Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-01-2014, 08:33 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Man, you love these nonsensical questions, don't you?

I think the answer is c) none of the above. There is no reason to believe that people who do sick things like Fred and Bob did will find compassion because other people stepped in. So, given that the answer is c), I think all the people that helped the homeless guy should then beat the shit out of Fred and Bob for the sheer fun of it.

But, if those are the only options, then I chose a). This waiting around and hoping your change hearts and minds while people are getting beat up, or abused or harassed or lynched or all the other fun things that happened in the south until the government stepped in is ridiculous. The civil rights people thought winning over hearts and minds was secondary. What they wanted as their primary goal was to stop the violence against them and to have equal access to jobs and to the vote. You get that by passing laws and enforcing them. If enforcement means you send men with guns, then that is what you do. Who gives a fuck if violent rednecks don't like having equality and civil rights forced upon them? The reality is that peopel who are raised in that environment were not going to change their minds so easily and they were not going to change their ways without being forced to. That is reality, whether you like it or not.

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
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
08-01-2014, 01:51 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(07-01-2014 08:33 PM)BnW Wrote:  I think all the people that helped the homeless guy should then beat the shit out of Fred and Bob for the sheer fun of it.... I chose a)

If you're right, that the best way to deal with hatred is with violence, to "beat the shit" out of people who behave badly, and that leading by example and treating them the way we want to be treated is too passive, I want to remind you of the earlier debate over the criminal justice system in Scandanavia, particularly Norway, in a previous thread. Norway, when possible, responds to violence with peace, treating criminals, even murderers, with respect and trust. Some murderers live in "prisons" where the guards have no guns, they eat and socialize with the inmates, the prisons have no bars and inmates are trusted to have jobs and can leave the prison and work in town. And the system works very well, and they enjoy have the lowest rates of recidivism.

By contrast the US system, which is the heavy handed "deal with them at the point of a gun" approach that you advocated, has a much worse track record. So, while it may feel good to "beat the shit" out of people who behave badly, I think there's clear evidence that it's not a very effective approach.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-01-2014, 10:05 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Fortunately for us, we don't live in a hypothetical world with only A and B choices. That is what makes your questions so ridiculous; trying to lock in a position based on a scenario that does not allow for real life choices is never going to get you a real answer.

Secondly, how a country treats criminals is not relevant. The discussion is about how to best protect the civil rights of minorities. Your view seems to be to take the majority by the hand and teach then to love everyone so they willingly allow the people they oppress to enjoy the same rights and privileges the majority enjoys. That way they don't feel forced. And, if it takes 10 or 15 years, you said you are ok with that.

I'm not. I think the way you ensure rights is by paying laws to protect and defend them. Over time seeing groups previously excluded will cause first tolerance and then acceptance. And, if some people don't like it when it happens, too fucking bad. And, if courts and lawyers and cops need to get involved to ensure the law is followed, so be it. But, that is how change happens.

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
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
10-01-2014, 09:00 AM (This post was last modified: 10-01-2014 09:03 AM by frankksj.)
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(08-01-2014 10:05 AM)BnW Wrote:  The discussion is about how to best protect the civil rights of minorities. Your view seems to be to take the majority by the hand and teach then to love everyone so they willingly allow the people they oppress to enjoy the same rights and privileges the majority enjoys. That way they don't feel forced. And, if it takes 10 or 15 years, you said you are ok with that. I'm not. I think the way you ensure rights is by paying laws to protect and defend them. Over time seeing groups previously excluded will cause first tolerance and then acceptance. And, if some people don't like it when it happens, too fucking bad. And, if courts and lawyers and cops need to get involved to ensure the law is followed, so be it. But, that is how change happens.

BnW, you say you're not ok waiting 10 or 15 years to end racism using the peaceful methods I advocate, and that's why you advocate using guns and force--to get it done quicker so we don't have to wait that long. Well the civil war was 150 years ago and, according to Carlo who lives in the South, the attitude today is still: "Negroes are inferior, arguably subhuman, and it is perfectly natural to subjugate them as you would domestic cattle." Whether it's as bad as Carlos says, I don't know. However we do know that up until the 1950's it was still so bad that blacks had to use separate bathrooms, couldn't dine in restaurants, had to ride in the back of the bus, etc.

IMO, the reality is that other countries ended slavery peacefully by buying the slaves freedom. Sure, it may have taken another 10 or 15 years as you say, ending in the late 1800's, but at least when it was over, it was over. People's hearts and minds were won over, and you didn't have rampant segregation and discrimination in most of the former slave-owning countries. So, the US did it your way--lots of guns and lots of violence. But instead of getting it done quicker, the way I see it, 100 years later, with Jim Crow laws still in effect, it was almost as bad as slavery.

It just seems ridiculous to hear you say on the one hand "See, my approach of using guns and violence saved us from having to wait 10 or 15 years to end racism." But then at the same time, you'll admit that 150 years later the guns and violence didn't work and we still have racism, but you still insist the solution is "more guns and more violence". How many more centuries must we endure racism and discrimination before you'll finally say "Gosh, maybe guns and violence aren't working, let's give peace a chance?"
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-01-2014, 10:08 AM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Right. Because there is no racism or discrimination in Europe.

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
11-01-2014, 01:45 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(10-01-2014 10:08 AM)BnW Wrote:  Right. Because there is no racism or discrimination in Europe.

Almost 100 years after the Western world ridded itself of slavery, most by buying the slave's freedom, the US by fighting an intense, bloody civil war, in the US blacks still couldn't attend white schools, couldn't eat in restaurants with whites, had to ride in the back of the bus, had to use separate restrooms.

Name one country in Europe that had that level of discrimination, please. I would like you to list one other first world Western country that failed so miserably to end racism.

If you cannot, thus conceding the one country that used intense violence to end racism, is also the one country that failed dismally to end racism, how can you keep defending the violent approach? How can you say "The violent approach was a horrible failure and didn't work nearly as well as peaceful approaches. That's why violence is the only option."

Look at Carlos's post. That's essentially what he's saying. He goes on about what an abject failure the civil rights laws were and how violence is still rampant today in the South, yet he follows up by saying this proves that the only viable approach is to use violence. Reminds me of Einstein's saying that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. You see that violence doesn't work, yet you keep trying it over and over.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-01-2014, 02:55 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
I do not believe that any country in Europe codified racism the way the American south did. So what? You think it didn't exist? I've spent a lot of time in the UK and they have a lot of the same race issues we have here. And, they also have many of the same anti-discrimination laws we have here to combat some of the problems it causes. But, Europe is a very different place than the US. So they didn't follow the same trends. So what?

Let me ask you this, since your so fond of questions:

During the years you propose that we kept people as slaves so their owners didn't have to be "forced" to treat them fairly, did the slaves work happily as slaves or was forced used to keep them in bondage?

During the civil rights movements when minorities wanted the right to vote, to have equal chances at jobs, etc., were they met peacefully with feelings of "hey, that seems about right" or was there force and violence to shut them down?

Let me save you the trouble have having to straing your mind here - the majority in both instances used force and violence to keep their position.

As a secondary matter, you keep acting like you have offered some kind of alternative to the problem. You have not. The idea that you spend 15 - 20 years of treating people to be nice and that is going to solve the problem is laughable. What happens when your appeasement plan doesn't free the slaves by 1890? Ignoring that these people are whipped and tortured and violently enslaved for an extra 30 years in your "non violent" model, what happens when people living the good life in their slave economy say "you know what? This is working out pretty good for me. Why should I pay people when I can beat the shit out of them until they do what I say"? You wait another 30 years and see if wors then?

You're a swell guy, Frank. I bet you're white and were raised middle class. You remind me of the assholes in the press who smoked pot when they were in college, never, ever faced a chance of prosecution for it, and no lament the passing of legalized pot laws in Colorado and Washington. As long as the niggers and spics are the only ones going to jail for it, and nice white kids from the burbs get to go to rehab, we should keep fighting this war on drugs because now they are against drugs.

Sometimes the people getting hit with these things are tired of waiting. They are tired of suffering the violence that makes them slaves or second class citizens. The idea that we have to play nice and hand hold the purveyors of that violence for another generation, until they get it, is wonderful when you're not on the recieving end. It's great to be you today, isn't it? White and middle class in America. Yep, that's the good life. And, everyone else can fuck off and wait to get what you have because you'll be damned if youll let the government take action to give it to them, right?

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
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
11-01-2014, 03:11 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
Oh, one other thing - the south fought an incredibly violent war to preserve slavery. Forgoet the modern revisions of the war the key issue for the south was the preservation of their economy and way of life, which was based on slavery. When you factor in the civilian deaths, of which there were plenty, the south lost over a million people. And, the destrution was unparralled in warefare to that point in time. Southern cities were burned to the ground. People were starving when it was all over and it took years to rebuild.

And you think if that war wasn't fought they were just going to give all this up 30 years later and treat blacks as equals?

Really?

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
[+] 1 user Likes BnW's post
11-01-2014, 04:43 PM
RE: Should there be gay affirmative action, and is it force?
(11-01-2014 02:55 PM)BnW Wrote:  During the civil rights movements when minorities wanted the right to vote, to have equal chances at jobs, etc., were they met peacefully with feelings of "hey, that seems about right" or was there force and violence to shut them down? Let me save you the trouble have having to straing your mind here - the majority in both instances used force and violence to keep their position.

Huh??? Are you a closeted libertarian? You know that what differentiates libertarians vs. others is we believe the majority does NOT have the right to use force and violence against minorities. We believe that whether you belong to a group that has 51% of the vote, or 1% of the vote, is immaterial. Nobody has the right to use guns and violence to force others to do things against their will. The non-libertarians argue that it IS the right of the majority to use guns and violence to keep minorities in their place and force them to do things against their will.

(11-01-2014 02:55 PM)BnW Wrote:  During the years you propose that we kept people as slaves so their owners didn't have to be "forced" to treat them fairly, did the slaves work happily as slaves or was forced used to keep them in bondage?

The mistake is your looking at slavery from a 20th century perspective—not 18th century. Your statement if force was required to keep people as slaves. The answer is 'no', because “slavery” was forbidden, and, from an 18th century perspective, didn't exist in the USA. The constitution was clear: all people are equal and have inalienable rights. Keeping “people” as slaves was never allowed. The problem is that blacks weren't categorized as people—they were considered livestock, high level animals. Read the debates with Thomas Jefferson. He was adamant that slavery must never be tolerated. The debate was if these newly discovered “creatures” from Africa were human or not. To us, it seems like a ridiculous debate. But you have to remember that's only because, during the US's experiment in libertarianism when the government blocked force rather than initiating it, known as the “Age of Enlightenment”, science and knowledge flourished. We discovered genes, DNA, modern biology, etc. Prior to this period, science had progressed very little after 7,000 years of human history. They didn't even have germ theory. So, imagine you were in such a situation and state of ignorance. Imagine there was no science, no travel, and your whole life you've only seen white humans, and then these dark skinned “creatures” come over. They don't speak English or have an education. They look different from you. Are they humans just like you? Force was used to keep the slaves, just like force was used to keep other livestock, like cattle, dogs, pigs, etc., but they weren't considered human. If Thomas Jefferson had been exposed to slaves like Frederick Douglass who showed that blacks had the same mental capacity as whites, the same emotions, and were human in every way just with different skin color, I don't think the US would have ever allowed slavery.

Now, several decades later a lot of discoveries were made, and there were blacks who had a chance to get an education and grew up speaking English as their native language, and it was clear that a terrible mistake had been made. The question is how to correct it. IMO, the North should have accepted that they were complicit in the tragedy by not realizing that blacks were humans too.

(11-01-2014 02:55 PM)BnW Wrote:  As a secondary matter, you keep acting like you have offered some kind of alternative to the problem. You have not. The idea that you spend 15 - 20 years of treating people to be nice and that is going to solve the problem is laughable. What happens when your appeasement plan doesn't free the slaves by 1890? Ignoring that these people are whipped and tortured and violently enslaved for an extra 30 years in your "non violent" model, what happens when people living the good life in their slave economy say "you know what? This is working out pretty good for me. Why should I pay people when I can beat the shit out of them until they do what I say"? You wait another 30 years and see if wors then?

I HAVE presented non-violent solutions which DO work in the real world. You just don't like them. I never said “treat people nice”. I said that when the North had the opportunity to end slavery for $5 billion by buying the slaves freedom, they should have done it. This DID work. Remember, Washington DC and Delaware had slavery too, and they ended it by buying the slaves' freedom, as I advocate. And guess what. There was no segregation, no Jim Crow laws, and decades later, racism was no more rampant in those states than it was in other states that never had slavery. So the fact is that such extreme racism as segregation only existed in the one country that ended slavery through violence, and within that country, it existed only in those states that ended slavery through violence. Yet you're STILL arguing that violence is the only way.

(11-01-2014 02:55 PM)BnW Wrote:  You're a swell guy, Frank. I bet you're white and were raised middle class

Nope.

(11-01-2014 02:55 PM)BnW Wrote:  Sometimes the people getting hit with these things are tired of waiting. They are tired of suffering the violence that makes them slaves or second class citizens. The idea that we have to play nice and hand hold the purveyors of that violence for another generation, until they get it, is wonderful when you're not on the recieving end.

Exactly! That's why I'm advocating a total ban on all violence, and that ALL people must be treated equal. It's you non-libertarians who cling to the use of violence and force, cling to tyranny of the majority. That's exactly the mentality that white southern slave-owners had in the 18th century. That mentality IS the problem. The only difference between you and slave-owners is who on the receiving end of your gun and what you're trying to force people to do against their will. The slave-owners were forcing people to pick cotton, and you're forcing them to do other things. You feel that your use of force is good and justified, and theirs is bad. But that's just a subjective opinion. I'm opposed to ALL use of force altogether. I want government to completely block the use of force and make sure that no unpopular minorities are ever again forced to do something against their will.

(11-01-2014 02:55 PM)BnW Wrote:  It's great to be you today, isn't it? White and middle class in America. Yep, that's the good life. And, everyone else can fuck off and wait to get what you have because you'll be damned if youll let the government take action to give it to them, right?

Wrong again. If you even paid attention to my earlier posts you'd know I don't live in the US.

(11-01-2014 02:55 PM)BnW Wrote:  the south lost over a million people. And, the destrution was unparralled in warefare to that point in time. Southern cities were burned to the ground. People were starving when it was all over and it took years to rebuild.

YES!!! And have you ever lived through that? Can you honestly say that if you were in that situation you too wouldn't be callous and lacking empathy? It's easy to criticize the Cambodian mothers who sell their daughters' virginity, or the southerners after the civil war, but I have a feeling that if we lived through what they did, it would effect us too. Remember, even Germans, when they endured economic ruin, became hate-filled racists. While I was born in a very poor family in a trailer in a rural town, I will openly admit that I've never gone through what the Cambodians, the post WWI Germans, or the post Civil War southerners did. And if I did go through it, I cannot say that I too wouldn't be a backwards, hate-filled racist. I just look at the big picture.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: