Zone1 Black MAGAs are a clear and present danger

[IM2]

MAGAts in general are a clear and present danger, regardless the race.

That is true.

 

[IM2]

Interesting. When I oppose Affirmative Action, I certainly include that part of Affirmative Action that discriminates against men in favor of women. But, the racial aspect of it does seem to be more discussed.

White men are 35-36 percent of the population aand are overrepresented everywhere. So what part of AA discriiminates against white men?

 

[IM2]

I would argue that it is race-based Affirmative Action itself which promotes the idea that black students cannot succeed on merit alone, etc. There was a story recently about a young black kid who maxed out on the SATs. He wouldn't need Affirmative Action to succeed anywhere, but the assumption that he benefitted from it will always be there.


Yes, women benefit from Affirmative Action also. Opposing that part of it it is therefore anti-sexist, not anti-racist.

If all that was being taught was "black history," it is true that only racists would object. Nothing wrong with looking at American history from a black perspective. I would say that lessons like that are necessary because in their absence, it is too easy for American history to be "White History."

That is different from lessons in which students are taught that "one race, color, national origin, or sex are morally superior to members of another race, color, national origin, or sex" and that "a person, by virtue of his or her race, color, national origin, or sex is inherently racist, sexist, or oppressive, whether consciously or unconsciously."

That is what the Florida law bans.

Agendized teacher organizations are claiming that teachers will fear to teach any black history because they might be accused of violating that law. That idea is being promoted in the media. I disagree that any reasonably intelligent teacher will fear that, and I believe that such objections are disengineous.

It is not about "banning" books, it is about what books are displayed in tax-funded libraries and used in lessons taught in tax-funed schools. If not allowing a book in a public school lesson is "banning," then surely the Bible is the most banned book of all time.

I've heard more about and been more concerned about books with inappropriate for children sexual content than books with racial themes. When I saw the graphic drawings and read the graphic descriptions of an early teenager explicitely performing oral sex on another early teenager, I sure didn't think, 'well, wait . . . this'd be OK long as the dude who wrote this is white!'

Are there books removed from publicly funded venues due to racial themes? I haven't heard that much about them, but maybe I missed it. Examples, and I'll look them up.

Of course a book about a family that escapes from a slave plantation will have several heroic black characters and several villainous white characters. If someone object to that, I would disagree. But such a book would need to be sensitive to the possiblility that young readers could see it as a condemnation of whites. It should be part of a collection of books that include white abolitionists and of course the thousands of white who died freeing the slaves.


I have less problems with the idea of "diversity," if - IF - it doesn't turn into Affirmative Action with another name. My district has been re-drawn and we now have far more black students than before. But our teacher population is almost all white and Hispanic. We need to recruit more blacks, so that black students don't associate scholarliness with whiteness or Hispanicness.

Should have been recruiting them all along, so white and Hispanic students see successful black intellectuals.

But, that needs to be carefully monitored lest it turn into a merit-exclusionary quota system. "Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion," in the corporate world sounds like an invitation to exactly that.

Let me start and end with your first sentence Do white men ever consider that what they have got is Affimative Action far and above anyone else? And do you consider that the system was created to exclude all but white men because white men cannot exceed on merit alone?

Why in the world does it not register in the right wing mind that white men gave themselves Affirmative Action overtly for 189 years? And covertly right now.

Now you think everything has been made even in less than 60.

 

[IM2]

I haven't heard of any one on the right demanding that adults stop speaking to adults about the historic wrongs of whites against blacks. The objection is to lessons intended to divide school children by race and to tell them that one race is born into guilt for historic wrongs, and current wrongs.

No it's not. And when there are whites doing this:

“I can say for sure that happens because I did it. Before retirement, I was an Engineer. For the last 20 years of my career, I was a Manager and Director and I hired hundreds of people. I reviewed well over a thousand resumes for all kinds of positions. Everything from Secretaries to Engineering Managers. Both Salary and Hourly. I always culled out the resumes with Black Ethnic names. Never shortlisted anybody with a Black Ethnic name. Never hired them.”

Since the Fortune 50 company I worked for had a stupid “affirmative action” hiring policies I never mentioned it to anybody and I always got away with it. A couple of times I was instructed to improve my departmental “diversity” demographics but I always ignored it and never got into any trouble. My stereotype is that anybody with a stupid ghetto Black ethnic name is probably worthless. I could have been wrong a couple of times but I was also probably right 99% of the time. Glad I did it. I would do it again.”

Then there are whites practicing the same racism that was practiced in the past.

 

[Seymour Flops]

White men are 35-36 percent of the population aand are overrepresented everywhere. So what part of AA discriiminates against white men?

For every woman accepted into a college because of her sex exactly one man is rejected from that college because of his sex. For every black or hispanic that is accepted into a medical school because of their race, exactly one white or Asian is rejected from that medical school because of their race.

Let me start and end with your first sentence Do white men ever consider that what they have got is Affimative Action far and above anyone else? And do you consider that the system was created to exclude all but white men because white men cannot exceed on merit alone?

Why in the world does it not register in the right wing mind that white men gave themselves Affirmative Action overtly for 189 years? And covertly right now.

Now you think everything has been made even in less than 60.

Of course white men gave themselves Affirmative Action, and for a lot more than189 years. I'm glad you recognize that AA is nothing more than racial discrimination.

Therefore it is fair to assume that white men with great achievement might not have been so great on a level playing field. Would Babe Ruth have been the homerun king if blacks had been allowed in the major leagues in those days? Fair question to ask, wouldn't you agree?

You cannot undo past wrongs with present and future wrongs.

No it's not. And when there are whites doing this:

“I can say for sure that happens because I did it. Before retirement, I was an Engineer. For the last 20 years of my career, I was a Manager and Director and I hired hundreds of people. I reviewed well over a thousand resumes for all kinds of positions. Everything from Secretaries to Engineering Managers. Both Salary and Hourly. I always culled out the resumes with Black Ethnic names. Never shortlisted anybody with a Black Ethnic name. Never hired them.”

Since the Fortune 50 company I worked for had a stupid “affirmative action” hiring policies I never mentioned it to anybody and I always got away with it. A couple of times I was instructed to improve my departmental “diversity” demographics but I always ignored it and never got into any trouble. My stereotype is that anybody with a stupid ghetto Black ethnic name is probably worthless. I could have been wrong a couple of times but I was also probably right 99% of the time. Glad I did it. I would do it again.”

Then there are whites practicing the same racism that was practiced in the past.

You cling to that one poster's statement that you don't even know is real. It might be some guy just trying to get your goat, and now laughs as you can't get him out of your head. It might actually be a black person trying "prove" their point with a sock puppet.

But say it is real. That's ONE person.

 

[Coyote]

Interesting. When I oppose Affirmative Action, I certainly include that part of Affirmative Action that discriminates against men in favor of women. But, the racial aspect of it does seem to be more discussed.

Off the top of my head, just spitballing, I have a theory as to why. It may be that a white male who opposes Affirmative Action is less concerned about AA that benefits women because he really does believe that women have inherent disadvantages in academics and employment. But in the black man he sees a person of equal, of not stronger physical ability, and equal if not better intellectual ability. Just a guess. If I'm right, such a man is guilty of sexism, but not racism.

Now that's a take on it I've never heard before, interesting! I tend to think it's more intense on the racial aspect because people are less aware it gave many more women a leg up. But I also think, given comments by a number of members here, they genuinely feel Blacks are less capable or they feel threatened when they do succeed and blame it on AA.

In a way, the whole idea of girls' sports and women's sports is a form of Affirmative Action. If it were just "sports" open to everyone, few women would be on par with men. Few girls could compete in non-sex specific sports after puberty. The evil white Christian male demographic currently supports female sports far more strongly than feminists and Democrats do.

Not saying that AA for women is right. I get that it is harder for a woman to start as a construction worker and rise to be a contractor with large government contracts. But that doesn't mean she should get extra points when applying to medical school.

Both my mother and my Aunt are scientists (though obviously retired). My Aunt has a PhD in chemistry from a university where she was told by the Dean that they didn't like to admit women because "they'll get married and drop out" and he fully expected her to. She was the first woman to graduate from that program. That was the envronment women faced when AA came into being and it was critical to opening doors. It also did did not automatically mean there was no merit, or less merit as is frequently claimed with this program. Where I have issues and see it as racist is when people who have an issue with "merit" wheomes to race, but have no problem (unless it is an afterthought) with legacy admissions. The argument that it is "ok" because it gives the university donor money, is odd: does that make it less unfair? In today's world, I think it is time to close the door on AA as a program. It has largely done what it was intended to do and all such programs need to eventually come to an end

But that doesn't mean an end to trying to increase diversity in many fields. People from different backgrounds and cultures contribute different ways of thinking and problem solving in both the professional and academic spheres, and there is value there to be considered in admissions or hiring.

There is something else to consider, and your statement on giving extra points to women applying to medical achool is a good way to bring it up. Higher education is frequently as preparing an individual for a career, but that is only part of its mission. Other parts include providing knowledge and services to wider communitees through its graduates.

In the case of medical care, there are many underserved communities that have little to no regular access to healthcare, don't trust health care providers, or have difficulty communicating with them because of cultural or linguistic differences. This can include immigrant communitees, racial and ethnic communitees, Native Americans on reservations, rural communitees in Appalachia, etc. Making that a factor (out of many) in admission decisions means they are filling a need in the larger community. That isn't a bad thing nor does it mean there isn't merit.

Oh, yeah. If they oppose Black Studies, but not Latino studies or Native American studies, that would be racist.

I have a lot to say about that. I'll say it, but it might bore you, so if you want to skim it, I don't blame you.

The district investigation is over:

A first-year teacher at Winding Waters K-8 school, Barbee said she showed the 2022 film because it directly related to class curriculum, not because it portrayed Disney’s first openly gay character. The animated film tells the story of a family of explorers and Barbee said it was relevant to her lesson on ecosystems and the environment.

I doubt that seriously. This teacher decides to show 5th graders this particular movie with Disney's first openly gay character in Florida, which is currently mired in controversy over teaching sexual orientation to school children and controversy over the state government's actions in regard to Disney. But didn't take any of that into account? Just seemed like the perfect movie to further learning about econsystems? Right.

She wanted controversy and she got it. She wanted to be in the news, she's there. Poke the bear, if you like. But don't play the victim card when the bear growls at you.

Barbee was reported to the Florida Department of Education after a student told their mom, a member of the school board, about the film being shown. The school system subsequently opened its own investigation.

The final report from Hernando County says, “The investigation was completed regarding the parent complaint. You had the PG(-rated movies) approval forms for all of the students and had connected the movie to the curriculum being taught.” The school system maintained Barbee violated the staff handbook, saying, “You are reminded … that you must seek and receive administrative approval before showing a film or video.”

The report is signed by Cari O’Rourke, the principal at the school in Brooksville.

This seems to be the best outcome. She broke the rule and the district told her so. I don't know how the state investigation will come out, but she does have due process and can ask for a day in court if they decide to take adverse action.

She said she emailed the Office of Professional Practices Services at the Education Department requesting clarification, saying: “I had permission slips signed for the students but did not obtain approval for the specific film. I was under the impression that the permission slip was sufficient and was unaware of any policy or procedure in place concerning the approval of specific films.

“If there was such a policy or procedure in place, I am unaware of it ever being followed by my fellow teachers. This is not an excuse but I am a first year teacher and learn something new every day.”

Yes, she learned. She could have simply taken the lesson gracefully and had a better second year. She was not fired.

I'll say this about the policy that an administrator has to approve a movie. My district has the same policy, and I've never gotten approval for any movie I have shown (only during Summer School, which I make fun for my behavior kids). But I know the rule is there. My principal has seen me showing them and not said anything.

I would never show a movie that might be controversial in any way, and lead to a parent calling my principal. It would be a betrayal of their trust in pretending not to notice that I don't get pre-approval. My principals don't have time to analyze movies for appropriateness. They rely on college-educated teachers to know what is OK and what is not. The rule exists for teachers who deliberately show movies that they fear their principals would not approve. Like Ms. Barbee.

Ms. Barbee seems not to realize that when she takes a paycheck to stand in front of children, she isn't just Jenna, recent college grad (Kappa Delta, shout out!) showing an awesome movies to some kids she knows. She is an agent of the state entrusted with other people's children and expected to use good judgement. If she doesn't like Florida rules, she is welcome to move somewhere else.

Perhaps a Democrat run school district where she can help with their abyssmal literacy rates.

The law initially applied to kindergarten through third grade, but last month, Florida’s state education board voted to expand the law’s scope to include all grades through high school. Teachers who violate the state policy can be suspended or have their teaching licenses revoked.

Barbee didn’t know the law had been expanded to her grade level, she told CNN.

“I just found out today that they increased it to my level,” the fifth-grade teacher told CNN’s Alisyn Camerota last week. “I had no idea whatsoever that this was such a big deal.”

Really? I guess her union isn't keeping her informed. But, again . . . she wasn't fired. She got a letter that said she violated the policy, which she did. So far that's the extent of her persecution.

Barbee has not retained an attorney and will not return to the district next year. She told CNN she had already submitted her resignation a week before the incident due to “politics and the fear of not being able to be who you are” in the public school system. The last day of school for students is May 31.

Well, there you go. She had already resigned due to politics and not being able to be who you are, whatever she may mean by that. She showed the movie after she resigned as one last in-your-face to the district. Again, don't burn your bridge, toast marshmallows over the fire and then whine about the outcome.

Ahhhhh....thst changes things. I did not know that.

"Ban" means no one is legally allowed to have it, like bump stocks, and switchblades. Amazon does land office business selling those supposedly "banned" books.

Banned doesn't mean universally banned. Something banned in one context but not in another. It is still banned. When I was a kid my primary access to books was the school library and the public library, so banning books would have an impact. Books should not be banned for political reasons, that harkins back to a darker era imo.

You brought up books "banned" due to racial content. I only pointed out that I've never spoken about them. I have spoken about the inappropriate sex books.

I'll talk about the racial books, but I need examples as I said, because I haven't followed that story.

Thank you, I'll look into those. I know some of them, and if they were excluded from a school library, I would disagree with that exclusion.

Color purple, Caged bird, Hidden Figures, I would have no objection to.

But . . . I would be willing to listen with an open mind if someone had an argument that they don't belong in a library. Open mind is not possible once you play the "you're racist!" card.

I agree on that, but my original comment was related to examples of how something could be viewed as racist.

Going a bit further, a Texas county (and maybe others) have been trying to extend these bans to public libraries as well, and that goes well beyond schools in scope and an intent to politically censor knowledge in my opinion.

Just out of curiousity, what is your take on removing books like Gone With the Wind, and "Adventures of Huckleberry Fynn" due to use of racial slurs?

I oppose it...I think I said that already? Books like those have a literary merit, and need to be understood in their historical context. They way to do that is to make them part of class reading and discussions. The same applies to books that may contain violence, bad language or uncomfortable topics like teen pregnancy, drugs, or sexuality. As long as as there is a literary value, it should not be banned. BUT this all should be age appropriate, and opinions on what is age appropriate differ among us.

I'll also add, following on your comment on starting off by labeling something racist makes it hard to have an open minded discussion, so does this: labeling something like the opinions I just gave on books as supporting pedo or grooming etc. which happens all too often.

Oh, well I have my answer to the above question already.

Any objection to any book will be based on how people feel. We don't allow school children the use of the n-word because of how it makes their classmates feel. The syllables that it comprises have no objective harm, but the word evokes feelings. In a space in which a college would allow a bonfire, it would not allow a cross burning because of the way it would make people feel.

If parents fear their child will be made to "feel" attacked due to their race, parents have a duty to speak up.

That is reasonable on the surface...but can it go too far? If one parental complaint causes a book to be removed, what about the rest of the parents and children?

Districts actually deal with this in a variety of ways though it has become much more politicized it seems. One is the book is pulled, reviewed by a committee and then a determination is made which is reasonable imo.

But again...if we just ban books that might have uncomfortable themes, are we insulating some children from concepts or events that other children may have experienced or are part of our history and can it not instead be used as a teachable moment (like with Huckleberry Finn?)

I haven't heard of any one on the right demanding that adults stop speaking to adults about the historic wrongs of whites against blacks. The objection is to lessons intended to divide school children by race and to tell them that one race is born into guilt for historic wrongs, and current wrongs.

I think that objection has become overly broad and used to censor a lot of discussion on race. In terms of adults, Florida's law also includes private companies requiring DEI training of it's employees.

Fair. I would say that merit consideration often comes after quotas, i.e., they pick the best of the preferred demographic, and DEI could easily be that.

 

[Coyote]

The white owner of black slaves did not make them slaves. He bought some of them. He inherited some. Others were born on his plantation.

The new woke convention of saying something like, "George Washington enslaved over 100 African Americans" is a way of absolving African Negroes from the essential role they played in the slave trade.

Medicine against African diseases was not invented until the African slave trade had been crushed by whites. Until then whites could not enter the interior of Africa to enslave anyone because they lacked resistances against African diseases. The work of turning free Negroes into Negro slaves was done by other Negroes.

You are attempting to white wash the slave trade. Without a market there would have been no slave trade, nor a subsequent industry based on the breeding of slaves in America.

It reminds me of Holocaust denial.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

The worst mistake European settlers and their descendants made in the New World was the slave trade. We would be better off if blacks had not been brought here.

While white slave traders bought Negro slaves from the Negroes who enslaved them, Arab slave traders were raiding the coasts of Europe all the way north to Iceland to enslave whites. Arab slave traders received no cooperation from whites.

That is debatable. Whites, Blacks, Arabs, etc. were all engaged in the slave trade. They were symbiotic.

 

[Hector12]

You are attempting to white wash the slave trade. Without a market there would have been no slave trade, nor a subsequent industry based on the breeding of slaves in America.

It reminds me of Holocaust denial.

Without a product there would have been no buyers.

I am not justifying the slave trade, or slavery. Slavery only benefited whites who could afford slaves. At the time of the American Civil War a young, healthy male slave could cost $1,000. To give you an idea of what that was worth, a private in the Union Army was paid $13 a month.

In slave states family farms could not compete with plantations. Nearly every profession and skilled trade paid less in the slave states than in the free states.

 

[Hector12]

That is debatable. Whites, Blacks, Arabs, etc. were all engaged in the slave trade. They were symbiotic.

Blacks cooperated with the white slave trade of blacks. Whites did not cooperate with the Arab slave trade of Europeans and Americans. Eventually they stopped it.

Algeria was conquered by France to stop the Arab slave trade of Europeans. The passage in the Marines' Hymn "From the shores of Tripoli" commemorated efforts by the United States Marine Corps to stop the Arab enslaving of Americans.

 

[Road Runner]

Filthy ass welfare ghetto Negroes hate Blacks like him.

Then he should consider that a blessing. When you're despised by the left, you're only despised out of fear because they feel threatened by you. There are many people from the left on here who hate me and I'm honored by that. I just know that I make them sweat.

 

[AZrailwhale]

You are attempting to white wash the slave trade. Without a market there would have been no slave trade, nor a subsequent industry based on the breeding of slaves in America.

It reminds me of Holocaust denial.

The western hemisphere was a very small part of the black slave trade. Most black slaves were sold to Arabs and a large percentage of them died on the trek north or after being gelded. It was still very profitable for the Arabs, so you can imagine how cheaply blacks sold other blacks to outsiders. The black slave trade existed long before Columbus stumbled into the Caribbean.

 

[Flash]

The western hemisphere was a very small part of the black slave trade. Most black slaves were sold to Arabs and a large percentage of them died on the trek north or after being gelded. It was still very profitable for the Arabs, so you can imagine how cheaply blacks sold other blacks to outsiders. The black slave trade existed long before Columbus stumbled into the Caribbean.

Being despised by the filthy ass Left is a sign of having great moral clarity.

 

[Road Runner]

Being despised by the filthy ass Left is a sign of having great moral clarity.

My point exactly in post #71.

 

[MarathonMike]

I do agree that Democrats both expect and take the support of Blacks for granted. Yet look at the Republicans and religious voting block. Not much different.

That's a stretch. From LBJ forward the Democrats used fear mongering and government welfare programs to keep Blacks voting DEM. There is no more effective manipulation of a particular voting group than that. 90%! LBJ would even be blushing at that.

 

[Coyote]

Without a product there would have been no buyers.

I am not justifying the slave trade, or slavery. Slavery only benefited whites who could afford slaves. At the time of the American Civil War a young, healthy male slave could cost $1,000. To give you an idea of what that was worth, a private in the Union Army was paid $13 a month.

In slave states family farms could not compete with plantations. Nearly every profession and skilled trade paid less in the slave states than in the free states.

They would have found other means of obtaining slave labor, and when they started breeding them.

 

[Coyote]

Being despised by the filthy ass Left is a sign of having great moral clarity.

More a sign of a life spent in the ideological gutters, like your language.

 

[Coyote]

That's a stretch. From LBJ forward the Democrats used fear mongering and government welfare programs to keep Blacks voting DEM. There is no more effective manipulation of a particular voting group than that. 90%! LBJ would even be blushing at that.

Well. you are entitled to your opinion.

 

[Dadoalex]

Something to consider....

Are Blacks allowed to be conservative?
Can they voice different opinions or do they then become "race traiters"?
Who sets the rules?

A difference between being an actual Conservative and a MAGAT

Most of them are there for the grift and if White moron MAGATS are willing to give them money to pretend to be one of the MAGA crowd then more power to them.

 

[IM2]

For every woman accepted into a college because of her sex exactly one man is rejected from that college because of his sex. For every black or hispanic that is accepted into a medical school because of their race, exactly one white or Asian is rejected from that medical school because of their race.


Of course white men gave themselves Affirmative Action, and for a lot more than189 years. I'm glad you recognize that AA is nothing more than racial discrimination.

Therefore it is fair to assume that white men with great achievement might not have been so great on a level playing field. Would Babe Ruth have been the homerun king if blacks had been allowed in the major leagues in those days? Fair question to ask, wouldn't you agree?

You cannot undo past wrongs with present and future wrongs.


You cling to that one poster's statement that you don't even know is real. It might be some guy just trying to get your goat, and now laughs as you can't get him out of your head. It might actually be a black person trying "prove" their point with a sock puppet.

But say it is real. That's ONE person.

You post is full of the same lies and false statements whites who think like you have uttered for the past 50 years. White men are employed far beyond their numbers in the population. White men control all the wealth, they own most of the businesses, they control nearly all of our institutions.

That ONE poster is not the only person doing that. And you know that because you have seen it being done. I am sure of that. I post those comments to show that the racism you deny continues. Therefore the whining about being penalized for stuff done in the past has no merit.

If not for white men giving themselves AA, whites would not have what they do now and other races would have wealth comparable to their population. Your belief only works to maintan white advantage. According to the U.S. rule of law, when a crime has been committed, punishment for that crime is assessed and in many cases a time is set for the duration of that punishment. Whites, specifically white men, gave themselves AA for 189 years. Therefore AA should stay in place for 189 years unless continued violations occur. And they have. So then the time extends.

So the best way to end AA is for whites to follow the rules.