Reverse Discrimination

[Asclepias]

Exactly since white women and Hispanics arent necessarily Black. Matter of fact white women are the largest beneficiaries of AA. How is that benefiting Black people?

The fact that some women and/or hispanics have also benefited from the Civil Rights Act, does not negate in any fashion the sacrifices that White American has made for Black America in supporting pro-black/anti-white discrimination for the last 50 years.



.

What does that have to do with your claim that the Civil Rights Act was a massive government program specifically for Blacks. Dont back pedal now that I have exposed your idiocy.

It is a massive government program that is primarily for Blacks. It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

Are you saying the fact that a women and Hispanics also benefited from this act somehow invalidates the sacrifices made by White America is passing and supporting this law for 50 years?

Using word games to dismiss such sacrifices, that is idiocy, your idiocy.

You do realize that White Americans are just about done with such efforts, don't you?

Where does it say the Civil Rights Act is primarily for Blacks? Do you have a link for that claim? You have struck out so far on each of your claims. Maybe less emotion and thinking time is in order for you. I dont care what white americans are done with. Not much you can do about it.

It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

I dont see it. Your assumptions are amusing and vaque. Where does it specify only or primarily Black people? Your assumptions are not credible. I asked for a link.

 

[Correll]

The fact that some women and/or hispanics have also benefited from the Civil Rights Act, does not negate in any fashion the sacrifices that White American has made for Black America in supporting pro-black/anti-white discrimination for the last 50 years.



.

What does that have to do with your claim that the Civil Rights Act was a massive government program specifically for Blacks. Dont back pedal now that I have exposed your idiocy.

It is a massive government program that is primarily for Blacks. It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

Are you saying the fact that a women and Hispanics also benefited from this act somehow invalidates the sacrifices made by White America is passing and supporting this law for 50 years?

Using word games to dismiss such sacrifices, that is idiocy, your idiocy.

You do realize that White Americans are just about done with such efforts, don't you?

Where does it say the Civil Rights Act is primarily for Blacks? Do you have a link for that claim? You have struck out so far on each of your claims. Maybe less emotion and thinking time is in order for you. I dont care what white americans are done with. Not much you can do about it.

It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

I dont see it. Your assumptions are amusing and vaque. Where does it specify only or primarily Black people? Your assumptions are not credible. I asked for a link.

In 1964, which Race and which Color do you think they were referencing?


That is not an assumption, it is having some knowledge of the historical context.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

 

[Asclepias]

What does that have to do with your claim that the Civil Rights Act was a massive government program specifically for Blacks. Dont back pedal now that I have exposed your idiocy.

It is a massive government program that is primarily for Blacks. It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

Are you saying the fact that a women and Hispanics also benefited from this act somehow invalidates the sacrifices made by White America is passing and supporting this law for 50 years?

Using word games to dismiss such sacrifices, that is idiocy, your idiocy.

You do realize that White Americans are just about done with such efforts, don't you?

Where does it say the Civil Rights Act is primarily for Blacks? Do you have a link for that claim? You have struck out so far on each of your claims. Maybe less emotion and thinking time is in order for you. I dont care what white americans are done with. Not much you can do about it.

It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

I dont see it. Your assumptions are amusing and vaque. Where does it specify only or primarily Black people? Your assumptions are not credible. I asked for a link.

In 1964, which Race and which Color do you think they were referencing?


That is not an assumption, it is having some knowledge of the historical context.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

In 1964 "race" implied several defined races. The US has never been just Black and white. Are you really still trying to defend that stupid claim of yours?

 

[katsteve2012]

Obviously you are not very intelligent. I showed you MLK was for affirmative actions before it was ever implemented and the best you can do is argue using a quote that you dont know the meaning of?

You cant show me one massive program by the government that is specifically for Black people. Stop whining and lying.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.

This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.

I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

Obviously you are not very intelligent. I showed you MLK was for affirmative actions before it was ever implemented and the best you can do is argue using a quote that you dont know the meaning of?

You cant show me one massive program by the government that is specifically for Black people. Stop whining and lying.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.

This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.

I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

Obviously you are not very intelligent. I showed you MLK was for affirmative actions before it was ever implemented and the best you can do is argue using a quote that you dont know the meaning of?

You cant show me one massive program by the government that is specifically for Black people. Stop whining and lying.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.

This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.

I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

A single generation is typically defined as 20 to 25 years. The Civil Rights Act was signed into effect 50 years ago. Are YOU claiming that it was "anti white discrimination from day one?

Also, white females have benefitted by far more than any other demographic from Affirmative Action

Sally Kohn Affirmative Action Helps White Women More Than Others TIME.com

 

[Correll]

It is a massive government program that is primarily for Blacks. It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

Are you saying the fact that a women and Hispanics also benefited from this act somehow invalidates the sacrifices made by White America is passing and supporting this law for 50 years?

Using word games to dismiss such sacrifices, that is idiocy, your idiocy.

You do realize that White Americans are just about done with such efforts, don't you?

Where does it say the Civil Rights Act is primarily for Blacks? Do you have a link for that claim? You have struck out so far on each of your claims. Maybe less emotion and thinking time is in order for you. I dont care what white americans are done with. Not much you can do about it.

It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

I dont see it. Your assumptions are amusing and vaque. Where does it specify only or primarily Black people? Your assumptions are not credible. I asked for a link.

In 1964, which Race and which Color do you think they were referencing?


That is not an assumption, it is having some knowledge of the historical context.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

In 1964 "race" implied several defined races. The US has never been just Black and white. Are you really still trying to defend that stupid claim of yours?

Which Races and COlors do you think they were passing the 64 Act for?

Whites? Lol!

HIspanics? LOL, in 1960 they were 3.2% of the population and they weren't the ones marching and rioting.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

 

[Correll]

The 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.

This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.

I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

The 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.

This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.

I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

The 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Under the Disparate Impact Theory, employers are motivated to consider every single action they do, in order to make sure they don't "impact" blacks more negatively than whites.

This leads to widespread discrimination such as the 310 point SAT bonus in Ivy League admissions, and the New Haven figherfighter scandal.

I have personally seen discrimination in promotions against whites because of fear of being slammed by such law.

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

A single generation is typically defined as 20 to 25 years. The Civil Rights Act was signed into effect 50 years ago. Are YOU claiming that it was "anti white discrimination from day one?

Also, white females have benefitted by far more than any other demographic from Affirmative Action

Sally Kohn Affirmative Action Helps White Women More Than Others TIME.com

In a situation of limited resources, such as jobs or college slots, any discrimination in favor of one group is discrimination against the other groups.

White females?

First of all, Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

 

[william the wie]

The "stupid" claim that Asians and to an increasing degree Hispanics are treated as whites when in conflict or that anti-police speeches and the presumption of incompetence rewarded that affirmative action and black diversity creates? Which one are you referring to?

 

[katsteve2012]

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

A single generation is typically defined as 20 to 25 years. The Civil Rights Act was signed into effect 50 years ago. Are YOU claiming that it was "anti white discrimination from day one?

Also, white females have benefitted by far more than any other demographic from Affirmative Action

Sally Kohn Affirmative Action Helps White Women More Than Others TIME.com

In a situation of limited resources, such as jobs or college slots, any discrimination in favor of one group is discrimination against the other groups.

White females?

First of all, Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Sacrifices?Surely you jest. In an environment where a specific group is EXCLUDED from fair and equitable treatment in the workforce, for generation after generation, passing legislation to enforce fair treatment and hiring practices is NOT discrimination......except in the minds of those who lack the skill set to be competitive in an environment where ALL have opportunity as set forth by the law. The fact is that whites have NOT been displaced on a broad scale in the workforce or in college admissions as you are implying.



Are you dismissing the fact that white females have benefitted from Affirmative Action more than any other demographic?

 

[Asclepias]

Where does it say the Civil Rights Act is primarily for Blacks? Do you have a link for that claim? You have struck out so far on each of your claims. Maybe less emotion and thinking time is in order for you. I dont care what white americans are done with. Not much you can do about it.

It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

I dont see it. Your assumptions are amusing and vaque. Where does it specify only or primarily Black people? Your assumptions are not credible. I asked for a link.

In 1964, which Race and which Color do you think they were referencing?


That is not an assumption, it is having some knowledge of the historical context.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

In 1964 "race" implied several defined races. The US has never been just Black and white. Are you really still trying to defend that stupid claim of yours?

Which Races and COlors do you think they were passing the 64 Act for?

Whites? Lol!

HIspanics? LOL, in 1960 they were 3.2% of the population and they weren't the ones marching and rioting.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

All races,genders and all colors of historically discriminated people since thats what it says. Thats why white women benefit more from AA than anyone else.

White women are white americans. I have no bone with them.

 

[Asclepias]

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

You do realize that the Civil Rights act is not specifically for Black people right? Tell me you were just deflecting and not seriously adopting this stance? You should try harder to come up with something else that is going show you are smarter than that.

Civil Rights Act of 1964 - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia


"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Pub.L. 88–352, 78 Stat.241, enacted July 2, 1964) is a landmark piece of civil rightslegislation in the United States[5] that outlawed discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin."

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

A single generation is typically defined as 20 to 25 years. The Civil Rights Act was signed into effect 50 years ago. Are YOU claiming that it was "anti white discrimination from day one?

Also, white females have benefitted by far more than any other demographic from Affirmative Action

Sally Kohn Affirmative Action Helps White Women More Than Others TIME.com

In a situation of limited resources, such as jobs or college slots, any discrimination in favor of one group is discrimination against the other groups.

White females?

First of all, Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Life is tough. You should have somehow convinced your white male ancestors they didnt need help getting ahead. Now you have to pay the piper for your male ancestors sins. The little Black AA that we get has nothing to do with your inability to land a job.

 

[Correll]

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

You do realize that I have linked to documented widespread anti-white discrimination in Ivy League college admissions, cited a Supreme Court ruling of anti-white discrimination, and reported personal observations of anti-white discrimination myself?

For your reply to be that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not "specifically" for black people, it just lists Race and Color as the first and second protected groups, makes it seem that you are the one that is deflecting.

You seem to be stating that none of what has been done so far counts, in your opinion as doing anything to make up for past injustices, because it was not just for black people.

Is that your intent?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

A single generation is typically defined as 20 to 25 years. The Civil Rights Act was signed into effect 50 years ago. Are YOU claiming that it was "anti white discrimination from day one?

Also, white females have benefitted by far more than any other demographic from Affirmative Action

Sally Kohn Affirmative Action Helps White Women More Than Others TIME.com

In a situation of limited resources, such as jobs or college slots, any discrimination in favor of one group is discrimination against the other groups.

White females?

First of all, Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Sacrifices?Surely you jest. In an environment where a specific group is EXCLUDED from fair and equitable treatment in the workforce, for generation after generation, passing legislation to enforce fair treatment and hiring practices is NOT discrimination......except in the minds of those who lack the skill set to be competitive in an environment where ALL have opportunity as set forth by the law. The fact is that whites have NOT been displaced on a broad scale in the workforce or in college admissions as you are implying.



Are you dismissing the fact that white females have benefitted from Affirmative Action more than any other demographic?

Under the theory of Disparate Impact, any outcome that has a negative impact on blacks more than whites, is grounds for suing.

This theory does not take into consideration minor factors, such as the qualifications of the blacks in question. So we see discrimination such as in the New Haven firefighter case.

So, yes sacrifices. For generations qualified whites have been losing jobs and promotions to less qualified blacks.

White Females?

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

 

[Asclepias]

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

Your task was to show me a massive gov program that specifically assisted only Black people. Of course you failed since there is no such animal.

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

A single generation is typically defined as 20 to 25 years. The Civil Rights Act was signed into effect 50 years ago. Are YOU claiming that it was "anti white discrimination from day one?

Also, white females have benefitted by far more than any other demographic from Affirmative Action

Sally Kohn Affirmative Action Helps White Women More Than Others TIME.com

In a situation of limited resources, such as jobs or college slots, any discrimination in favor of one group is discrimination against the other groups.

White females?

First of all, Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Sacrifices?Surely you jest. In an environment where a specific group is EXCLUDED from fair and equitable treatment in the workforce, for generation after generation, passing legislation to enforce fair treatment and hiring practices is NOT discrimination......except in the minds of those who lack the skill set to be competitive in an environment where ALL have opportunity as set forth by the law. The fact is that whites have NOT been displaced on a broad scale in the workforce or in college admissions as you are implying.



Are you dismissing the fact that white females have benefitted from Affirmative Action more than any other demographic?

Under the theory of Disparate Impact, any outcome that has a negative impact on blacks more than whites, is grounds for suing.

This theory does not take into consideration minor factors, such as the qualifications of the blacks in question. So we see discrimination such as in the New Haven firefighter case.

So, yes sacrifices. For generations qualified whites have been losing jobs and promotions to less qualified blacks.

White Females?

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Is that theory in the Civil Rights Act? So far all you have is theories, assumptions, and a marked lack of reading comprehension to show for your efforts.

 

[Correll]

It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

I dont see it. Your assumptions are amusing and vaque. Where does it specify only or primarily Black people? Your assumptions are not credible. I asked for a link.

In 1964, which Race and which Color do you think they were referencing?


That is not an assumption, it is having some knowledge of the historical context.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

In 1964 "race" implied several defined races. The US has never been just Black and white. Are you really still trying to defend that stupid claim of yours?

Which Races and COlors do you think they were passing the 64 Act for?

Whites? Lol!

HIspanics? LOL, in 1960 they were 3.2% of the population and they weren't the ones marching and rioting.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

All races,genders and all colors of historically discriminated people since thats what it says. Thats why white women benefit more from AA than anyone else.

White women are white americans. I have no bone with them.

IN 1964, they were talking about blacks, not whites, not hispanics. They wording was universal, the real reason was blacks.



Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

 

[Asclepias]

I dont see it. Your assumptions are amusing and vaque. Where does it specify only or primarily Black people? Your assumptions are not credible. I asked for a link.

In 1964, which Race and which Color do you think they were referencing?


That is not an assumption, it is having some knowledge of the historical context.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

In 1964 "race" implied several defined races. The US has never been just Black and white. Are you really still trying to defend that stupid claim of yours?

Which Races and COlors do you think they were passing the 64 Act for?

Whites? Lol!

HIspanics? LOL, in 1960 they were 3.2% of the population and they weren't the ones marching and rioting.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

All races,genders and all colors of historically discriminated people since thats what it says. Thats why white women benefit more from AA than anyone else.

White women are white americans. I have no bone with them.

IN 1964, they were talking about blacks, not whites, not hispanics. They wording was universal, the real reason was blacks.



Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Is that another one of your assumptions or do you have it documented like I have asked for before? Show me where they said Blacks instead of race, color, gender, or nationality. I'm getting tired of waiting on your proof.

 

[Correll]

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

Are you claiming that generations of wide spread anti-white discrimination does not count because some hispanics and or women might have ALSO benefited?

A single generation is typically defined as 20 to 25 years. The Civil Rights Act was signed into effect 50 years ago. Are YOU claiming that it was "anti white discrimination from day one?

Also, white females have benefitted by far more than any other demographic from Affirmative Action

Sally Kohn Affirmative Action Helps White Women More Than Others TIME.com

In a situation of limited resources, such as jobs or college slots, any discrimination in favor of one group is discrimination against the other groups.

White females?

First of all, Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Sacrifices?Surely you jest. In an environment where a specific group is EXCLUDED from fair and equitable treatment in the workforce, for generation after generation, passing legislation to enforce fair treatment and hiring practices is NOT discrimination......except in the minds of those who lack the skill set to be competitive in an environment where ALL have opportunity as set forth by the law. The fact is that whites have NOT been displaced on a broad scale in the workforce or in college admissions as you are implying.



Are you dismissing the fact that white females have benefitted from Affirmative Action more than any other demographic?

Under the theory of Disparate Impact, any outcome that has a negative impact on blacks more than whites, is grounds for suing.

This theory does not take into consideration minor factors, such as the qualifications of the blacks in question. So we see discrimination such as in the New Haven firefighter case.

So, yes sacrifices. For generations qualified whites have been losing jobs and promotions to less qualified blacks.

White Females?

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Is that theory in the Civil Rights Act? So far all you have is theories, assumptions, and a marked lack of reading comprehension to show for your efforts.

That theory in the application of the Civil Rights Act. It was the reason given by New Haven FIre Fighting Department for not giving promotions to a bunch of white guys, even though they passed the promotion test and the black candidates did not.

Their reasoning was supported by 4 of the Supreme Court Justices, so that theory is in the Supreme Court.

It's not my Theory. I think it's crap.

But it has the power of law behind it.

 

[Correll]

In 1964, which Race and which Color do you think they were referencing?


That is not an assumption, it is having some knowledge of the historical context.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

In 1964 "race" implied several defined races. The US has never been just Black and white. Are you really still trying to defend that stupid claim of yours?

Which Races and COlors do you think they were passing the 64 Act for?

Whites? Lol!

HIspanics? LOL, in 1960 they were 3.2% of the population and they weren't the ones marching and rioting.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

All races,genders and all colors of historically discriminated people since thats what it says. Thats why white women benefit more from AA than anyone else.

White women are white americans. I have no bone with them.

IN 1964, they were talking about blacks, not whites, not hispanics. They wording was universal, the real reason was blacks.



Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Is that another one of your assumptions or do you have it documented like I have asked for before? Show me where they said Blacks instead of race, color, gender, or nationality. I'm getting tired of waiting on your proof.

No assumptions. Just a layperson's knowledge of the time.

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

 

[Asclepias]

In 1964 "race" implied several defined races. The US has never been just Black and white. Are you really still trying to defend that stupid claim of yours?

Which Races and COlors do you think they were passing the 64 Act for?

Whites? Lol!

HIspanics? LOL, in 1960 they were 3.2% of the population and they weren't the ones marching and rioting.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

All races,genders and all colors of historically discriminated people since thats what it says. Thats why white women benefit more from AA than anyone else.

White women are white americans. I have no bone with them.

IN 1964, they were talking about blacks, not whites, not hispanics. They wording was universal, the real reason was blacks.



Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Is that another one of your assumptions or do you have it documented like I have asked for before? Show me where they said Blacks instead of race, color, gender, or nationality. I'm getting tired of waiting on your proof.

No assumptions. Just a layperson's knowledge of the time.

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Actually if you are a layperson it is an assumption. Thanks for admitting that.

What sacrifices have white americans made? I'm curious because you seem to be butthurt.

 

[katsteve2012]

Where does it say the Civil Rights Act is primarily for Blacks? Do you have a link for that claim? You have struck out so far on each of your claims. Maybe less emotion and thinking time is in order for you. I dont care what white americans are done with. Not much you can do about it.

It shows that in mentioning Race and Color as the First and Second protected groups.

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

I dont see it. Your assumptions are amusing and vaque. Where does it specify only or primarily Black people? Your assumptions are not credible. I asked for a link.

In 1964, which Race and which Color do you think they were referencing?


That is not an assumption, it is having some knowledge of the historical context.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

In 1964 "race" implied several defined races. The US has never been just Black and white. Are you really still trying to defend that stupid claim of yours?

Which Races and COlors do you think they were passing the 64 Act for?

Whites? Lol!

HIspanics? LOL, in 1960 they were 3.2% of the population and they weren't the ones marching and rioting.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Whatever "sacrifices" that you imagine have been made up many times over through white females benefitting from Affirmative Action more than any other demographic.

Furthermore, the income disparity between whites and every other demographic in America is still substantially tilted in favor of the white population as a whole.

That being said the "discrimination" that you claim has been practiced against the white population is a figment of your persecuted imagination. So yes, I am completely dismissing the ridiculous notion of ANY "sacrifices".

The legislation passed in 1964 was to right a number of wrongs that had existed since America became a country. Get over it. You're not a victim

 

[Unkotare]

Did you attempt to look for yourself or are you wasting time again?

"A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for the Negro"
-MLK

That's pretty vague.

If I claimed that that quote showed that MLK was talking BS when he spoke of his dream of people being judged by their character instead of skin color, you would dismiss me and call me names.

And he was killed in 68, we've been busting our white asses since before then to turn it around for you guys.

Too bad thats too vague for you. Theres more should you wish to educate yourself. Doesnt make a difference to me either way.

THis is plenty clear to me.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

That is the opposite of reverse discrimination.

Either MLK was a two faced liar, or you are misrepresenting his position on the matter.

Blacks getting 310 SAT points for having black skin is being judged by skin color.

You white boys always get that quote mixed up. It makes me laugh that you think you know what he meant when its obvious you dont. Let me help you out. He saying he doesnt want his kids judged. Judged in this context is forming an opinion. That has nothing to do with the fact MLK championed programs specifically for Blacks in order to catch up to the centuries long head start whites have gotten. If you were intelligent all you would need to do is read his book, "Why We Can’t Wait," and it will tell you everything you need to know. In my previous talks with you I noticed you have displayed an aversion to truth so I doubt you will read his own words.

"King compared the social reforms he favored to the GI Bill of Rights, which gave World War II veterans special preferences including home loans, college scholarships and special advantages in competition for civil service jobs. King maintained that African-Americans could never be adequately compensated for the "exploitation and humiliation" they had suffered in the past, but he proposed a "Negro Bill of Rights" as a partial remedy for these wrongs. He insisted that African-Americans should be compensated through "a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law." He added that "such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest."

I am intelligent.

 

[Correll]

Which Races and COlors do you think they were passing the 64 Act for?

Whites? Lol!

HIspanics? LOL, in 1960 they were 3.2% of the population and they weren't the ones marching and rioting.


Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

All races,genders and all colors of historically discriminated people since thats what it says. Thats why white women benefit more from AA than anyone else.

White women are white americans. I have no bone with them.

IN 1964, they were talking about blacks, not whites, not hispanics. They wording was universal, the real reason was blacks.



Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Is that another one of your assumptions or do you have it documented like I have asked for before? Show me where they said Blacks instead of race, color, gender, or nationality. I'm getting tired of waiting on your proof.

No assumptions. Just a layperson's knowledge of the time.

Are you dismissing the sacrifices that White Americans have made for Blacks because some women and hispanics might have also benefited?

Actually if you are a layperson it is an assumption. Thanks for admitting that.

What sacrifices have white americans made? I'm curious because you seem to be butthurt.

Nothing in the definition of layperson indicates that a person cannot have general common knowledge of a subject.

Do you need a link to the meaning of the word?

As for sacrifices, one example is that for generations, more qualified whites have been losing jobs to less qualified blacks. I have sited the New Haven Firefighter case as one example.

I have, when a member of a management team, personally witnessed two white people get passed over for a less qualified black person.

A good friend of mine was surprised to NOT get hired for a City job, only to see that department successfully sued for reverse discrimination a couple of years later.