Forums / Discussion / Serious Debate

Hooo Boy

Nevermind that this is a stupid idea and would never pass anything ever, let's talk about the mindset behind this idea shall we. This so called "Racial Reparations" or as many people call it "Reverse Discrimination" This idea that white people should feel guilty for actions they did not commit themselves and compensate those who skin color matches those who were wronged 200 years ago. Now, I'm not saying racism isn't alive today, nor that Black people don't need political help to protect them from racism, but this is going too far. Reverse Discrimination was never meant to compensate for slavery but to help those racially discriminated against get a fair chance. This doesn't really help them with individual struggles against discrimination but instead elevates them to a higher status than everyone else in the country, which is racist against all non-black.

If you want to know the authors viewpoints on this, take a look at the closing statement "If racism is the culprit, then dismantling it requires the same tools that constructed it" In other words, fight racism with racism. Getting Suey Park there.

So what are KYM's thoughts on this idea of "Reverse Discrimination"? Does it have a purpose? How far is too far? Is this just reactionary bullshit coming off the tail of the police brutality controversies? I was thinking of putting this in general, but seeing how there is a political topic involved, I think it's better here.

Didn't someone from WashPost recently write that blacks in America should qualify as refugees?

Reverse discrimination? I thought they called it affirmative action.

Ya'know because it's almost 2AM where I am and I don't feel like writing a paragraph, I'll boil all of my thoughts into simple sentences.

It's stupid. It doesn't make sense. It's counter productive.

They can get 6/3 voting advantages, it still wouldn't make a lick of difference.

The majority of them do not vote, period.

No. Reverse discrimination/affirmative action is a stupid idea. It's completely undemocratic to give one group more voting power than another, no matter what the circumstances. It isn't going to 'solve racism'. If anything, it will give actual racists a reason to fling shit.

I'd give more reasons but I'm not going to put in more thought than the writer did.

Also, interesting to note, although I have no opinions myself on the two American parties, how the writer points out how many more states the Democrats would have won should this had been in place. I feel like that should raise some eyebrows.

Okay sounds good. Now Give me my free compensation and rewards because I am half-Irish and my people were enslaved as well. Also I am scottish, my people were also killed by the British, so I demand I be properly rewarded. Also everyone on the British Isles were repressed by the Romans so thats another thing that kept my people down.

So just from a simple understanding of history, we can properly infer that White people should count as 5/3rds of a person, so since everyone is now 5/3rds of a person we should just decrease the ratio down to 1 person = 1 person.

Easy said and done.

Sense. You make it.

Also this is something I'd expect to find in The Onion as a joke article, not a serious one.

As paranoid as it sounds, this looks like a democrat trying to trying to give more power to democrat voters to tip the southern swing states. The entire article reads like a joke but that one part on what would happen if black voters in the southern swing states had weighted voting seems like it had too much thought put into it, as in WAY more than the rest of the article.

Now I'm not saying it's the "liberal agenda" here, but I do feel like this guy has ulterior motives. The idiocy written in the article is too overwhelming to the point where I'm considering Poe's law and other motivations.

I'm surprised that Washington Post apparently has no self awareness to how incredibly racist they sound with these horribly radical propositions.

Anyways, I don't think it's really going to help the situation because if they count as 5/3rds of a person (which doesn't… even make sense) it's really only going to affect how many people appear in the House of Representatives and considering how many black people live in extremely racist states, it's probably going to make the problem worse. I mean, that's why the 3/5ths compromise was put in place in the first place – slave owning states had more black people and thus would have more representatives on a federal level.

This proposition is both racist and completely retarded, congratulations WashPost.

According to the Washington's posts own data on past elections, black people who voted, voted more for republicans then democrats in the 2010 and 2012.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/11/05/the-2014-electorate-wasnt-just-older-and-whiter-than-2012-it-also-voted-more-republican/

So yeah. Democrat advantage from this would totally happen. And by thst, I mean this author didn't even bother looking at voting statistics.

I don't like to use this phrase sense it's usually used by white supremacists and racial realist types. But seeing as though this is meant to be a take on the 3/5s law from the pre-civil war era i'm guessing this is a bad case of white guilt.

^ let's see those numbers vs. '08 lmao. There are simply more black Republicans who vote in non-Presidential elections than black Democrats (2008 and 2012 were the Pres years, don't forget). Black Democrats stayed home in 2012 because of mellowed feelings towards Obama's hype train, but black Republicans were even more compelled to turn out.

Black Democrat turnout is always higher in states that expand social programs/welfare or immigration benefits just before elections, look that one up.

It's a bad opinion in the article, but this is frankly a bad attempt at humor.
 
Blacks were enslaved in this country. Not in England. And any Irish enslavement in the US does not compare to the the slavery that persisted in the US and had follow up discrimination and injustices.

It also doesn't take into account laws like Jim Crow or persistent, legislated segregation and discrimination. You're showing your butt to try to compare the two and say that the Irish/Scottish had (or have) the same sort of prejudice.
 
Again, I agree that the premise of the article is bad. But I don't think every argument against it is good de facto. Be careful before you go all guns slinging in making jokes with a point if you're out of bullets. An ass like me will call you out on it.

Instead of idiotic things like this, why not give permanent residents the right to vote? I live in this country and pay taxes just like everyone else, but I have absolutely no say in who will run this country? Nice.

The author is black.

The 14th Amendment said:

Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed.

>tfw a black person wants to nullify part of the 14th Amendment
Every time I think we can't go further down the rabbit hole, a new tunnel opens up.

josie said:

Blacks were enslaved in this country. Not in England.

You might want to read up on your history.

Oh dear LORD, my sides! This assertion takes me aaaaaaall the way back to when I studied the Jim Crow Laws years ago, only color-swapped.

Damn, son, that is some weapons grade White Guilt.™

Wait, the author is black? And trying to take advantage of the above white guilt? Reminds of the times Marvel let a black bigot have run over Black Panther.

{ Wait, the author is black? And trying to take advantage of the above white guilt? }

He's not trying to take advantage of anything, he genuinely believes what he's written.

Here's that WashPo article I was talking about earlier, about black people qualifying for refugee status.

"Even nonphysical forms of harm, such as the deliberate imposition of severe economic disadvantage, psychological harm, or the deprivation of food, housing, employment or other essentials, help make the case."

They genuinely believe that white people in America exist to deliberately impose severe economic disadvantage on minorities. The country that is firing native American workers to hire imported foreign labor, the country that offers illegal immigrant welcome packages full of rights and privileges, the country that runs on affirmative action which was specifically created to exclude white people from "housing, food, employment, and other essentials", that's the country that is made up of white people who exist deliberately to make sure minorities can't make it in America.

…In a way, that's worse.

Wait, what's that about the firing of natives?

Hmm, guess i was wrong. But i've met people who would think like that before. Such extreme ideas have never sat well with me.

Corporations do it all the time, it's cheaper to hire foreign workers here on visas than Americans. They don't have to pay Social Security or other taxes on them because they're not citizens. One big one that stirred the pot lately was Disney, who made their American workers train their foreign replacements before they left for good.

{ The layoffs at Disney and at other companies, including the Southern California Edison power utility, are raising new questions about how businesses and outsourcing companies are using the temporary visas, known as H-1B, to place immigrants in technology jobs in the United States. These visas are at the center of a fierce debate in Congress over whether they complement American workers or displace them.

According to federal guidelines, the visas are intended for foreigners with advanced science or computer skills to fill discrete positions when American workers with those skills cannot be found. Their use, the guidelines say, should not “adversely affect the wages and working conditions” of Americans. Because of legal loopholes, however, in practice, companies do not have to recruit American workers first or guarantee that Americans will not be displaced. }

Corporations are also increasingly taking advantage of the OPT (Optional Practical Training) program, which allows foreigners here on student visas to remain in the country and work without getting an H-1B, which is the loophole they're abusing to hire more foreign workers than there are visas (only supposed to be ~80k worker visas granted per year, think about that shit for awhile). It was originally a one-year grace period but Obama expanded the definitions to allow more foreigners to qualify and extended the time period to 29 months, and he just recently announced further expansions of the program though details have not yet been released.

I guess my response to this would be the same response I have to every argument about a person or ethnicity's worth.

EVERY PERSON IS EQUAL

It matters not whether you are black, white, blue, green, male, female, gay, straight, whatever… every single person's rights should amount to the same thing regardless of their ethnic background. He's proposing that just because you were born of a different skin colour that you get preferential treatment from society. Sounds pretty racist to me.