The Anti-White Party

[Uncensored2008]

[

When I see compelling evidence that there is "widespread anti white discrimination," I will be the first to acknowledge. As of now, there is no such evidence, as far as what is required to live at an acceptable standard in this country.

It is not visible in the public or private job sector, the judicial system, nor anywhere else.

And far as my so called "tolerance of racism", I have personally seen ACTUAL violent racism towards black citizens, including my own parents for peacefully demonstrating for basic rights of citizenship.

Water hoses, rabid feral cops, attack dogs, refusal of service in public establishments...etc.

I have never witnessed any white people in America under the same type of attack. If I did, I would certainly be against it.

Not visible in the public job sector? Whitey need not apply is the watchword for civil service jobs and has been for decades.

{Though 10 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, African-Americans are 18 percent of U.S. government workers. They are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of the State Department, 37 percent of Department of Education employees and 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the employees at the Government Printing Office and 82 percent at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.}

Black America vs. Obama?

As for violence against blacks, I've seen old films from the 40's and 50's, never anything in real life. Violence I've seen up close and personal is the Los Angeles riots, black on white violence, I was at Telegraph and Florence when it broke loose. That's about 10 miles east of Normandie in Santa Fe Springs. Blacks were cruising Florence looking for white victims, I had a gun pointed at my head from a car that pulled along to the left. I slammed the brakes on and went down a side street and kept to side streets until I got into Whittier, LAPD under Daryl Gates said "let it burn," luckily Whittier took a different approach. So I got out alive and learned to carry a gun.

Since then I've seen Ferguson and Black Lives Matter. *In every single case, the violence was black on white. I have never met a Klansman in my 60 years on this earth, not even one.

In low level government positions some blacks have made gains in jobs that pay less than average compared to the private sector, and though white males are 31% of the population in America, they still hold over 70% of managerial positions. And hold the majority of supervisory positions in the fields that you mentioned.


As far as violence against blacks, if you were around in the 1960's there are plenty of archived videos that be as accessed from that era, that shows what I am talking about. In fact, here is one:

Bloody Sunday: A flashback of the landmark Selma to Montgomery marches


As far as "Klansmen", go they have reinvented themselves and rebranded themselves to appear to be different. The internet is their most effective to marketing their facade.

In my 60+ years I have encountered KKK members Neo Nazi's and Skinheads up until as recently as the 90's.

And there certainly enough examples in this forum alone to prove that those kind beliefs are far from being obsolete.

Your life experience has obviously been different than mine.

I've met some genuine racists on this board, ShitsHisSpeedos, Asslips, IM2, and I call them all out, white, black or other. But none of them were or are Klansmen, just loudmouths on the internet.

 

[Correll]

Too many to mention. The most influential intellectuals responsible for modern radical left politics (an existential threat to white, western society) are almost all Jews. Marx, for example. Campus sociology courses are almost entirely dominated by Marx inspired theories such as critical theory, intersectional feminism and the truly racist "whiteness studies". The thought leaders of these movements are overwhelmingly Jewish.

"Too many to mention"? No one is asking for a complete history. One or two examples would suffice.

Noel Ignatiev, scholar who called for abolishing whiteness, dies at 78

1. Anti-white discrimination and racism is rife though out our society. Discussing it, and bringing it and it's practices and those that support it, under the harsh light of Truth, is the Right Thing to Do. Your denial of this, is just you being a racist asshole.

1b. Your inability to distinguish between me discussing injustice against white people and me discussing any personal issues, which I almost never do, is just you being either stupid, or a dishonest asshole. Either way, fuck you.



2. I'm comfortable with my assumption of you being a standard lefty. You have not shown any serious individual thought on this site, that I have noted, so until you do, I'll stick with that. IF you ever do, I will try to acknowledge it, as far as it deserves, and remember it as long as possible, as you go back to your standard conformity.

How predictable. You did not post a single example of me, regularly referring to you and your wack job ilk as "racist". And didn't because you cannot.

You have not proven....as expected, that society is "rife" with anti white discrimination, and you cannot, because it is not true.

Your insisting that it does, lends no truth to it being so. You are no different than a typical 5 year old, who is afraid of sleeping with the lights off out of fear of a "boogeyman" who is a figment of your overactive imagination. Childish to the extreme.

As far as what YOU believe my political beliefs are, they are simple. I am not in agreement with an alt right loon like you, who labels everyone based on little or no information. And THAT makes me a lot more normal than some nut like you. And in the end, whatever my beliefs happen to be, they are none of your business.

It doesn't make me a "lib", it makes me objectionable to political beliefs being used to categorize anyone who disagrees with me.....like you do.


So rest comfortably in your abject ignorance. And before, I forget, FUCK YOU, and the broken soapbox that you moralize from.

Dumbass hypocrite.

Well, first of all, I did not say "countless" so, learn what quotation marks mean, you dumb fucker, and second of all, I have posted them in the past, and you leftards just spout shit in response, so, "goggle it".

You are the one alleging "widespread, rampant" anti white discrimination, dumbass, so my use of the word "countless" is a non factor, and you are just diverting and deflecting to take the spotlight off of your own chicken little bullshit. If what you allege was factual, there would be anarchy in the streets.

Post something to support your belief of this or STFU. The ball is in your court. And in spite of your delusions, NO.

You have not EVER posted anything that lends credibility to your belief.

Here is one Supreme Court case, one that reveals widespread and rampant anti-white discrimination.


Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia



"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.

City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]

The Supreme Court held 5–4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII because the city did not have a "strong basis in evidence" that it would have subjected itself to disparate impact liability if it had promoted the white and Hispanic firefighters instead of the black firefighters. Because the plaintiffs won under their Title VII claim, the Court did not consider the plaintiffs' argument that New Haven violated the constitutional right to equal protection."




Now, that I posted proof, now you can dismiss it, and spout some shit reasons.

No I am not dismissing it all.....ASSHOLE.

What does the current personnel landscape of the SAME fire department look like today versus 11 YEARS AGO?.

1. Newsflash. They won a 2 million dollar lawsuit in that case, and as of today, the same department is still lacking in diversity pertaining to females and minorities.

Trial by Fire


2. New Haven boasts a population of a whopping 130, 000 people.

That's a very small place and hardly representative of "widespread anti white discrimination".

1. The reasons the city government gave for their actions, are universal in our society, supporting my "widespread anti-white discrimination" claim.

2. What does it matter what the current personnel landscape today is?

I read "the reasons". If numerous scenarios as this isolated case were occurring regularly on a national basis, that would be different, but that is not happening. And the landscape TODAY has plenty to do with it.

If the same scenario continued to replay itself, that would obviously mean that no progress was made towards abating what you believe is "widespead discrimination".

From all indications it was at worst, a one off situation where the parties alleging discrimination were compensated.

If you want to choose ANY profession or classroom in America, currently white males typically meet or exceed what their population share as a demographic is.

And since you used ONE case in ONE fire department from 11 years ago, let's look at ALL of them.

Nationally on the average, 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white.

That is just one profession. Feel free to choose another, the statistics will likely be similar.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

 

[katsteve2012]

"Too many to mention"? No one is asking for a complete history. One or two examples would suffice.

Noel Ignatiev, scholar who called for abolishing whiteness, dies at 78

How predictable. You did not post a single example of me, regularly referring to you and your wack job ilk as "racist". And didn't because you cannot.

You have not proven....as expected, that society is "rife" with anti white discrimination, and you cannot, because it is not true.

Your insisting that it does, lends no truth to it being so. You are no different than a typical 5 year old, who is afraid of sleeping with the lights off out of fear of a "boogeyman" who is a figment of your overactive imagination. Childish to the extreme.

As far as what YOU believe my political beliefs are, they are simple. I am not in agreement with an alt right loon like you, who labels everyone based on little or no information. And THAT makes me a lot more normal than some nut like you. And in the end, whatever my beliefs happen to be, they are none of your business.

It doesn't make me a "lib", it makes me objectionable to political beliefs being used to categorize anyone who disagrees with me.....like you do.


So rest comfortably in your abject ignorance. And before, I forget, FUCK YOU, and the broken soapbox that you moralize from.

Dumbass hypocrite.
You are the one alleging "widespread, rampant" anti white discrimination, dumbass, so my use of the word "countless" is a non factor, and you are just diverting and deflecting to take the spotlight off of your own chicken little bullshit. If what you allege was factual, there would be anarchy in the streets.

Post something to support your belief of this or STFU. The ball is in your court. And in spite of your delusions, NO.

You have not EVER posted anything that lends credibility to your belief.

Here is one Supreme Court case, one that reveals widespread and rampant anti-white discrimination.


Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia



"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.

City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]

The Supreme Court held 5–4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII because the city did not have a "strong basis in evidence" that it would have subjected itself to disparate impact liability if it had promoted the white and Hispanic firefighters instead of the black firefighters. Because the plaintiffs won under their Title VII claim, the Court did not consider the plaintiffs' argument that New Haven violated the constitutional right to equal protection."




Now, that I posted proof, now you can dismiss it, and spout some shit reasons.

No I am not dismissing it all.....ASSHOLE.

What does the current personnel landscape of the SAME fire department look like today versus 11 YEARS AGO?.

1. Newsflash. They won a 2 million dollar lawsuit in that case, and as of today, the same department is still lacking in diversity pertaining to females and minorities.

Trial by Fire


2. New Haven boasts a population of a whopping 130, 000 people.

That's a very small place and hardly representative of "widespread anti white discrimination".

1. The reasons the city government gave for their actions, are universal in our society, supporting my "widespread anti-white discrimination" claim.

2. What does it matter what the current personnel landscape today is?

I read "the reasons". If numerous scenarios as this isolated case were occurring regularly on a national basis, that would be different, but that is not happening. And the landscape TODAY has plenty to do with it.

If the same scenario continued to replay itself, that would obviously mean that no progress was made towards abating what you believe is "widespead discrimination".

From all indications it was at worst, a one off situation where the parties alleging discrimination were compensated.

If you want to choose ANY profession or classroom in America, currently white males typically meet or exceed what their population share as a demographic is.

And since you used ONE case in ONE fire department from 11 years ago, let's look at ALL of them.

Nationally on the average, 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white.

That is just one profession. Feel free to choose another, the statistics will likely be similar.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

 

[Correll]

Noel Ignatiev, scholar who called for abolishing whiteness, dies at 78

Here is one Supreme Court case, one that reveals widespread and rampant anti-white discrimination.


Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia



"Twenty city firefighters at the New Haven Fire Department,[1] nineteen white and one Hispanic, claimed discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters who took it scored high enough to be considered for the positions.

City officials said that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under "disparate impact" head of liability.[2][3]

The Supreme Court held 5–4 that New Haven's decision to ignore the test results violated Title VII because the city did not have a "strong basis in evidence" that it would have subjected itself to disparate impact liability if it had promoted the white and Hispanic firefighters instead of the black firefighters. Because the plaintiffs won under their Title VII claim, the Court did not consider the plaintiffs' argument that New Haven violated the constitutional right to equal protection."




Now, that I posted proof, now you can dismiss it, and spout some shit reasons.

No I am not dismissing it all.....ASSHOLE.

What does the current personnel landscape of the SAME fire department look like today versus 11 YEARS AGO?.

1. Newsflash. They won a 2 million dollar lawsuit in that case, and as of today, the same department is still lacking in diversity pertaining to females and minorities.

Trial by Fire


2. New Haven boasts a population of a whopping 130, 000 people.

That's a very small place and hardly representative of "widespread anti white discrimination".

1. The reasons the city government gave for their actions, are universal in our society, supporting my "widespread anti-white discrimination" claim.

2. What does it matter what the current personnel landscape today is?

I read "the reasons". If numerous scenarios as this isolated case were occurring regularly on a national basis, that would be different, but that is not happening. And the landscape TODAY has plenty to do with it.

If the same scenario continued to replay itself, that would obviously mean that no progress was made towards abating what you believe is "widespead discrimination".

From all indications it was at worst, a one off situation where the parties alleging discrimination were compensated.

If you want to choose ANY profession or classroom in America, currently white males typically meet or exceed what their population share as a demographic is.

And since you used ONE case in ONE fire department from 11 years ago, let's look at ALL of them.

Nationally on the average, 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white.

That is just one profession. Feel free to choose another, the statistics will likely be similar.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.

 

[katsteve2012]

No I am not dismissing it all.....ASSHOLE.

What does the current personnel landscape of the SAME fire department look like today versus 11 YEARS AGO?.

1. Newsflash. They won a 2 million dollar lawsuit in that case, and as of today, the same department is still lacking in diversity pertaining to females and minorities.

Trial by Fire


2. New Haven boasts a population of a whopping 130, 000 people.

That's a very small place and hardly representative of "widespread anti white discrimination".

1. The reasons the city government gave for their actions, are universal in our society, supporting my "widespread anti-white discrimination" claim.

2. What does it matter what the current personnel landscape today is?

I read "the reasons". If numerous scenarios as this isolated case were occurring regularly on a national basis, that would be different, but that is not happening. And the landscape TODAY has plenty to do with it.

If the same scenario continued to replay itself, that would obviously mean that no progress was made towards abating what you believe is "widespead discrimination".

From all indications it was at worst, a one off situation where the parties alleging discrimination were compensated.

If you want to choose ANY profession or classroom in America, currently white males typically meet or exceed what their population share as a demographic is.

And since you used ONE case in ONE fire department from 11 years ago, let's look at ALL of them.

Nationally on the average, 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white.

That is just one profession. Feel free to choose another, the statistics will likely be similar.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.[/QUOTE

I already knew that your answer would be a thinly veiled way of implying that there is no way that there could possibly be bias in hiring practices.

No I am not dismissing it all.....ASSHOLE.

What does the current personnel landscape of the SAME fire department look like today versus 11 YEARS AGO?.

1. Newsflash. They won a 2 million dollar lawsuit in that case, and as of today, the same department is still lacking in diversity pertaining to females and minorities.

Trial by Fire


2. New Haven boasts a population of a whopping 130, 000 people.

That's a very small place and hardly representative of "widespread anti white discrimination".

1. The reasons the city government gave for their actions, are universal in our society, supporting my "widespread anti-white discrimination" claim.

2. What does it matter what the current personnel landscape today is?

I read "the reasons". If numerous scenarios as this isolated case were occurring regularly on a national basis, that would be different, but that is not happening. And the landscape TODAY has plenty to do with it.

If the same scenario continued to replay itself, that would obviously mean that no progress was made towards abating what you believe is "widespead discrimination".

From all indications it was at worst, a one off situation where the parties alleging discrimination were compensated.

If you want to choose ANY profession or classroom in America, currently white males typically meet or exceed what their population share as a demographic is.

And since you used ONE case in ONE fire department from 11 years ago, let's look at ALL of them.

Nationally on the average, 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white.

That is just one profession. Feel free to choose another, the statistics will likely be similar.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.

Whatever.

 

[Correll]

1. The reasons the city government gave for their actions, are universal in our society, supporting my "widespread anti-white discrimination" claim.

2. What does it matter what the current personnel landscape today is?

I read "the reasons". If numerous scenarios as this isolated case were occurring regularly on a national basis, that would be different, but that is not happening. And the landscape TODAY has plenty to do with it.

If the same scenario continued to replay itself, that would obviously mean that no progress was made towards abating what you believe is "widespead discrimination".

From all indications it was at worst, a one off situation where the parties alleging discrimination were compensated.

If you want to choose ANY profession or classroom in America, currently white males typically meet or exceed what their population share as a demographic is.

And since you used ONE case in ONE fire department from 11 years ago, let's look at ALL of them.

Nationally on the average, 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white.

That is just one profession. Feel free to choose another, the statistics will likely be similar.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.[/QUOTE

I already knew that your answer would be a thinly veiled way of implying that there is no way that there could possibly be bias in hiring practices.

1. The reasons the city government gave for their actions, are universal in our society, supporting my "widespread anti-white discrimination" claim.

2. What does it matter what the current personnel landscape today is?

I read "the reasons". If numerous scenarios as this isolated case were occurring regularly on a national basis, that would be different, but that is not happening. And the landscape TODAY has plenty to do with it.

If the same scenario continued to replay itself, that would obviously mean that no progress was made towards abating what you believe is "widespead discrimination".

From all indications it was at worst, a one off situation where the parties alleging discrimination were compensated.

If you want to choose ANY profession or classroom in America, currently white males typically meet or exceed what their population share as a demographic is.

And since you used ONE case in ONE fire department from 11 years ago, let's look at ALL of them.

Nationally on the average, 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white.

That is just one profession. Feel free to choose another, the statistics will likely be similar.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.

Whatever.

Admit it. YOu see unequal outcome and assume discrimination.


THus proving that the city was right in that they needed to discriminate against white people, to avoid being sued and punished by the government.

 

[katsteve2012]

I read "the reasons". If numerous scenarios as this isolated case were occurring regularly on a national basis, that would be different, but that is not happening. And the landscape TODAY has plenty to do with it.

If the same scenario continued to replay itself, that would obviously mean that no progress was made towards abating what you believe is "widespead discrimination".

From all indications it was at worst, a one off situation where the parties alleging discrimination were compensated.

If you want to choose ANY profession or classroom in America, currently white males typically meet or exceed what their population share as a demographic is.

And since you used ONE case in ONE fire department from 11 years ago, let's look at ALL of them.

Nationally on the average, 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white.

That is just one profession. Feel free to choose another, the statistics will likely be similar.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.[/QUOTE

I already knew that your answer would be a thinly veiled way of implying that there is no way that there could possibly be bias in hiring practices.

I read "the reasons". If numerous scenarios as this isolated case were occurring regularly on a national basis, that would be different, but that is not happening. And the landscape TODAY has plenty to do with it.

If the same scenario continued to replay itself, that would obviously mean that no progress was made towards abating what you believe is "widespead discrimination".

From all indications it was at worst, a one off situation where the parties alleging discrimination were compensated.

If you want to choose ANY profession or classroom in America, currently white males typically meet or exceed what their population share as a demographic is.

And since you used ONE case in ONE fire department from 11 years ago, let's look at ALL of them.

Nationally on the average, 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white.

That is just one profession. Feel free to choose another, the statistics will likely be similar.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.

Whatever.

Admit it. YOu see unequal outcome and assume discrimination.


THus proving that the city was right in that they needed to discriminate against white people, to avoid being sued and punished by the government.

What I admit is that I've heard that kind of logic from people like you for decades.

That "there is no way that the residual effect of generations of preferential treatment for the majority is a factor......."because that's just the way it is", or like you just did, imply in an obvious, thinly veiled manner, that "the minority is inferior to the majority, without exception".

But when steps were taken to acknowledge that there actually was a problem, and to LEGALLY ensure that there was a STARTING POINT for fairness for all, suddenly it became "reverse discrimination"....in spite of the fact that in nearly EVERY measurable category, the majority has been affected by a very small percentage.


There is no proof that unequal outcomes are not a result of some cases of unfair, preferential and biased and discriminatory hiring practices.

Through hisitory they were certainly as much a factor as any other variable..

That was the norm in this country, until just a little over 55 years ago, and even then, there were no sweeping overnight changes that took effect.

I am old enough to remember what happened, what changed, and what stayed the same.

ONE group of 20 fire fighters filing a lawsuit 11 years ago over an isolated case in a town with a population of 130,000, does not equal "widespread anti white discrimination"......especially when the racial make up of the same department has not changed much at all.

Period.

 

[IM2]

[

When I see compelling evidence that there is "widespread anti white discrimination," I will be the first to acknowledge. As of now, there is no such evidence, as far as what is required to live at an acceptable standard in this country.

It is not visible in the public or private job sector, the judicial system, nor anywhere else.

And far as my so called "tolerance of racism", I have personally seen ACTUAL violent racism towards black citizens, including my own parents for peacefully demonstrating for basic rights of citizenship.

Water hoses, rabid feral cops, attack dogs, refusal of service in public establishments...etc.

I have never witnessed any white people in America under the same type of attack. If I did, I would certainly be against it.

Not visible in the public job sector? Whitey need not apply is the watchword for civil service jobs and has been for decades.

{Though 10 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, African-Americans are 18 percent of U.S. government workers. They are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of the State Department, 37 percent of Department of Education employees and 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the employees at the Government Printing Office and 82 percent at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.}

Black America vs. Obama?

As for violence against blacks, I've seen old films from the 40's and 50's, never anything in real life. Violence I've seen up close and personal is the Los Angeles riots, black on white violence, I was at Telegraph and Florence when it broke loose. That's about 10 miles east of Normandie in Santa Fe Springs. Blacks were cruising Florence looking for white victims, I had a gun pointed at my head from a car that pulled along to the left. I slammed the brakes on and went down a side street and kept to side streets until I got into Whittier, LAPD under Daryl Gates said "let it burn," luckily Whittier took a different approach. So I got out alive and learned to carry a gun.

Since then I've seen Ferguson and Black Lives Matter. *In every single case, the violence was black on white. I have never met a Klansman in my 60 years on this earth, not even one.

In low level government positions some blacks have made gains in jobs that pay less than average compared to the private sector, and though white males are 31% of the population in America, they still hold over 70% of managerial positions. And hold the majority of supervisory positions in the fields that you mentioned.


As far as violence against blacks, if you were around in the 1960's there are plenty of archived videos that be as accessed from that era, that shows what I am talking about. In fact, here is one:

Bloody Sunday: A flashback of the landmark Selma to Montgomery marches


As far as "Klansmen", go they have reinvented themselves and rebranded themselves to appear to be different. The internet is their most effective to marketing their facade.

In my 60+ years I have encountered KKK members Neo Nazi's and Skinheads up until as recently as the 90's.

And there certainly enough examples in this forum alone to prove that those kind beliefs are far from being obsolete.

Your life experience has obviously been different than mine.

I've met some genuine racists on this board, ShitsHisSpeedos, Asslips, IM2, and I call them all out, white, black or other. But none of them were or are Klansmen, just loudmouths on the internet.

I'm not a racist but you are. You call me a racist for pointing out white racism in the race/racism section of a discussion forum. You're a joke.

 

[IM2]

No I am not dismissing it all.....ASSHOLE.

What does the current personnel landscape of the SAME fire department look like today versus 11 YEARS AGO?.

1. Newsflash. They won a 2 million dollar lawsuit in that case, and as of today, the same department is still lacking in diversity pertaining to females and minorities.

Trial by Fire


2. New Haven boasts a population of a whopping 130, 000 people.

That's a very small place and hardly representative of "widespread anti white discrimination".

1. The reasons the city government gave for their actions, are universal in our society, supporting my "widespread anti-white discrimination" claim.

2. What does it matter what the current personnel landscape today is?

I read "the reasons". If numerous scenarios as this isolated case were occurring regularly on a national basis, that would be different, but that is not happening. And the landscape TODAY has plenty to do with it.

If the same scenario continued to replay itself, that would obviously mean that no progress was made towards abating what you believe is "widespead discrimination".

From all indications it was at worst, a one off situation where the parties alleging discrimination were compensated.

If you want to choose ANY profession or classroom in America, currently white males typically meet or exceed what their population share as a demographic is.

And since you used ONE case in ONE fire department from 11 years ago, let's look at ALL of them.

Nationally on the average, 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white.

That is just one profession. Feel free to choose another, the statistics will likely be similar.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.

What you think is garbage son.

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism. There is plenty of evidence supporting my comment and the ignorant stereotypes you used in your post are not evidence of anything but a belief of a dumb ass white racist on the internet. We can use the same anecdotal evidence to destroy your argument and I will blast your first point to make an example out of you.

" 1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community."

Barack Obama Jr., 44th president of the United States. Single parent home. Graduated with honors from Harvard. Becomes President of the United States. I think that's a little bit higher than a firefighter son. So again let me say, you think like Nelly. Nelly thought shit was jelly.

 

[Correll]

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.[/QUOTE

I already knew that your answer would be a thinly veiled way of implying that there is no way that there could possibly be bias in hiring practices.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.

Whatever.

Admit it. YOu see unequal outcome and assume discrimination.


THus proving that the city was right in that they needed to discriminate against white people, to avoid being sued and punished by the government.

What I admit is that I've heard that kind of logic from people like you for decades.

That "there is no way that the residual effect of generations of preferential treatment for the majority is a factor......."because that's just the way it is", or like you just did, imply in an obvious, thinly veiled manner, that "the minority is inferior to the majority, without exception".

But when steps were taken to acknowledge that there actually was a problem, and to LEGALLY ensure that there was a STARTING POINT for fairness for all, suddenly it became "reverse discrimination"....in spite of the fact that in nearly EVERY measurable category, the majority has been affected by a very small percentage.


There is no proof that unequal outcomes are not a result of some cases of unfair, preferential and biased and discriminatory hiring practices.

Through hisitory they were certainly as much a factor as any other variable..

That was the norm in this country, until just a little over 55 years ago, and even then, there were no sweeping overnight changes that took effect.

I am old enough to remember what happened, what changed, and what stayed the same.

ONE group of 20 fire fighters filing a lawsuit 11 years ago over an isolated case in a town with a population of 130,000, does not equal "widespread anti white discrimination"......especially when the racial make up of the same department has not changed much at all.

Period.

The example cited was a city doing the normal "starting point for fairness" civil rights equal outcome shit, that is the norm in our society.


You constantly cite unequal outcome as though it indicates racial discrimination against blacks.


That viewpoint, which is the basis of national law and policy, requires thus, anti-White discrimination to even try to get equal outcomes, given the various problems causing black under performing.


Thus, it, does equal widespread anti-white discrimination.

 

[Correll]

1. The reasons the city government gave for their actions, are universal in our society, supporting my "widespread anti-white discrimination" claim.

2. What does it matter what the current personnel landscape today is?

I read "the reasons". If numerous scenarios as this isolated case were occurring regularly on a national basis, that would be different, but that is not happening. And the landscape TODAY has plenty to do with it.

If the same scenario continued to replay itself, that would obviously mean that no progress was made towards abating what you believe is "widespead discrimination".

From all indications it was at worst, a one off situation where the parties alleging discrimination were compensated.

If you want to choose ANY profession or classroom in America, currently white males typically meet or exceed what their population share as a demographic is.

And since you used ONE case in ONE fire department from 11 years ago, let's look at ALL of them.

Nationally on the average, 96% of U.S. career firefighters are men, and 82% are white.

That is just one profession. Feel free to choose another, the statistics will likely be similar.

What do you think the reason is, that most professions or firefighting departments are mostly white?

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.

What you think is garbage son.

The root cause of the problems blacks face is white racism....

White racism did not cause the shitty black test scores.


What you think is garbage.

 

[basquebromance]

"The [armed] services must redouble their efforts to improve diversity among the officer corps" - Rep. Trent Kelly, MISSISSIPPI REPUBLICAN.

IT'S INVASION OF THE PC BODY SNATCHERS!!!

 

[katsteve2012]

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.[/QUOTE

I already knew that your answer would be a thinly veiled way of implying that there is no way that there could possibly be bias in hiring practices.

What do you think? And in light of your question, why would you allege that "the country in rife with anti white discrimination", based on the employment numbers?

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.

Whatever.

Admit it. YOu see unequal outcome and assume discrimination.


THus proving that the city was right in that they needed to discriminate against white people, to avoid being sued and punished by the government.

What I admit is that I've heard that kind of logic from people like you for decades.

That "there is no way that the residual effect of generations of preferential treatment for the majority is a factor......."because that's just the way it is", or like you just did, imply in an obvious, thinly veiled manner, that "the minority is inferior to the majority, without exception".

But when steps were taken to acknowledge that there actually was a problem, and to LEGALLY ensure that there was a STARTING POINT for fairness for all, suddenly it became "reverse discrimination"....in spite of the fact that in nearly EVERY measurable category, the majority has been affected by a very small percentage.


There is no proof that unequal outcomes are not a result of some cases of unfair, preferential and biased and discriminatory hiring practices.

Through hisitory they were certainly as much a factor as any other variable..

That was the norm in this country, until just a little over 55 years ago, and even then, there were no sweeping overnight changes that took effect.

I am old enough to remember what happened, what changed, and what stayed the same.

ONE group of 20 fire fighters filing a lawsuit 11 years ago over an isolated case in a town with a population of 130,000, does not equal "widespread anti white discrimination"......especially when the racial make up of the same department has not changed much at all.

Period.

The example cited was a city doing the normal "starting point for fairness" civil rights equal outcome shit, that is the norm in our society.


You constantly cite unequal outcome as though it indicates racial discrimination against blacks.


That viewpoint, which is the basis of national law and policy, requires thus, anti-White discrimination to even try to get equal outcomes, given the various problems causing black under performing.


Thus, it, does equal widespread anti-white discrimination.

It equals no such thing. What you are describing was an isolated case and is not, and has not occurred nationwide, on a regular basis over a prolonged period of time.

At best, to insist that society is"rife" with cases like that one incident is an alarmist observation that borders on intentional hysteria.

As far as unequal outcomes, history proves that systemic racism and preferential treatment of the majority have been present in society since America was founded to varying degrees, which is precisely why legislation was passed to ensure fairness by hiring managers.


End results and outcomes are normally a barometer for measuring the effects of most situations in society.

Since when were they not?

Denial of that fact is an attempt to deny factual history, and attempting to portray the white population as perpetual "victims" based on assumptions from one case, from 11 years ago is not even logical.

That aside, I am not going to waste anymore time going back and forth with you in a repetitive, circular argument to satisfy your need to find victimhood.

 

[Uncensored2008]

[

When I see compelling evidence that there is "widespread anti white discrimination," I will be the first to acknowledge. As of now, there is no such evidence, as far as what is required to live at an acceptable standard in this country.

It is not visible in the public or private job sector, the judicial system, nor anywhere else.

And far as my so called "tolerance of racism", I have personally seen ACTUAL violent racism towards black citizens, including my own parents for peacefully demonstrating for basic rights of citizenship.

Water hoses, rabid feral cops, attack dogs, refusal of service in public establishments...etc.

I have never witnessed any white people in America under the same type of attack. If I did, I would certainly be against it.

Not visible in the public job sector? Whitey need not apply is the watchword for civil service jobs and has been for decades.

{Though 10 percent of the U.S. civilian labor force, African-Americans are 18 percent of U.S. government workers. They are 25 percent of the employees at Treasury and Veterans Affairs, 31 percent of the State Department, 37 percent of Department of Education employees and 38 percent of Housing and Urban Development. They are 42 percent of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp., 55 percent of the employees at the Government Printing Office and 82 percent at the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency.}

Black America vs. Obama?

As for violence against blacks, I've seen old films from the 40's and 50's, never anything in real life. Violence I've seen up close and personal is the Los Angeles riots, black on white violence, I was at Telegraph and Florence when it broke loose. That's about 10 miles east of Normandie in Santa Fe Springs. Blacks were cruising Florence looking for white victims, I had a gun pointed at my head from a car that pulled along to the left. I slammed the brakes on and went down a side street and kept to side streets until I got into Whittier, LAPD under Daryl Gates said "let it burn," luckily Whittier took a different approach. So I got out alive and learned to carry a gun.

Since then I've seen Ferguson and Black Lives Matter. *In every single case, the violence was black on white. I have never met a Klansman in my 60 years on this earth, not even one.

In low level government positions some blacks have made gains in jobs that pay less than average compared to the private sector, and though white males are 31% of the population in America, they still hold over 70% of managerial positions. And hold the majority of supervisory positions in the fields that you mentioned.


As far as violence against blacks, if you were around in the 1960's there are plenty of archived videos that be as accessed from that era, that shows what I am talking about. In fact, here is one:

Bloody Sunday: A flashback of the landmark Selma to Montgomery marches


As far as "Klansmen", go they have reinvented themselves and rebranded themselves to appear to be different. The internet is their most effective to marketing their facade.

In my 60+ years I have encountered KKK members Neo Nazi's and Skinheads up until as recently as the 90's.

And there certainly enough examples in this forum alone to prove that those kind beliefs are far from being obsolete.

Your life experience has obviously been different than mine.

I've met some genuine racists on this board, ShitsHisSpeedos, Asslips, IM2, and I call them all out, white, black or other. But none of them were or are Klansmen, just loudmouths on the internet.

I'm not a racist but you are. You call me a racist for pointing out white racism in the race/racism section of a discussion forum. You're a joke.

You are probably the most racist poster on left on USMB. ShitsHisSpeedos thought that his bigotry against blacks was fine because blacks were inferior in his view. You think your vile bigotry against whites is fine because you think whites are inferior.

No difference between the two of you, and you're both scumbags.

 

[Correll]

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.[/QUOTE

I already knew that your answer would be a thinly veiled way of implying that there is no way that there could possibly be bias in hiring practices.

1. I think the low numbers are a result of poor education outcome, which we know is primarily driven by parent involvement, and likely a direct result of the high rate of illegitimacy in the black community.


2. I ask you again, what do you think the reason is?


3. Because unequal outcome does not prove that there is not countervailing discrimination. Discrimination that is still a valid issue to be fought against.

Whatever.

Admit it. YOu see unequal outcome and assume discrimination.


THus proving that the city was right in that they needed to discriminate against white people, to avoid being sued and punished by the government.

What I admit is that I've heard that kind of logic from people like you for decades.

That "there is no way that the residual effect of generations of preferential treatment for the majority is a factor......."because that's just the way it is", or like you just did, imply in an obvious, thinly veiled manner, that "the minority is inferior to the majority, without exception".

But when steps were taken to acknowledge that there actually was a problem, and to LEGALLY ensure that there was a STARTING POINT for fairness for all, suddenly it became "reverse discrimination"....in spite of the fact that in nearly EVERY measurable category, the majority has been affected by a very small percentage.


There is no proof that unequal outcomes are not a result of some cases of unfair, preferential and biased and discriminatory hiring practices.

Through hisitory they were certainly as much a factor as any other variable..

That was the norm in this country, until just a little over 55 years ago, and even then, there were no sweeping overnight changes that took effect.

I am old enough to remember what happened, what changed, and what stayed the same.

ONE group of 20 fire fighters filing a lawsuit 11 years ago over an isolated case in a town with a population of 130,000, does not equal "widespread anti white discrimination"......especially when the racial make up of the same department has not changed much at all.

Period.

The example cited was a city doing the normal "starting point for fairness" civil rights equal outcome shit, that is the norm in our society.


You constantly cite unequal outcome as though it indicates racial discrimination against blacks.


That viewpoint, which is the basis of national law and policy, requires thus, anti-White discrimination to even try to get equal outcomes, given the various problems causing black under performing.


Thus, it, does equal widespread anti-white discrimination.

It equals no such thing. What you are describing was an isolated case and is not, and has not occurred nationwide, on a regular basis over a prolonged period of time.

The stated and very reasonable motives expressed by the city, which you have and ARE validating with your argument,


are universal in our society. Thus it is not an isolated case, but an excellent example of an universal issue.

..
As far as unequal outcomes, history proves that systemic racism and preferential treatment of the majority have been present in society since America was founded to varying degrees, which is precisely why legislation was passed to ensure fairness by hiring managers.

Yep, that was the intent. Gee a government program might have not had the effect it was intended. What a shock.

But it is worth noting that the period of time you are talking about, has been the last 50 years, with bi-partisan support.

ie to be really clear, in a nation that you are smearing as racist, white people of both parties have supported policies and laws and candidates with the intent of ensuring fairness by hiring managers. Let us keep that in mind, as you continue to smear white people in the rest of this post/thread.

End results and outcomes are normally a barometer for measuring the effects of most situations in society.

Since when were they not?

Since always, when you assume one factor as a cause.

Seriously. That you need that explained, is a little shocking.

Denial of that fact is an attempt to deny factual history, and attempting to portray the white population as perpetual "victims" based on assumptions from one case, from 11 years ago is not even logical.

YOu asked for an example, and I gave you one. NOw you are dismissing it, for no good reason. I can give you wider studies showing the same discrimination in a different setting, but you would just move on to your next dismissal.

This is you. YOu are Wally, to be clear.

That aside, I am not going to waste anymore time going back and forth with you in a repetitive, circular argument to satisfy your need to find victimhood.

This is not about my need for victimhood, but my demand for equal treatment. YOu are a bigot and a supporter of discrimination and injustice.

I or someone like me, will be in your face, for the rest of your life. And the lives of your children.

 

[katsteve2012]

Whatever.

Admit it. YOu see unequal outcome and assume discrimination.


THus proving that the city was right in that they needed to discriminate against white people, to avoid being sued and punished by the government.

What I admit is that I've heard that kind of logic from people like you for decades.

That "there is no way that the residual effect of generations of preferential treatment for the majority is a factor......."because that's just the way it is", or like you just did, imply in an obvious, thinly veiled manner, that "the minority is inferior to the majority, without exception".

But when steps were taken to acknowledge that there actually was a problem, and to LEGALLY ensure that there was a STARTING POINT for fairness for all, suddenly it became "reverse discrimination"....in spite of the fact that in nearly EVERY measurable category, the majority has been affected by a very small percentage.


There is no proof that unequal outcomes are not a result of some cases of unfair, preferential and biased and discriminatory hiring practices.

Through hisitory they were certainly as much a factor as any other variable..

That was the norm in this country, until just a little over 55 years ago, and even then, there were no sweeping overnight changes that took effect.

I am old enough to remember what happened, what changed, and what stayed the same.

ONE group of 20 fire fighters filing a lawsuit 11 years ago over an isolated case in a town with a population of 130,000, does not equal "widespread anti white discrimination"......especially when the racial make up of the same department has not changed much at all.

Period.

The example cited was a city doing the normal "starting point for fairness" civil rights equal outcome shit, that is the norm in our society.


You constantly cite unequal outcome as though it indicates racial discrimination against blacks.


That viewpoint, which is the basis of national law and policy, requires thus, anti-White discrimination to even try to get equal outcomes, given the various problems causing black under performing.


Thus, it, does equal widespread anti-white discrimination.

It equals no such thing. What you are describing was an isolated case and is not, and has not occurred nationwide, on a regular basis over a prolonged period of time.

The stated and very reasonable motives expressed by the city, which you have and ARE validating with your argument,


are universal in our society. Thus it is not an isolated case, but an excellent example of an universal issue.

..
As far as unequal outcomes, history proves that systemic racism and preferential treatment of the majority have been present in society since America was founded to varying degrees, which is precisely why legislation was passed to ensure fairness by hiring managers.

Yep, that was the intent. Gee a government program might have not had the effect it was intended. What a shock.

But it is worth noting that the period of time you are talking about, has been the last 50 years, with bi-partisan support.

ie to be really clear, in a nation that you are smearing as racist, white people of both parties have supported policies and laws and candidates with the intent of ensuring fairness by hiring managers. Let us keep that in mind, as you continue to smear white people in the rest of this post/thread.

End results and outcomes are normally a barometer for measuring the effects of most situations in society.

Since when were they not?

Since always, when you assume one factor as a cause.

Seriously. That you need that explained, is a little shocking.

Denial of that fact is an attempt to deny factual history, and attempting to portray the white population as perpetual "victims" based on assumptions from one case, from 11 years ago is not even logical.

YOu asked for an example, and I gave you one. NOw you are dismissing it, for no good reason. I can give you wider studies showing the same discrimination in a different setting, but you would just move on to your next dismissal.

This is you. YOu are Wally, to be clear.

That aside, I am not going to waste anymore time going back and forth with you in a repetitive, circular argument to satisfy your need to find victimhood.

This is not about my need for victimhood, but my demand for equal treatment. YOu are a bigot and a supporter of discrimination and injustice.

I or someone like me, will be in your face, for the rest of your life. And the lives of your children.

ROFLMAO! Now that was funny. Even for you.

That was the same common denominator of steps that you typically follow in most of what you post.

You were asked for an example of WIDESPREAD "anti white discrimination".

What you posted was a single case of that was brought before the court and settled. I did not "dismiss" the case, I clearly stated that it does not validate the widespread, discrimination that you claim exists.

There are no statistics or measurements of the results of the type widespread discrimination that you claim exists

As far as me "smearing the country, and white people", you are now just flat out lying. I did no such thing. I disagree with YOU. AND YOU do not represent ALL white people

In fact, YOU are the one who made the first blanket statement regarding black people being "poor parents".

If anyone here is a bigot, you are.

As far as "equal treatment", what specifically is inhibiting you from equal treatment? If you are truly being treated unequally, use the judicial and political system. That is what people who ACTUALLY are typically do.

As far as your cartoon, simple minded. But a good one. It was a perfect mirror image of you.

"Because YOU say so, it must be true"

I am a firm believer in justice for all. Especially those who are truly being denied it. I have living relatives that endured and survived, and fought back against the type of injustice that would likely drive "someone like you" to committ suicide, so save that bullshit. I know what REAL injustice is.

If "someone like you" will "be in MY face for the rest of my life", fine.

I will in return, hold up a mirror in front of them.

As far as my children, since you dared to mention them, "someone like you", probably will at some point, be serving them.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

I told you guys you're wasting your time ....but hey let him keep running in circles

 

[Correll]

Admit it. YOu see unequal outcome and assume discrimination.


THus proving that the city was right in that they needed to discriminate against white people, to avoid being sued and punished by the government.

What I admit is that I've heard that kind of logic from people like you for decades.

That "there is no way that the residual effect of generations of preferential treatment for the majority is a factor......."because that's just the way it is", or like you just did, imply in an obvious, thinly veiled manner, that "the minority is inferior to the majority, without exception".

But when steps were taken to acknowledge that there actually was a problem, and to LEGALLY ensure that there was a STARTING POINT for fairness for all, suddenly it became "reverse discrimination"....in spite of the fact that in nearly EVERY measurable category, the majority has been affected by a very small percentage.


There is no proof that unequal outcomes are not a result of some cases of unfair, preferential and biased and discriminatory hiring practices.

Through hisitory they were certainly as much a factor as any other variable..

That was the norm in this country, until just a little over 55 years ago, and even then, there were no sweeping overnight changes that took effect.

I am old enough to remember what happened, what changed, and what stayed the same.

ONE group of 20 fire fighters filing a lawsuit 11 years ago over an isolated case in a town with a population of 130,000, does not equal "widespread anti white discrimination"......especially when the racial make up of the same department has not changed much at all.

Period.

The example cited was a city doing the normal "starting point for fairness" civil rights equal outcome shit, that is the norm in our society.


You constantly cite unequal outcome as though it indicates racial discrimination against blacks.


That viewpoint, which is the basis of national law and policy, requires thus, anti-White discrimination to even try to get equal outcomes, given the various problems causing black under performing.


Thus, it, does equal widespread anti-white discrimination.

It equals no such thing. What you are describing was an isolated case and is not, and has not occurred nationwide, on a regular basis over a prolonged period of time.

The stated and very reasonable motives expressed by the city, which you have and ARE validating with your argument,


are universal in our society. Thus it is not an isolated case, but an excellent example of an universal issue.

..
As far as unequal outcomes, history proves that systemic racism and preferential treatment of the majority have been present in society since America was founded to varying degrees, which is precisely why legislation was passed to ensure fairness by hiring managers.

Yep, that was the intent. Gee a government program might have not had the effect it was intended. What a shock.

But it is worth noting that the period of time you are talking about, has been the last 50 years, with bi-partisan support.

ie to be really clear, in a nation that you are smearing as racist, white people of both parties have supported policies and laws and candidates with the intent of ensuring fairness by hiring managers. Let us keep that in mind, as you continue to smear white people in the rest of this post/thread.

End results and outcomes are normally a barometer for measuring the effects of most situations in society.

Since when were they not?

Since always, when you assume one factor as a cause.

Seriously. That you need that explained, is a little shocking.

Denial of that fact is an attempt to deny factual history, and attempting to portray the white population as perpetual "victims" based on assumptions from one case, from 11 years ago is not even logical.

YOu asked for an example, and I gave you one. NOw you are dismissing it, for no good reason. I can give you wider studies showing the same discrimination in a different setting, but you would just move on to your next dismissal.

This is you. YOu are Wally, to be clear.

That aside, I am not going to waste anymore time going back and forth with you in a repetitive, circular argument to satisfy your need to find victimhood.

This is not about my need for victimhood, but my demand for equal treatment. YOu are a bigot and a supporter of discrimination and injustice.

I or someone like me, will be in your face, for the rest of your life. And the lives of your children.

ROFLMAO! Now that was funny. Even for you.

That was the same common denominator of steps that you typically follow in most of what you post.

You were asked for an example of WIDESPREAD "anti white discrimination".

What you posted was a single case of that was brought before the court and settled. I did not "dismiss" the case, I clearly stated that it does not validate the widespread, discrimination that you claim exists.

There are no statistics or measurements of the results of the type widespread discrimination that you claim exists

As far as me "smearing the country, and white people", you are now just flat out lying. I did no such thing. I disagree with YOU. AND YOU do not represent ALL white people

In fact, YOU are the one who made the first blanket statement regarding black people being "poor parents".

If anyone here is a bigot, you are.

As far as "equal treatment", what specifically is inhibiting you from equal treatment? If you are truly being treated unequally, use the judicial and political system. That is what people who ACTUALLY are typically do.

As far as your cartoon, simple minded. But a good one. It was a perfect mirror image of you.

"Because YOU say so, it must be true"

I am a firm believer in justice for all. Especially those who are truly being denied it. I have living relatives that endured and survived, and fought back against the type of injustice that would likely drive "someone like you" to committ suicide, so save that bullshit. I know what REAL injustice is.

If "someone like you" will "be in MY face for the rest of my life", fine.

I will in return, hold up a mirror in front of them.

As far as my children, since you dared to mention them, "someone like you", probably will at some point, be serving them.

The example cited was a peak behind the current at what the national laws on Affirmative Action and discrimination and programs for equality and diversity actually DO.


There is nothing in the example that is not a factor in EVERY hiring and promotion decision in this country.


That is the point. I know you are tying to ignore it. And you are failing. On some level, you get it, but you can't admit it.


Because you put the interests of your people ahead of fairness or truth.


And you don't care about the interests of my people, even though we have been sacrificing for yours, for generations.




And, really, stop pretending that this is a personal matter with me, about my treatment. This is about the injustice being put upon whites and white males. Your constant attempt to make it personal, is just you being an ass.

 

[katsteve2012]

What I admit is that I've heard that kind of logic from people like you for decades.

That "there is no way that the residual effect of generations of preferential treatment for the majority is a factor......."because that's just the way it is", or like you just did, imply in an obvious, thinly veiled manner, that "the minority is inferior to the majority, without exception".

But when steps were taken to acknowledge that there actually was a problem, and to LEGALLY ensure that there was a STARTING POINT for fairness for all, suddenly it became "reverse discrimination"....in spite of the fact that in nearly EVERY measurable category, the majority has been affected by a very small percentage.


There is no proof that unequal outcomes are not a result of some cases of unfair, preferential and biased and discriminatory hiring practices.

Through hisitory they were certainly as much a factor as any other variable..

That was the norm in this country, until just a little over 55 years ago, and even then, there were no sweeping overnight changes that took effect.

I am old enough to remember what happened, what changed, and what stayed the same.

ONE group of 20 fire fighters filing a lawsuit 11 years ago over an isolated case in a town with a population of 130,000, does not equal "widespread anti white discrimination"......especially when the racial make up of the same department has not changed much at all.

Period.

The example cited was a city doing the normal "starting point for fairness" civil rights equal outcome shit, that is the norm in our society.


You constantly cite unequal outcome as though it indicates racial discrimination against blacks.


That viewpoint, which is the basis of national law and policy, requires thus, anti-White discrimination to even try to get equal outcomes, given the various problems causing black under performing.


Thus, it, does equal widespread anti-white discrimination.

It equals no such thing. What you are describing was an isolated case and is not, and has not occurred nationwide, on a regular basis over a prolonged period of time.

The stated and very reasonable motives expressed by the city, which you have and ARE validating with your argument,


are universal in our society. Thus it is not an isolated case, but an excellent example of an universal issue.

..
As far as unequal outcomes, history proves that systemic racism and preferential treatment of the majority have been present in society since America was founded to varying degrees, which is precisely why legislation was passed to ensure fairness by hiring managers.

Yep, that was the intent. Gee a government program might have not had the effect it was intended. What a shock.

But it is worth noting that the period of time you are talking about, has been the last 50 years, with bi-partisan support.

ie to be really clear, in a nation that you are smearing as racist, white people of both parties have supported policies and laws and candidates with the intent of ensuring fairness by hiring managers. Let us keep that in mind, as you continue to smear white people in the rest of this post/thread.

End results and outcomes are normally a barometer for measuring the effects of most situations in society.

Since when were they not?

Since always, when you assume one factor as a cause.

Seriously. That you need that explained, is a little shocking.

Denial of that fact is an attempt to deny factual history, and attempting to portray the white population as perpetual "victims" based on assumptions from one case, from 11 years ago is not even logical.

YOu asked for an example, and I gave you one. NOw you are dismissing it, for no good reason. I can give you wider studies showing the same discrimination in a different setting, but you would just move on to your next dismissal.

This is you. YOu are Wally, to be clear.

That aside, I am not going to waste anymore time going back and forth with you in a repetitive, circular argument to satisfy your need to find victimhood.

This is not about my need for victimhood, but my demand for equal treatment. YOu are a bigot and a supporter of discrimination and injustice.

I or someone like me, will be in your face, for the rest of your life. And the lives of your children.

ROFLMAO! Now that was funny. Even for you.

That was the same common denominator of steps that you typically follow in most of what you post.

You were asked for an example of WIDESPREAD "anti white discrimination".

What you posted was a single case of that was brought before the court and settled. I did not "dismiss" the case, I clearly stated that it does not validate the widespread, discrimination that you claim exists.

There are no statistics or measurements of the results of the type widespread discrimination that you claim exists

As far as me "smearing the country, and white people", you are now just flat out lying. I did no such thing. I disagree with YOU. AND YOU do not represent ALL white people

In fact, YOU are the one who made the first blanket statement regarding black people being "poor parents".

If anyone here is a bigot, you are.

As far as "equal treatment", what specifically is inhibiting you from equal treatment? If you are truly being treated unequally, use the judicial and political system. That is what people who ACTUALLY are typically do.

As far as your cartoon, simple minded. But a good one. It was a perfect mirror image of you.

"Because YOU say so, it must be true"

I am a firm believer in justice for all. Especially those who are truly being denied it. I have living relatives that endured and survived, and fought back against the type of injustice that would likely drive "someone like you" to committ suicide, so save that bullshit. I know what REAL injustice is.

If "someone like you" will "be in MY face for the rest of my life", fine.

I will in return, hold up a mirror in front of them.

As far as my children, since you dared to mention them, "someone like you", probably will at some point, be serving them.

The example cited was a peak behind the current at what the national laws on Affirmative Action and discrimination and programs for equality and diversity actually DO.


There is nothing in the example that is not a factor in EVERY hiring and promotion decision in this country.


That is the point. I know you are tying to ignore it. And you are failing. On some level, you get it, but you can't admit it.


Because you put the interests of your people ahead of fairness or truth.


And you don't care about the interests of my people, even though we have been sacrificing for yours, for generations.




And, really, stop pretending that this is a personal matter with me, about my treatment. This is about the injustice being put upon whites and white males. Your constant attempt to make it personal, is just you being an ass.

The example was an isolated case that was satisfied in favor of the plaintiffs, and this type of case is not representative of what is happening in the entire country.

You are an intentional alarmist, who is seeking a platform as part of a persecuted and in some cases privileged majority, which is fucking ridiculous.

If this is something that is a "factor in every hiring decision everywhere", then you should be grateful, as white males who are 31% of the population as a demographic are OVERREPRESENTED in management positions in the workforce holding approximately 70% of those jobs.

As far as what MY "interests" are, they begin and end with MY family, and if that offends you or anyone else, that's your problem......but here is a surprise for you, there ARE white people in MY family.

My "sacrifices" are for family only, and I do not owe any gratitude to "your people" or anyone else for anything. No one has sacrificed for me in my lifetime except my parents and the brave people that survived through the era of GENUINE discrimination.

You are really off the rails if you actually believe that "your people" have been sacrificing for my people for generations....SMGDH.

That is the kind of ignorant, arrogant statement that is so typical for "those like you".



You surely don't want to add hypocrite to being a liar as well, do you?

You've gone on record on a number of occasions stating that you put the interests of "your people first" and you sure as hell have no concern for anyone outside of that circle, so why should ANYONE have even a shred of empathy for the likes of you?

As far as me being personal or being an "ass" toward you as you claim, I respond in the same manner to others exactly the way that they address me.

Frankly, you have a history in this forum of being a condescending asshole, then will try to become offended when you are addressed in the same manner.

See how that works?