3 ms·

I am appalled ... Current federal policies are not helping us regard our neighbor Henry as Henry. I'm not sure exactly why you're appalled. You seem to think

I am appalled ... Current federal policies are not helping us regard our neighbor Henry as Henry. I'm not sure exactly why you're appalled. You seem to think that the "Civil Rights" movement was about bringing-us-all-together, so that we could be judged as individuals, etc, etc. I guess that was the rhetoric. The reason that institutions such as colleges categorize people is that it's a necessary condition to satisfy the racial spoils system (affirmative action, implicit quotas, etc). That spoils system is the natural result of the "civil rights" movement. "Who, whom" is the only question in politics. No one...and I mean no one except the truly brainwashed...wants equality when superiority is available. Back in 1965, it may have been possible for a large portion of the population to subsidize a small portion in this manner. The mathematics allow the bottom 10 percent of whites to give up lawyer jobs, doctor jobs, academic jobs, etc, so that marginal black people could have those positions. It's a despicable crime, but not socially calamitous. But as that large majority becomes a minority, you have the following certain events: 1. It is increasingly difficult to supply a majority population of blacks and hispanics with the affirmative action benefits which a portion of their livelihood has become dependent on. 2. The remaining whites are not only fewer in number, but much older. The old ones themselves become tax-eaters. 3. Via #1 and #2, the remaining young white people (and Asians) simply will not be able to pay everyone who has their hand out. This isn't prophecy but mathematics. The prophecy is, "Who will suffer from this?"

jhancock 17y ago
Your points on the "mathematics" point out problems with the structure of this "spoils" system. The system requires constants readjustment, complete replacement, or removal to satisfy the changing numbers. In regards to: "No one...and I mean no one except the truly brainwashed...wants equality when superiority is available." I guess you will have to classify me as brainwashed. The desire for superiority is an ill that should be "brainwashed" out of those that suffer from it.
- mynameishere 17y ago
  This is an entrepreneur-focused website, and so I doubt you would read it without being interested in personal superiority. (Maybe that word has a bad connotation.) Everybody but the mentally-damaged wants to be better as opposed to worse, above as opposed to under. Everyone in college is trying to avoid waiting tables rather than sitting at them.
  - jhancock 17y ago
    Yeah, I think the word superiority is not the best term for what you're describing. The trouble I have with the way you present this I do not view "winning" as being a situation where others "lose". I believe I can be "better" without taking away from others. "Give more than you take" is the method I try to use.
  - tokenadult 17y ago
    This is an entrepreneur-focused website Yes, so I think many participants here would consider it beneath their dignity to use the political system to gain benefits that they can gain by trading in the free market. Some people do indeed use the political system as a spoils system, but I wouldn't title someone an entrepreneur who does that.
  - gjm11 17y ago
    Equivocation on the contrast between "equality" and "superiority". The goal of equality claimed by the civil rights movement -- which you say was really aiming at "superiority", which I think would be news to the white people involved at the very least -- was not that of a society in which every person ends up in exactly the same situation; it was of a society in which people don't have systematically worse opportunities because they are black or because all their ancestors were slaves or whatever. Aiming at equality in that sense is not the least bit incompatible with hoping to succeed by being clever and working hard to do something that others value. If the Racism Fairy appeared before me and told me that I could have a life that was "better as opposed to worse, above as opposed to under" by (say) stealing half the property of all the black people in the country and giving it to white people -- I happen to be white, so I'd gain rather than lose from that -- then I would turn down that offer. If the Anti-Racism Fairy appeared instead and offered to obliterate every vestige of racial prejudice, but warned that it would make white people (including me) slightly worse off, I'd say yes in a flash. And if you don't believe me because you think "kto kogo?" is the only question, then fuck you and the (doubtless white) horse you rode in on.
fatdog789 17y ago
"so that marginal black people could have those positions." In the first half of the 1900s, it was legal for government-funded schools to deny academic positions to qualified students based on race. Until the 1990s, it was legal for private institutions to bar students based on race. Affirmative action isn't about giving up the bottom 10% to unqualified minorities. It's about giving qualified candidates an opportunity they would otherwise have been denied. If the institution chooses to waste those spots on unqualified minority applicants, it's the fault of the institution and not affirmative action in general. BTW, you appear to be conflating welfare with affirmative action in #1, 2, and 3. They aren't even remotely the same thing.
- billswift 17y ago
  Affirmative action is a race-based form of welfare. Just as Social Security is an age-based form.

jhancock 17y ago

Your points on the "mathematics" point out problems with the structure of this "spoils" system. The system requires constants readjustment, complete replacement, or removal to satisfy the changing numbers. In regards to: "No one...and I mean no one except the truly brainwashed...wants equality when superiority is available." I guess you will have to classify me as brainwashed. The desire for superiority is an ill that should be "brainwashed" out of those that suffer from it.

mynameishere 17y ago
This is an entrepreneur-focused website, and so I doubt you would read it without being interested in personal superiority. (Maybe that word has a bad connotation.) Everybody but the mentally-damaged wants to be better as opposed to worse, above as opposed to under. Everyone in college is trying to avoid waiting tables rather than sitting at them.
- jhancock 17y ago
  Yeah, I think the word superiority is not the best term for what you're describing. The trouble I have with the way you present this I do not view "winning" as being a situation where others "lose". I believe I can be "better" without taking away from others. "Give more than you take" is the method I try to use.
- tokenadult 17y ago
  This is an entrepreneur-focused website Yes, so I think many participants here would consider it beneath their dignity to use the political system to gain benefits that they can gain by trading in the free market. Some people do indeed use the political system as a spoils system, but I wouldn't title someone an entrepreneur who does that.
- gjm11 17y ago
  Equivocation on the contrast between "equality" and "superiority". The goal of equality claimed by the civil rights movement -- which you say was really aiming at "superiority", which I think would be news to the white people involved at the very least -- was not that of a society in which every person ends up in exactly the same situation; it was of a society in which people don't have systematically worse opportunities because they are black or because all their ancestors were slaves or whatever. Aiming at equality in that sense is not the least bit incompatible with hoping to succeed by being clever and working hard to do something that others value. If the Racism Fairy appeared before me and told me that I could have a life that was "better as opposed to worse, above as opposed to under" by (say) stealing half the property of all the black people in the country and giving it to white people -- I happen to be white, so I'd gain rather than lose from that -- then I would turn down that offer. If the Anti-Racism Fairy appeared instead and offered to obliterate every vestige of racial prejudice, but warned that it would make white people (including me) slightly worse off, I'd say yes in a flash. And if you don't believe me because you think "kto kogo?" is the only question, then fuck you and the (doubtless white) horse you rode in on.

fatdog789 17y ago

"so that marginal black people could have those positions." In the first half of the 1900s, it was legal for government-funded schools to deny academic positions to qualified students based on race. Until the 1990s, it was legal for private institutions to bar students based on race. Affirmative action isn't about giving up the bottom 10% to unqualified minorities. It's about giving qualified candidates an opportunity they would otherwise have been denied. If the institution chooses to waste those spots on unqualified minority applicants, it's the fault of the institution and not affirmative action in general. BTW, you appear to be conflating welfare with affirmative action in #1, 2, and 3. They aren't even remotely the same thing.

billswift 17y ago
Affirmative action is a race-based form of welfare. Just as Social Security is an age-based form.