight, please.

Anyway, in conclusion, your premise that if there was no government regulation, laws or rules we would have a perfect free market where all where included and wealth was distributed fairly and equally to the people who worked to earn it is proven bullshit. Life is not a text book. No system works in reality the way it does on paper. Some amount of regulation and laws are going to be required to keep the field even. How much is enough is always going to be debated and reasonable minds will disagree on what the right outcome should be. But, the idea that a pure libertarian system will solve all our problems is demonstrably false.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 09:18 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(04-01-2014 09:34 AM)BnW Wrote:  Actually, it was your argument. You didn't phrase it that way exactly but, at its crux, that was your argument. It's not my fault words have meaning.

Anyway, to your latest post - so, your solution to segregration is more discrimination???? And, since when is it ok for government to pick winners and losers in the market? Shouldn't the market determine which is the "best" university. Government shouldn't be involved. And, how do they do that anyway? All they can spend is other peoples money, collected in the form of taxes. What if people dont' want to pay taxes to support black universities?

You clearly didn't read my original post where I explained how it could happen. I said that if the President saw a problem with segregation in the South, and wanted to help, he should bring together a coalition of wealthy northerners opposed to racism who would donate (through charity) funds to make the black schools the best they could be. If someone is being oppressed, and someone else charitably comes in to help, I think that's a great thing, and it can make the oppressor feel more guilty and ashamed. If the South insisted on segregation, and wanted to put blacks in shitty schools, so charitable people came in to help the oppressed, and the black schools became the best around, imo, that would have put positive pressure on the South to change from within, which would have been more effective in changing hearts and minds then sending in Federal Marshall's to do it at gunpoint, where, as others pointed out, 50 years later there's still a lot of resentment.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 09:26 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(04-01-2014 09:34 AM)BnW Wrote:  the idea that a pure libertarian system will solve all our problems is demonstrably false.

I've said repeatedly that I support the compromise the Founders came up with, where the power to pass such laws and regulations is done at the local level, and all citizens are guaranteed the right to relocate if they find them too burdensome. This puts some natural checks and balances. The only time I criticize is when laws are passed at the national level, covering every single place where a citizen can legally live, so there's no escape, and thus no checks and balances.

When you say it's demonstrably false, this system has been tried before. Name one time that it has been anything but a resounding success. Your idea is unworkable that we need centralized power and it's up to the people with the power to self-regulate and limit how much power they give themselves (even if the people are "the majority with 51% of the vote"). Look at every manmade/political tragedy in human history. Can you come up with one example where the tragedy wasn't caused by following your system, where the people with the power simply failed to self-regulate?

If I propose a system and you can't come up with one example where it ever failed, and you can't come up with one disaster that wasn't caused by your proposed system, what does that say?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-01-2014, 09:42 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
BnW,

Here's a question.... You're with a group of guys are walking down the street and you pass a homeless person. 2 members of the group, Fred and Bob, start beating and attacking the homeless person, hoping the rest of the group will join them.

What do you think will do a better job of teaching Fred and Bob the error of the ways, and helping them find compassion: A) The rest of the group should beat the shit out of Fred and Bob. B) The rest of the group should step in and help the homeless man, clean his wounds, buy him a good meal, a clean set of clothes, and help him improve his lot.

Q: Which do you think will do better to win over Fred and Bob?

To me, while (a) may stop Bob and Fred, it's just going to enrage them further and reinforce the hate which will keep building up pent inside, whereas (b) will help them see the ugliness of their ways, feel embarrassed, and want to change.

Now, instead of a group of guys, we're talking about a group of states. Fred and Bob are Mississippi and Alabama, and the homeless man are the blacks. A lot of people on this forum are defending (a) that the Northern states send in guns and marshalls to force the backward Southern states to do it their way. I'm proposing (b), that if the Northern states showed compassion and helped the oppressed with charity so that the black schools did well, tried to always favor doing business and trade with black-owned enterprises so that they did well economically and black-owned enterprises were creating jobs, I think it would have been more effective at actually changing over the hearts and minds of southerners, instead of forcing them to change at gunpoint.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: