The Ongoing Black on White Rape Epidemic

It is not, for reasons I've already explained.

OK.

Disagree for reasons stated.

To provide redress for persons in a group that have not been allowed to get a job because they have the wrong skin color.

 

In April 2002, the Tsarnaev parents and Dzhokhar went to the United States on a 90-day tourist visa.[29][30][31] Anzor Tsarnaev applied for asylum, citing fears of deadly persecution due to his ties to Chechnya.[32] Tamerlan arrived in the U.S. around two years later.[33] In the U.S. the parents received asylum and then filed for their four children, who received "derivative asylum status".[34] They settled on Norfolk Street in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Tamerlan lived in Cambridge on Norfolk Street until his death.[35] Anzor and Zubeidat Tsarnaev both received welfare benefits.[36]​

Islamofascists who came here, lived on welfare and plotted to murder us.

And the millions of illegal aliens who are here? No doubt many are getting taxpayer funded benefits like schooling, medical care, food...

So it really does not seem that far fetched. It is time for a change.

 

Stating over and over again that you're correct doesn't make your point any more valid.

Provide evidence that the 23 year old black man that I'm going up against for a job has been not allowed to get a job because of the wrong skin color.

 

Definition of what?

For him getting the job? He's being hired because of his race, not his unique qualifications.

No he doesn't. AA would choose him over the white person even if the white person was more qualified.

Then what's the relevance?

Prove that all blacks have been disadvantaged by racism.

 

Same for you. IMO my points are valid for the reasons I've stated. Others can decided for themselves.

I can provide plenty of evidence that blacks as a group have been discriminated against.

 

No. You can show evidence that SOME blacks have been discriminated against. You have no evidence that the black person going for the job interview has. So you think it's acceptable to discriminate against a white guy who may have NEVER discriminated against a black person.... to provide an advantage to a black person who has NEVER been discriminated against?

And you think that's not prejudiced and racism?

 

Racism.

I don't even know what you are talking about now.

Depends on the type of AA program, but possibly.

Good question.

Why should I do that.

Your definition is just as wrong regardless how its applied.

You mis-charactized my definition.

Never said there was.

Justice is a vague opinionated concept, which is why it makes for a lousy definition.

But the purpose of AA discrimination is not injustice but to correct injustice.

It's not based on any prejudice against the white candidate at all.

 

and how many rapes were there of black women by black men?

 

No, I can show you that blacks as a group have been discriminated against.

If the black guy already had a job or got into the school he wouldn't need the AA.

AA is not racism because it is not discrimination based on hatred of a group or belief one group's superiority or prejudice against a person because they are a member of the group. It's not based on prejudice against a person because they are members of the group. AA doesn't give the black guy the job because white are inferior or a belief that whites are lazy or because whites are not liked. It doesn't give the black guy the job because the white candidate is viewed to be inferior just because of his race.

It's not like a employer hiring a white person over a black person because they don't like blacks or think blacks are inferior.

You are really going to tell us don't see the difference between a program that discriminates to remedy an long term injustice perpetrated against a group, and discrimination based on hatred of the group?

 

What about it?

Too bad.

Great, so we established that lesser qualified blacks are given preference over more qualified whites under AA.

Thank you.

To show that AA is helping someone who has historically been affected by discrimination.

No it's not.

How so?

Then racism isn't "defined" as you said it was and does rely on opinion, which you said it didn't. If there are multiple definitions, which you admit there is, it's not an objective term if someone has the choice of which definition to apply.

It merely applies injustice to another group under the "eye for an eye" concept. If it's a lousy definition, why did you just use it again to define AA?

Yes it is, but that shouldn't matter anyway, as it is still predicated upon a prejudiced view of blacks.

 

what about all the white women raped by white men?

 

You're position on it is wrong, as I demonstrated.

Depends on the type of AA. Can be. I've never denied that.

So what's the answer?

A group.

It is. The fact that someone has been discriminated against because of race, like the actor playing a slave, is not necessarily racism.

You're position that AA is racist simply because it discriminates based on race is wrong.

Because I never defined racism solely as a view of racial superiority.

It is defined and I gave multiple sources. I appreciate you want to mischaracterize racism so that you can pretend that AA or progressives are racist just like you are. Racists do that.

That wasn't my definition.

Explain how is it based on prejudice against the white candidate.

 

I am surprised you don't support it since white women benefit from it more than anyone.

 

I'm just amazed you were reading racist bloggers in 1994.

 

Yea, sure they do.

 

Prove that Tyrone the 23 year old black guy is in the group that has been discriminated against.

So you wouldn't consider it racial discrimination and he would be completely within his rights, if a white business owner said that he's going to give preference of white people over blacks because he feels that the policy of AA has unjustly discriminated against the white population. Right?

That's exactly what I'm going to tell you because you cannot redress discrimination with more discrimination. That's patently absurd.

 

They still have it, its called "The Good Ole Boy Network".

 

I asked him to identify the statements or actions that he contended showed Holder was a racist, and he disappeared. No one else picked it up either.

 

Minorities favor democrats. Even Hispanics, who probably have more in common with republicans, vote democrat. But this has more to do with the message of the republican platform than economics.

From an economic perspective, one would think that the south would be a democrat stronghold.

 

No. Hispanics by a 75% margin prefer a larger Government that provides more social services, which is about the percentage of Hispanics who vote for the Democrat Party. The whole "if Republicans were more inclusive they'd get more Hispanic votes" is just a story people like you say to get Republicans to bend over for Hispanics.

 

I've never claimed that every black person has been discriminated against.

No, because (1) he has no right to do that; and (2) there is no emperical support for it. Whites don't make a fraction of the income of blacks, whites don't have far higher unemployment rates than blacks, whites don't have far less wealth per capita than whites, and whites haven't had a history of being discriminated against by blacks.

Interesting. The fact you cannot even acknowledge the simple basic difference between someone who discriminates based on racial hatred and discrimination based on a program to remedy social and historical discrimination against a group explains a lot.

 

Tell me how I quoted you out of context.

There is no relevance.

It is a remedy for past and current racist discrimination.

How is it a mis-characterization of your position?

Non-sequitur. All the definitions have the same core concept.

That was me arguing based on Theimmortal's definition.

It assumes no such thing. It assumes that as a group whites are less disadvantaged, or more accurately, that as a group, blacks have been discriminated against.

 

Tell that to conservative thinkers. They are the ones who put forward the argument. Obviously, liberals do not suggest there is a natural alliance between Hispanics and republicans.

I simply think the conservative thinkers are right on this particular point. George Bush won nearly 50% of the Hispanic vote in 2004.

 

So you acknowledge that not every black person has been discriminated against but you are arguing that EVERY black person should receive the benefit of AA if applicable?

Why does he have no right to do that? He, in fact, has much more of a right to do that than the federal government has to create legal discrimination.

You have provided zero empirical support for your position. Furthermore, the evidence that you claim (without sourcing), you cannot unequivocally link to racism anymore than the racist can unequivocally link it to laziness. And I can find example after example of black racism against white people in the history of the united states. Why do you feel as though you get to pick which racism we redress and which racism we don't?

Prejudice, regardless of the alleged "well-meaning" intentions, is unacceptable. If it's not then all you're advocating for is more prejudice.... which makes you no better than the "racial hatred" discriminator.

 

... so he's a racist because some guys told you he was? That makes it certain?





​