12 ms·

Dr. Martin Luther King said he dreams that one day his children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Here we a

Dr. Martin Luther King said he dreams that one day his children will be judged not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. Here we are 60 years later still focused on the color of people’s skin.

Timon3 3y ago
Do you think that Dr. King would argue that, aside from affirmative action, we live in such a world today?
- JKCalhoun 3y ago
  Yeah, arguing with my dad some time back he says, "Minorities have unfair rights over whites: affirmative action." "Name another," was my response.
  - ahtihn 3y ago
    Name a single unfair right that whites have over others, today?
    - djur 3y ago
      Representation in the Senate.
    - Volundr 3y ago
      None. Non-whites have plenty of unfair disadvantages however.
      - charlieyu1 3y ago
        Let’s fix the unfair stuff instead of introducing more unfair stuff then
    - panarchy 3y ago
      [flagged]
      - swagasaurus-rex 3y ago
        These are all statistical measures. For any one individual may not see the benefits of these privileges. Grouping everybody into their race and statistics will tell you there is variation. That's unavoidable. There are thousands of homeless white men in my city. Maybe police interactions might be calmer for them, but what does it matter for somebody whose life is sliding downhill often by their own addictions? This is why the focus on race seems like such a distraction to me. We could be helping the poor when we're still too busy discussing race and ethnicity.
        Timon3 3y ago
        > These are all statistical measures. For any one individual may not see the benefits of these privileges. Grouping everybody into their race and statistics will tell you there is variation. That's unavoidable. Some variation is unavoidable, but statistically significant variation isn't! Why should people in those underpriviledged groups accept a society which gives them fewer chances? > There are thousands of homeless white men in my city. Maybe police interactions might be calmer for them, but what does it matter for somebody whose life is sliding downhill often by their own addictions? Yes, it does matter? If police interactions are calmer and you live longer, you have more chances to turn your life around. We as a society have more chances to help them. > This is why the focus on race seems like such a distraction to me. We could be helping the poor when we're still too busy discussing race and ethnicity. We should help the poor, and we should work to remove disparities between races and ethnicities. Why are those things opposed in your mind?
        swagasaurus-rex 3y ago
        1) Many people of that race may be independently wealthy and do not need help. Grouping people by race is a bad measure of “need” 2) I haven’t heard realistic plans for actually helping people of a specific race. Helping poor people seems achievable, helping black people sounds presumptuous. 3) Race itself is a nebulous grouping with many edge cases. 4) You could easily find other ways to group people to locate “disadvantage”. Religion is an easy one, but affirmative action based of religion sounds quite discriminatory. 5) The focus on race is actually just racist. People’s difficulty of life is not measured by privilege but by actual experiences.
  - Der_Einzige 3y ago
    I can name several more 1. Communal cultures and stronger family structures. White Americans are insanely atomized and individualistic and that is a serious issue 2. Birthrates/Fertility 3. Far better food/cooking and eating 4. Cultural control, especially in music and to a lesser extent in sports. 5. In the case of certain immigrant groups, significantly higher family wealth than the average white american 6. In the case of some ethnic groups, significantly better physical prowess (it's a handful of tribes where many of the best runners come from) Obviously these are not all that significant compared to the disadvantages, but the idea that there are no other "unfair advantages" is just wrong.
    - sotorfl 3y ago
      [dead]
    - kacesensitive 3y ago
      1. Not a right 2. Not a right 3. Not a right 4. Not a right 5. Not a right 6. Holy shit not a right
      - deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
  - hackeraccount 3y ago
    Do you think being an African American hurt Barak Obama's chance to be the Democratic nominee for President? Or to be elected President? To answer my own question - it's complicated; it did hurt him in some regards but it helped him too. There were a lot of people in the primary and general election who wanted to know they weren't prejudiced and voted for him at least in part for that reason. This wasn't legal affirmative action. It was something else. I don't know if I'd call it an "unfair right" but for the right person in the right circumstance it can be an advantage. Does it out weigh all the disadvantages? Probably not.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Higher successful suicide attempts I guess.
sotorfl 3y ago
William J. Bennett’s Aug. 12 commentary is the latest example of a recent trend in conservative public relations--opponents of affirmative action claiming to be the heirs of Martin Luther King Jr. They invoke the sentence from King’s 1963 speech looking forward to the day his children would be judged by “the content of their character,” not the “color of their skin.” Bennett conveniently ignores one fact--King was a strong supporter of affirmative action. In “Why We Can’t Wait,” published in 1963, he argued that given the long history of American racism, blacks fully deserved “special, compensatory measures” in jobs, education and other realms. Four years later, in “Where Do We Go From Here?” he wrote: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him.” You are incorrect about MLKs assessment. From the LA Times.
zapataband1 3y ago
Bennett conveniently ignores one fact--King was a strong supporter of affirmative action. In “Why We Can’t Wait,” published in 1963, he argued that given the long history of American racism, blacks fully deserved “special, compensatory measures” in jobs, education and other realms. Four years later, in “Where Do We Go From Here?” he wrote: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him.”

Timon3 3y ago

Do you think that Dr. King would argue that, aside from affirmative action, we live in such a world today?

JKCalhoun 3y ago
Yeah, arguing with my dad some time back he says, "Minorities have unfair rights over whites: affirmative action." "Name another," was my response.
- ahtihn 3y ago
  Name a single unfair right that whites have over others, today?
  - djur 3y ago
    Representation in the Senate.
  - Volundr 3y ago
    None. Non-whites have plenty of unfair disadvantages however.
    - charlieyu1 3y ago
      Let’s fix the unfair stuff instead of introducing more unfair stuff then
  - panarchy 3y ago
    [flagged]
    - swagasaurus-rex 3y ago
      These are all statistical measures. For any one individual may not see the benefits of these privileges. Grouping everybody into their race and statistics will tell you there is variation. That's unavoidable. There are thousands of homeless white men in my city. Maybe police interactions might be calmer for them, but what does it matter for somebody whose life is sliding downhill often by their own addictions? This is why the focus on race seems like such a distraction to me. We could be helping the poor when we're still too busy discussing race and ethnicity.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        > These are all statistical measures. For any one individual may not see the benefits of these privileges. Grouping everybody into their race and statistics will tell you there is variation. That's unavoidable. Some variation is unavoidable, but statistically significant variation isn't! Why should people in those underpriviledged groups accept a society which gives them fewer chances? > There are thousands of homeless white men in my city. Maybe police interactions might be calmer for them, but what does it matter for somebody whose life is sliding downhill often by their own addictions? Yes, it does matter? If police interactions are calmer and you live longer, you have more chances to turn your life around. We as a society have more chances to help them. > This is why the focus on race seems like such a distraction to me. We could be helping the poor when we're still too busy discussing race and ethnicity. We should help the poor, and we should work to remove disparities between races and ethnicities. Why are those things opposed in your mind?
        swagasaurus-rex 3y ago
        1) Many people of that race may be independently wealthy and do not need help. Grouping people by race is a bad measure of “need” 2) I haven’t heard realistic plans for actually helping people of a specific race. Helping poor people seems achievable, helping black people sounds presumptuous. 3) Race itself is a nebulous grouping with many edge cases. 4) You could easily find other ways to group people to locate “disadvantage”. Religion is an easy one, but affirmative action based of religion sounds quite discriminatory. 5) The focus on race is actually just racist. People’s difficulty of life is not measured by privilege but by actual experiences.
- Der_Einzige 3y ago
  I can name several more 1. Communal cultures and stronger family structures. White Americans are insanely atomized and individualistic and that is a serious issue 2. Birthrates/Fertility 3. Far better food/cooking and eating 4. Cultural control, especially in music and to a lesser extent in sports. 5. In the case of certain immigrant groups, significantly higher family wealth than the average white american 6. In the case of some ethnic groups, significantly better physical prowess (it's a handful of tribes where many of the best runners come from) Obviously these are not all that significant compared to the disadvantages, but the idea that there are no other "unfair advantages" is just wrong.
  - sotorfl 3y ago
    [dead]
  - kacesensitive 3y ago
    1. Not a right 2. Not a right 3. Not a right 4. Not a right 5. Not a right 6. Holy shit not a right
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
- hackeraccount 3y ago
  Do you think being an African American hurt Barak Obama's chance to be the Democratic nominee for President? Or to be elected President? To answer my own question - it's complicated; it did hurt him in some regards but it helped him too. There were a lot of people in the primary and general election who wanted to know they weren't prejudiced and voted for him at least in part for that reason. This wasn't legal affirmative action. It was something else. I don't know if I'd call it an "unfair right" but for the right person in the right circumstance it can be an advantage. Does it out weigh all the disadvantages? Probably not.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- bombcar 3y ago
  Higher successful suicide attempts I guess.

sotorfl 3y ago

William J. Bennett’s Aug. 12 commentary is the latest example of a recent trend in conservative public relations--opponents of affirmative action claiming to be the heirs of Martin Luther King Jr. They invoke the sentence from King’s 1963 speech looking forward to the day his children would be judged by “the content of their character,” not the “color of their skin.” Bennett conveniently ignores one fact--King was a strong supporter of affirmative action. In “Why We Can’t Wait,” published in 1963, he argued that given the long history of American racism, blacks fully deserved “special, compensatory measures” in jobs, education and other realms. Four years later, in “Where Do We Go From Here?” he wrote: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him.” You are incorrect about MLKs assessment. From the LA Times.

zapataband1 3y ago

Bennett conveniently ignores one fact--King was a strong supporter of affirmative action. In “Why We Can’t Wait,” published in 1963, he argued that given the long history of American racism, blacks fully deserved “special, compensatory measures” in jobs, education and other realms. Four years later, in “Where Do We Go From Here?” he wrote: “A society that has done something special against the Negro for hundreds of years must now do something special for him.”