Do anti-trans activists channel other social anxieties into transphobia?

Barnardot

@Dee ;The site gets assorted academics to spout utter bull by introducing academic style language to make their nonsense appear credible

Did you get a strong sents of Deja vu when you wrote that? Well did you?

just_sayin

@Openminded
So, sure Iḿ the racist. I´ll concede for the good of humanity.

I suspect that you have not truly come to a place where you recognize the racist beliefs you have. As any good 12 step program will tell you, admitting you have a problem is the first step (I'll share the 12 steps for recovering racists in a moment for you).  Now, right now, you may just think of me as that uppity white boy who just doesn't know his place, but I am not engaging in some linguistic turn of phrase with you.  I sincerely want to make you aware of racist beliefs you hold.  When you get to steps 4 and 5 on your journey, I encourage you to reflect over these questions:

• Do you support favoring or discriminating against someone based on their race in college admissions, hiring, promotions, awarding benefits, grants, scholarships, or awarding contracts?
• Do you believe that you can know someone's intentions, implicit biases, privileges, oppressor/victim status, guilt, or fragility based on their race?
• Do you project on to others negative stereotypes if they are a particular race?  For example, do you assume if someone speaks out against racial discrimination, that you support, that they are only doing that to protect their 'white status'?  
• Do you feel it is just to show favoritism, or to discriminate against someone, in matters of justice, based on their race?  For example do you support or oppose certain laws based on how you feel they will impact certain races, rather than if the law is just or not to the individual?
• Do you feel it is OK to interpret other races or cultures traditions and symbols according to another race or cultures beliefs that you favor?  Do you feel that certain races or cultures are inferior to others and that they should be compelled to adopt the traditions, symbols, and interpretations of another superior culture or race?
• If there is an inequity in some matter, do you immediately assume that it is caused by racism, and disregard or minimize other factors that influence outcomes?

That's enough reflective questions to start with.  Here is a modified 12 steps for addressing racist beliefs:

1. We admitted we were powerless over our racist beliefs and actions — that our lives had become unmanageable.

2. Came to believe that a Power greater than ourselves could restore us to sanity.

3. Made a decision to turn our will and our lives over to the care of God as we understood Him.

4. Made a searching and fearless moral inventory of ourselves.

5. Admitted to God, to ourselves, and to another human being the exact nature of our wrongs.

6. Were entirely ready to have God remove all these defects of character.

7. Humbly asked Him to remove our shortcomings.

8. Made a list of all persons we had harmed, and became willing to make amends to them all.

9. Made direct amends to such people wherever possible, except when to do so would injure them or others.

10. Continued to take personal inventory and when we were wrong promptly admitted it.

11. Sought through prayer and meditation to improve our conscious contact with God as we understood Him, praying only for knowledge of His will for us and the power to carry that out.

12. Having had a spiritual awakening as the result of these Steps, we tried to carry this message to others who have embraced racist beliefs and actions, and to practice these principles in all our affairs.

I wish you well on your journey.  And remember that the first step is the hardest.

MichaelElpers

@Dreamer

Do you think society has gotten more or less tolerant of LGBTQ over the years?

Lets do some critical thinking?

What do you think accounts for the expenential rise in people identifying as lgtbq across generations (see link)?

Is it some evolutionary gene?  Is it societal pressures?  Has this many people always been lgbtq and now they are just starting to come out?
What do you think is the main factor

https://www.axios.com/2022/02/17/lgbtq-generation-z-gallup

Now id like you think of reasons why there may be a reported rise of hate crimes on this group other than the world is somehoe getting less progressive.
What are the factors or variables that could manipulate these stats even if they arent?

Dee

@Barnardot


15

Openminded

Argument Topic: More people voted in the last election than at any time in the history of the US.

@just_sayin @Dreamer
Dreamer warned me of some debaters here on debate island and there are a few. Dreamer is paying attention to what is happening in America and globally. She is as concerned as I am. @just_saying resorts to trickery, bullying and deceit to win because winning at all costs is the game. And so is bullying. He wants me to partake in a 12-step program for racists because I´m concerned about confederate flag flying used as a hate symbol. @just_sayin says that makes me the racist. Trump taught him well. Win, Win, Win at any expense. Lie, Lie, Lie and eventually they´ll believe you. Nothing but flimflam, hocus pocus, gaslighting B-S. A deceitful trifecta tactic used out of desperation. Ironically, one of my statements about flying the confederate flag was I do not believe it´s about preserving history and southern pride (just_sayin´s stance) but I believe the in-your-face flaunting of the confederate flag is the only way that they can reconcile something that´s lost or taken from them - they being mostly white males and their white obedient wives.  Quote from Dreamer  ´Men feeling a lose of social status already are upset. Even a small loss of status can make privileged groups feel like victims. Fascists take advantage of people's sexual anxiety. There is a lot of anti-trans hate groups.¨

Dreamer - I agree with this 100%. It´s still a man´s world. We have to show them the way.

Openminded

Argument Topic: Convinced

@MichaelElpers
No, I am not 100% convinced. I will look further into the inequity. 

just_sayin

@Openminded
Dreamer warned me of some debaters here on debate island and there are a few. Dreamer is paying attention to what is happening in America and globally. She is as concerned as I am.
@Dreamer is a girl???  I honestly did not know that.  @Dreamer, is that true?  If so, this was the biggest surprise of the day.

 @just_saying resorts to trickery, bullying and deceit to win because winning at all costs is the game. And so is bullying. He wants me to partake in a 12-step program for racists because I´m concerned about confederate flag flying used as a hate symbol. @just_sayin says that makes me the racist. Trump taught him well. Win, Win, Win at any expense. Lie, Lie, Lie and eventually they´ll believe you. Nothing but flimflam, hocus pocus, gaslighting B-S. A deceitful trifecta tactic used out of desperation. Ironically, one of my statements about flying the confederate flag was I do not believe it´s about preserving history and southern pride (just_sayin´s stance) but I believe the in-your-face flaunting of the confederate flag is the only way that they can reconcile something that´s lost or taken from them - they being mostly white males and their white obedient wives.  Quote from Dreamer  ´Men feeling a lose of social status already are upset. Even a small loss of status can make privileged groups feel like victims. Fascists take advantage of people's sexual anxiety. There is a lot of anti-trans hate groups.¨

You believe a confederate flag has only one meaning - you see it as a threat to Black people.  However, you haven't stopped to consider the meaning of that symbol to someone from the south.  To say because that symbol has a bad connotation to one group, that another group may not have their symbol or their different meaning for it, is indeed a prejudicial view.  It says one group's views are more important and take precedence, and that another group's symbols must not be viewed through the lens of their cultural intent, but must only be viewed through the group you have determined is the superior group.  That position views southerners as less than other groups, and it falsely attributes to them views and values which they do not hold.   

I suspect the underpinnings of this view come from Social Justice, where groups are all that matter, and one group must either be an oppressor or a victim.  Social justice is a perversion of true justice, because it only cares about justice for groups, and not individuals.  True justice cares about justice for each and every individual.  Because SJ is focused on groups, it rationalizes the discrimination of a member of a group it doesn't favor if it helps a group it favors.  So you have instances where SJW will say it is OK to discriminate against an Asian student in college admissions, if it helps get more Black students into the school.  This view dehumanizes the Asian students, because instead of judging them on their individual merits, it has reduced them to just an automaton of their racial group.  SJ has rationalized institutional racism.  It does this in hiring, promotions, benefits, awards, grants, and even in giving out work contracts.  Why is it fair to discriminate against a person who is more qualified, just because they are of a race you think should be 'punished'? And let's be honest, this is as much about 'punishing' some races, as it is about helping others.  If you think I'm wrong, re-read your statement above.  

I assume that in your mind, you have linked white southerners with slave owners.  That's an irrational leap.  No one today is responsible for slavery and it is unjust and racist to blame them for it.  In fact, 2/3rds of all Appalachians descendants who first came to America, were indentured servants.  They didn't own slaves, they were pretty much slaves themselves.  But the facts don't matter to those who judge individuals by what racial group they are in.  

I am sure you feel that the racism that you support is good racism.  You see it as benevolent and well-intentioned because it helps groups that you feel have been historically mistreated and disadvantaged.  The problem with well-intentioned racism though, is that it is still racism.  All racism ends up benefiting groups that are preferred and harming groups that are in disfavor. That's how racism works.  It is morally wrong to discriminate against someone because of their racial group.  The fact that you can't say 'yes, that's right', but feel the need to qualify it, to justify the racism you approve of, should be a strong personal indicator that you have embraced some racial beliefs.  

Openminded

Argument Topic: You believe a confederate flag has only one meaning - you see it as a threat to Black people.

@just_sayin
You believe a confederate flag has only one meaning - you see it as a threat to Black people.  However, you haven't stopped to consider the meaning of that symbol to someone from the south.  To say because that symbol has a bad connotation to one group, that another group may not have their symbol or their different meaning for it, is indeed a prejudicial view.  It says one group's views are more important and take precedence, and that another group's symbols must not be viewed through the lens of their cultural intent, but must only be viewed through the group you have determined is the superior group.  That position views southerners as less than other groups, and it falsely attributes to them views and values which they do not hold.   

No. I do not view the confederate flag as having one meaning only. I question and challenge your theory that the donning of the flag is southern pride and history. Why the need to fly it in your face, outside on rooftops and trucks? Southern pride? Why is it flown in the northeast and in other countries? I equate the celebratory Trump flag flying and Flock Joe Biden flag flying from rooftops and trucks with publicly flying the confederate flag. You think this is pride? It appears to be the only way ¨proud¨ flag flyers can reconcile the loss of social and economic superiority and dominance.

I suspect the underpinnings of this view come from Social Justice, where groups are all that matter, and one group must either be an oppressor or a victim.  Social justice is a perversion of true justice, because it only cares about justice for groups, and not individuals.  True justice cares about justice for each and every individual.  Because SJ is focused on groups, it rationalizes the discrimination of a member of a group it doesn't favor if it helps a group it favors.  So you have instances where SJW will say it is OK to discriminate against an Asian student in college admissions, if it helps get more Black students into the school.  This view dehumanizes the Asian students, because instead of judging them on their individual merits, it has reduced them to just an automaton of their racial group.  SJ has rationalized institutional racism.  It does this in hiring, promotions, benefits, awards, grants, and even in giving out work contracts.  Why is it fair to discriminate against a person who is more qualified, just because they are of a race you think should be 'punished'? And let's be honest, this is as much about 'punishing' some races, as it is about helping others.  If you think I'm wrong, re-read your statement above.

  

What´s up with this amorphous racist stance you take on people who try to fight for the most marginalized groups and affirmative action? The subjugation and slavery of blacks was intentional. The inadvertent discrimination of Asians that occurs because of Affirmative Action was unintentional.
More flimflam tactics. Stop already. It´s transparent.

I assume that in your mind, you have linked white southerners with slave owners.  That's an irrational leap.  No one today is responsible for slavery and it is unjust and racist to blame them for it.  In fact, 2/3rds of all Appalachians descendants who first came to America, were indentured servants.  They didn't own slaves, they were pretty much slaves themselves.  But the facts don't matter to those who judge individuals by what racial group they are in. 

 

No. I do not link white southerners with slave owners. White northerners owned slaves, blacks owned slaves.  The north, not benefiting from slave ownership as the south did (tobacco /cotton farms) - abolished slavery some 50+ years earlier than the south.  I link white southerners with the inability to let go of their past of social and economic dominance. Thus, their in-your-face confederate flag flying.

Africans were kidnapped from their continent, forced into slavery, and exploited to work under horrendous conditions on cotton and tobacco farms. 

I am sure you feel that the racism that you support is good racism.  You see it as benevolent and well-intentioned because it helps groups that you feel have been historically mistreated and disadvantaged.  The problem with well-intentioned racism though, is that it is still racism.  All racism ends up benefiting groups that are preferred and harming groups that are in disfavor. That's how racism works.  It is morally wrong to discriminate against someone because of their racial group.  The fact that you can't say 'yes, that's right', but feel the need to qualify it, to justify the racism you approve of, should be a strong personal indicator that you have embraced some racial beliefs. 

 

You do an awful good job at trying to justify racism. I FEEL blacks have been historically mistreated and disadvantaged? Blacks HAVE been historically mistreated and disadvantaged.

You are desperately trying to compare apples to oranges by comparing the cruelty and injustice of black slave ownership to the unintended consequences of affirmative action.

Just more flimflam, hocus pocus, gaslighting. The Trump Trifecta...trickery, deception, manipulation.

Congrats! You´ve successfully passed. Trump would be so proud. 

just_sayin

@Openminded
No. I do not view the confederate flag as having one meaning only. I question and challenge your theory that the donning of the flag is southern pride and history. Why the need to fly it in your face, outside on rooftops and trucks? Southern pride? Why is it flown in the northeast and in other countries? I equate the celebratory Trump flag flying and Flock Joe Biden flag flying from rooftops and trucks with publicly flying the confederate flag. You think this is pride? It appears to be the only way ¨proud¨ flag flyers can reconcile the loss of social and economic superiority and dominance.

I don't care if you personally are offended by the confederate flag and have attached negative meaning to it for yourself.  The concern is that you want to impute your meaning of the symbol on others, for whom, that flag does not have that meaning.  Why should southerners have to abandon the meaning of the confederate flag that they have, because you are uncomfortable with it?  It seems you have deemed their culture as lesser and inferior.  

 It appears to be the only way ¨proud¨ flag flyers can reconcile the loss of social and economic superiority and dominance....I link white southerners with the inability to let go of their past of social and economic dominance. Thus, their in-your-face confederate flag flying.

When have Appalachian Americans ever been on top socially and economically?  I missed that.  Appalachia is the poorest area in the US.  If that 'white privilege' SJWs talk about so much were real, then every Appalachian child would save up their pennies and go to Walmart and buy some of that stuff.  It seems you are willing to impute to Appalachian Americans a social status and economic superiority that in reality doesn't exist for them.  Why do you think that is?  Could it be that you judge them by their race, rather than considering their individual circumstances?

What´s up with this amorphous racist stance you take on people who try to fight for the most marginalized groups and affirmative action? The subjugation and slavery of blacks was intentional. The inadvertent discrimination of Asians that occurs because of Affirmative Action was unintentional. More flimflam tactics. Stop already. It´s transparent.

Your use of the word 'amorphous' reminded me of how Thomas Sowell describes  SJWs immoral rationalization of the racism they support.  He says that in the mind of an SJW, since they don't consider individuals, they have created a timeless amorphous amalgamation of something they call whiteness, which is suppose to represent all white people from all times.  The problem with this view, is that people are individuals and that is unjust to blame someone for the actions of someone else.  Yet, this is the logic SJWs have used.

You believe that the racism directed at Asians and whites is 'inadvertent discrimination'?!!!  This racism has literally been written into the laws and policies of the US for 50+ years.  If you want to point to true systemic racism - that's it.  You don't get more systemic, than literally writing racism into the laws of your country.  Harvard by its own admission admits that 50% of all Asian students rejected had higher GPAs and SAT scores than did the Blacks that were accepted.  How can you send out thousands of rejection notices and say that's 'inadvertent' ?  But I'll play along.  Let's suppose the last 50 years of Affirmative Action polices and DEI courses that teach that white people are the 'oppressors' isn't what it is.  Don't SJWs believe that even implicit biases still demonstrate racism?  That would mean that inadvertent racism is still racism.  

Blacks HAVE been historically mistreated and disadvantaged.

You are desperately trying to compare apples to oranges by comparing the cruelty and injustice of black slave ownership to the unintended consequences of affirmative action.

In actuality, you are the desperate one, trying to rationalize the racism you support.  No Black person today was a slave.  No white person today in the US owned slaves before the Civil War.  Again, you have created this amorphous timeless amalgamation of "whiteness" and rationalized discriminating against someone for something they did not do.  You have attributed 'oppressor' status to people who did not oppress, and 'victim' status to those who were not slaves to rationalize your support of racism.  I am sure you see your racism as good and holy racism.  You see it as benevolent and want to help people who are disadvantaged.  The racism comes in when you want to treat some more favorably because of their race and others less favorably based on their race.  You can help someone up, without tearing someone else down.  Your view would help rich billionaires but ignore the plight of poor Appalachian children, merely because you see those poor white children as 'oppressors'.

MayCaesar

Yaron Brook told this story (back from the 80-s, long before today's craziness) about his tenure track position application once. At his top choice university he was close to being accepted - then he gets a phone call from someone from the university he knew well, saying, "Look, you understand the situation, right? There is another applicant who is a black woman... They cannot just accept another, uh, Jewish person here: they have too many already." Took him a couple of months of waiting to receive an update: the woman rejected the position and went somewhere else - where, most likely, she had a similarly easy time getting in.

Seems as intentional to me as a male lion sticking his penis into a female lion's vagina.

Oh, for the women here who think they have it hard in life... Want to hear a screwed up fact about lions? Male lions' penises are barbed, and their insertion is extremely painful for the female lions. They are biologically conditioned to respond to this pain with ovulation. In a way, they love the pain of being raped.
Next time you are having sex with one of those "privileged human males", appreciate the fact that you do not have to scream your lungs out when having an encounter with them.

Openminded

Argument Topic: I don't care if you personally are offended by the confederate flag and have attached negative meaning to it for yourself.

@just_sayin

O: No. I do not view the confederate flag as having one meaning only. I question and challenge your theory that the donning of the flag is southern pride and history. Why the need to fly it in your face, outside on rooftops and trucks? Southern pride? Why is it flown in the northeast and in other countries? I equate the celebratory Trump flag flying and Flock Joe Biden flag flying from rooftops and trucks with publicly flying the confederate flag. You think this is pride? It appears to be the only way ¨proud¨ flag flyers can reconcile the loss of social and economic superiority and dominance.

Just: I don't care if you personally are offended by the confederate flag and have attached negative meaning to it for yourself.  The concern is that you want to impute your meaning of the symbol on others, for whom, that flag does not have that meaning.  Why should southerners have to abandon the meaning of the confederate flag that they have, because you are uncomfortable with it?  It seems you have deemed their culture as lesser and inferior.  

O: You ask: Why should southerners have to abandon flying publicly the confederate flag?
In the name of humanity I ask you this: Why should African Americans have to endure (after 150 years) those belligerent, in-your-face reminders of the heinous acts done to their descendants? Grow Up. The confederate flag flying is bullying and the continuation and perpetuation of the subjugation of African Americans. It is what ignorant people do out of resentment and inability to cope with reality. The irony is that many southerners are still living in severe poverty because they just can´t let go of their romantic past. They create their own problems. It´s time for the south to grow up and step up. Americans are down with dumbing down to the south.

O: You: It seems you deemed their culture (the confederacy) as lesser and inferior.
You don´t even see the irony in that do you?  And just who deemed their culture more superior when they owned, whipped and raped African slaves?  The question ¨What came first, the chicken or the egg?¨ comes to mind.

O: It appears to be the only way ¨proud¨ flag flyers can reconcile the loss of social and economic superiority and dominance....I link white southerners with the inability to let go of their past of social and economic dominance. Thus, their in-your-face confederate flag flying.

Just: When have Appalachian Americans ever been on top socially and economically?  I missed that.  Appalachia is the poorest area in the US.  If that 'white privilege' SJWs talk about so much were real, then every Appalachian child would save up their pennies and go to Walmart and buy some of that stuff.  It seems you are willing to impute to Appalachian Americans a social status and economic superiority that in reality doesn't exist for them.  Why do you think that is?  Could it be that you judge them by their race, rather than considering their individual circumstances?

O:  Like all states that used slaves as free labor, Appalachian states benefited economically as all the confederacy did. Because they still remain poor is another complex issue. Appalachia stretches over 10 states from New York to Alabama. I believe Appalachia´s continued poverty is likely attributed to poor education, poor healthcare, reliance on coal, and yes their inability to let go of their overly romanticized views of southern heritage and reluctance to move forward . My point is the reliance on slave ownership was the very foundation of the southern economy and social standing. Hence, after the confederacy loss, as an apparent means to cope with and reconcile the past, they fly their confederate flags in resentment. This somehow supercedes the rights of African Americans to live freely? This flag is a constant reminder to all in the south that the confederacy lives on, that their pride in slave ownership and southern heritage somehow justifies the lynchings, the whippings, the subjugation of African Americans. Grow up.

It´s time to face the fact that the evils started with slave ownership.

O: What´s up with this amorphous racist stance you take on people who try to fight for the most marginalized groups and affirmative action? The subjugation and slavery of blacks was intentional. The inadvertent discrimination of Asians that occurs because of Affirmative Action was unintentional. More flimflam tactics. Stop already. It´s transparent.

Just: Your use of the word 'amorphous' reminded me of how Thomas Sowell describes  SJWs immoral rationalization of the racism they support.  He says that in the mind of an SJW, since they don't consider individuals, they have created a timeless amorphous amalgamation of something they call whiteness, which is suppose to represent all white people from all times.  The problem with this view, is that people are individuals and that is unjust to blame someone for the actions of someone else.  Yet, this is the logic SJWs have used. 

O: Tucker Carlson and Fox News much? Amorphous. A made up, unclear and unorganized thing. Ya know like how drag queen readings to children is harming our children. Made up problems.

Just: You believe that the racism directed at Asians and whites is 'inadvertent discrimination'?!!!  This racism has literally been written into the laws and policies of the US for 50+ years.  If you want to point to true systemic racism - that's it.  You don't get more systemic, than literally writing racism into the laws of your country.  Harvard by its own admission admits that 50% of all Asian students rejected had higher GPAs and SAT scores than did the Blacks that were accepted.  How can you send out thousands of rejection notices and say that's 'inadvertent' ?  But I'll play along.  Let's suppose the last 50 years of Affirmative Action polices and DEI courses that teach that white people are the 'oppressors' isn't what it is.  Don't SJWs believe that even implicit biases still demonstrate racism?  That would mean that inadvertent racism is still racism.  

O: Somehow your concern for Asians seems quite disingenuous.

O: Blacks HAVE been historically mistreated and disadvantaged.

You are desperately trying to compare apples to oranges by comparing the cruelty and injustice of black slave ownership to the unintended consequences of affirmative action.

Just:  In actuality, you are the desperate one, trying to rationalize the racism you support.  No Black person today was a slave.  No white person today in the US owned slaves before the Civil War.  Again, you have created this amorphous timeless amalgamation of "whiteness" and rationalized discriminating against someone for something they did not do.  You have attributed 'oppressor' status to people who did not oppress, and 'victim' status to those who were not slaves to rationalize your support of racism.  I am sure you see your racism as good and holy racism.  You see it as benevolent and want to help people who are disadvantaged.  The racism comes in when you want to treat some more favorably because of their race and others less favorably based on their race.  You can help someone up, without tearing someone else down.  Your view would help rich billionaires but ignore the plight of poor Appalachian children, merely because you see those poor white children as 'oppressors'

O: .DING DING DING DING DING DING DING

Enter Flimflam, hocus pocus, gaslighting B-S. The Trump Trifecta!

Or possibly too much Fox news? Reverse racism? Tucker Carlson? hahahahahaha

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

"You are desperately trying to compare apples to oranges by comparing the cruelty and injustice of black slave ownership to the unintended consequences of affirmative action."

The consequences of slavery are harsher but they are both simarly racist.  Both were policies and actions performed based on the color of ones skin. That is racism.

Openminded

Argument Topic: Oh, for the women here who think they have it hard in life...

@MayCaesar

Could you and Just_sayin be in cahoots? Is the slow stripping away of your white male clear advantage making you squirm? How sad for you; I´m quite sure this bitter indignation and hostility is threatening to most women. They may even feel subjugated; itś likely the possibility of intimate relations are slim to none. I´m always willing to lift up the marginalized so I will offer some help. When you find yourself with a strong urge to release T buildup, and craving the touch of a gentle, soft, voluptuous female body - and no prospects anymore - sometimes employing the use of imagery can help. Picture the spotted female hyena. She is often much heavier than the male, with a hunched back and has highly masculinized outer genitalia. She has a pseudo-scrotum and a pseudo-penis if you will - an impressive eight inches. This pseudo junk serves has a purpose for her. It acts as an ¨anti-rape¨ device!  She often chews off the nuts of a dominant lion to assert her self respect. If you still feel the urge after all that, just embrace the image of her drooling grin accompanied by a hideous laugh. Voila. Limp .

One more thing. Always remember that the female hyena usually occupies the highest position in society as she always enjoys the greatest social support.o:)

MayCaesar

Openminded said:

@MayCaesar

Could you and Just_sayin be in cahoots? Is the slow stripping away of your white male clear advantage making you squirm? How sad for you; I´m quite sure this bitter indignation and hostility is threatening to most women. They may even feel subjugated; itś likely the possibility of intimate relations are slim to none. I´m always willing to lift up the marginalized so I will offer some help. When you find yourself with a strong urge to release T buildup, and craving the touch of a gentle, soft, voluptuous female body - and no prospects anymore - sometimes employing the use of imagery can help. Picture the spotted female hyena. She is often much heavier than the male, with a hunched back and has highly masculinized outer genitalia. She has a pseudo-scrotum and a pseudo-penis if you will - an impressive eight inches. This pseudo junk serves has a purpose for her. It acts as an ¨anti-rape¨ device!  She often chews off the nuts of a dominant lion to assert her self respect. If you still feel the urge after all that, just embrace the image of her drooling grin accompanied by a hideous laugh. Voila. Limp .

One more thing. Always remember that the female hyena usually occupies the highest position in society as she always enjoys the greatest social support.o:)

Thanks for the help, but I only take romantic advice from gentlemen and ladies. Hyenas are free to go steal actual predators' kills and exercise their sexual fantasies with the corpses; I am quite open-minded and do not judge necrophiles. But taking romantic advice from them is kind of like jumping into a sewer before a date: it will get you liked by another trashy hyena, but an actual lady will be quite disgusted.

Do not worry if this does not sound relatable: we, after all, socialize with different creatures. Ladies and gentlemen are quite different from female and male beasts, in my estimation. Disentanglement of sex from love does not quite apply to the former. You do not have to pity me for never learning what it is like to have sex with someone I do not love: I will do just fine without. And I think I will also pass on the BDSM stuff, although, again, no judgement of those who are into that.

Openminded

@MichaelElpers
Using Affirmative Action as the basis of racism, who is the racist or who is the group being discriminated against?

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

The people putting in place affirmative action are the racists.
They are discriminating based on race. Any group not being propped up is being discriminated against as they are being passed over not based on merit but with race as a given factor.

Let me ask you.  Would you find it racist if institutions with giving a leg up to whites?  If so it equally racist to do it for anyone else no matter if they are a minority.  It is race discrimination.

Im fine woth trying to give scholarships to disadvantaged just leave the color of their skin out of it.

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;I missed that.

Seems to be your favorite saying lately and like what are you talking about. Especially when your been told about your persistent lieing. You did not miss that at all you lier. You just do not want to accept a descent concept of what socially on top is.

Openminded

Argument Topic: The people putting in place affirmative action are the racists.

@MichaelElpers @Just-sayin @MayCaesar

Saying Affirmative Action is racist is like saying giving medical aid to the most seriously injured first without offering it to everyone equally is racist.

So let me get this straight. You´re saying that John F. Kennedy was racist because he used an executive order in 1961 requiring government contractors to treat blacks equally by ensuring that blacks were not discriminated against when applying for employment? JFK was a racist because he wanted citizens treated equally without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin? JFK was racist because he wanted to provide blacks an easier assimilation meant to benefit all of America?

Look, Affirmative Action was voted out by the Supreme Court this year. What´s up with this reverse racist talk?  Is this reverse racist B-S something that right-wing media has been pushing? Is this some kind of white male conspiracy theory pumped by Fox News and other extremist news? I´ve found on this site there are a multitude of privileged, seemingly white males who are resentful because their privileges are not the same as they were decades ago. It is so odd that ya´ll continue to vent your resentments even after AA was voted down. But you cynical men are hellbent on making people pay for your racist views it seems. Enough of your B-S reverse racist theories. Stop sensationalizing this. Oh, but that´s what excessive right wing media wants you to do. Outrage you. Anger you. Incite you. Empower you. And Voila - the angry white male.

Obviously this was put in place during tumultuous times in America and before the Civil Rights Act in 1964. Do you think that blacks weren´t worthy of being lifted up and helped after 250 years of subjugation? Now, I believe with all things, some policies put in place start out well intentioned but as society changes, so do these humane policies and the need to readdress them occurs. The pendulum tends to swing too far one way. It went from well intended to off track to unfair after decades of use. 

Saying Affirmative Action is racist is like saying giving medical aid to the most seriously injured first without offering it to everyone equally is racist.

Let me ask you all. Do you believe in helping the most marginalized? Yes or No. 

May you all find peace in your hearts.

MayCaesar

@Openminded

I am not a "white male", I am very happy with my life and rarely angry, I do not consume right-wing media, and I have spoken in favor of gender equality and rights of homosexual and transgender people before Islamic fanatics in places you would not last a day. The emotion I am experiencing here is "disgust", by your misanthropic assumptions about people you know nothing about. Literally all you have known about me so far is that I am originally from Russia and that I do not think that flying the Confederate flag implies expressing racist ideas. 

Sam Harris talked about people like you as someone who you can ask for an opinion on something, and then immediately know their opinions on everything. They have not developed the ability to think, and they see the world in two colors - the moment they see a shade of one color in someone, they immediately assume that the person is fully colored in that. I have not even used the term "reverse racism" (I do not think there is such a thing: there is just racism), but someone else did and you lumped me in with them and even responded to both of us at the same time. Me and @Just-sayin disagree on a large variety of things, including this one. But such nuance is beyond your unexercised mind.

I will respond to your question: I help those who I feel like helping. I cannot always consciously explain why I help a particular person. What I do not do is help the most marginalized, and I do not even know who that would be. Homeless people are probably much more marginalized than any of the college applicants your Affirmative Action helps - but does that bother you? Would you like the policies favoring "black" college applicants to be scrapped in favor of accepting homeless people? Or do race and gender in your eyes trump all other considerations? Perhaps you see a white homeless man as more privileged than a black billionaire woman?

Openminded

Argument Topic: I am not a "white male", I am very happy with my life and rarely angry, I

@MayCaesar
I apologize for lumping you into this argument.
But honestly, you last extremely disturbing post to me sounded quite misogynistic. I believe most would make that assessment.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

Ill note you didnt answer my question.

Next your comparisons arent equivalent to AA. 
AA would be equivalent to giving medical aid to minority groups due to there minority status/race even if others were more injured or were more deserving.
This is the AA medical scenario in practice.
Severly injured Asian person walks up to the hospital and the hospital tells him "Sorry weve met our male asian quota, youll have to wait while we help this less injured black woman because weve deemed her more marginalized"

Its actually pretty incredible, you and people who advocate for AA and diversity quotas are playing a gigantic racial stereotype: A person is automatically less privledged or less well off if they are black.

I have no problem with equal.  This is why in my previous post I said I have no problem giving opportunites to disadvantaged.  I just believe theres no difference between a white, asian, or black disadvantaged person.  If you do then you by definition are racist.

Do you believe in helping the marginalized? Yes,
IMO, just sayin is doing exactly that by pointing racist policies discriminating against Asians.
Marginalized means treated as insignificant or peripheral.  

So let me ask you who is being marginalized?  The individuals being discarded because their race has met a collectivist quota or the group being propped up by it?

Lastly please stop your underhanded accusations and asusmptions that we as white men are just some type of supremacist trying to hold onto power. This being socially applauded is precisely what shows a group being marginalized.  Youre a white man has no bearing on this argument unless you are a racist.
You want to talk about Trump and why we are a divided country. Look in the mirror. The division is rooted in assumption from both sides that the other has nefarious intentions.

You want to know my intentions?  AA may be voted down, but as long as people still agree with the sentiment and diversity quotas involve race we are always going to be a racist society with racial divisions.  Ill attempt to root those attitudes out as well as any overtly white supremacist attitudes. 99% of people think white supremacists are scum of society while your attitudes are societally accepted.
I think you are indeed trying to help the marginalized, I just think you should look at the specific individual case and leave race out of it.

MayCaesar

Openminded said:

@MayCaesar
I apologize for lumping you into this argument.
But honestly, you last extremely disturbing post to me sounded quite misogynistic. I believe most would make that assessment.

No, I was expressing my respect for gentlemen and ladies, and my disrespect for those who are neither - in response to your aggressive comment. Unlike, I presume, you, my level of respect for someone is completely independent of their gender, or race. I do not talk trash about "angry white men" or "obedient white wives", and for that matter I consider any reference to someone's race to be completely inappropriate in a civilized conversation. Me using your race or gender as a way to make a statement would be like you responding to my arguments with, "But your penis is small, so what is your opinion worth?"

MichaelElpers

@MayCaesar

Screw those racist white males for not supporting AA.

My argument was just disparaging you because I thought you were a white male.
My bad I shouldnt have lumped you in with that filth.

Now that i know your not white, your argument holds weight.

just_sayin

Barnardot said:

@just_sayin ;I missed that.

Seems to be your favorite saying lately and like what are you talking about. Especially when your been told about your persistent lieing. You did not miss that at all you lier. You just do not want to accept a descent concept of what socially on top is.

Bernie, have you come to collect the Barnardot tax?  To bad you are focused on grievances that only you remember.  Wish you a happy new year.  May you chicken dance your way through every day of it.

  

MayCaesar

MichaelElpers said:

@MayCaesar

Screw those racist white males for not supporting AA.

My argument was just disparaging you because I thought you were a white male.
My bad I shouldnt have lumped you in with that filth.

Now that i know your not white, your argument holds weight.

It is this, or "you are not true [your group]". Remember the conversation between Douglas Murray and James Barr on Piers Morgan's show?
James: "You are both straight white cisgendered men; of course you would say that."
Douglas: "Actually, I have been gay my whole adult life."
James: "Oh, then you are a shame to the queer community."

Openminded

@MayCaesar

And I call B-S on your response.  It was atrociously misogynistic. But we´ll never know will we? We have some ugly people on this site.

For you to read over in case you have a conscience: 

MayCaesar wrote:
Seems as intentional to me as a male lion sticking his penis into a female lion's vagina.

Oh, for the women here who think they have it hard in life... Want to hear a screwed up fact about lions? Male lions' penises are barbed, and their insertion is extremely painful for the female lions. They are biologically conditioned to respond to this pain with ovulation. In a way, they love the pain of being raped.
Next time you are having sex with one of those "privileged human males", appreciate the fact that you do not have to scream your lungs out when having an encounter with them. 

Oh poor you. In fact, misogyny is alive and kicking isn´t it? It must be hard being a man.

MayCaesar

@Openminded

Misogyny is defined as "the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls". Point out what in the quoted passage constitutes expression of thereof, or F right off.

Openminded

Argument Topic: The people putting in place affirmative action are the racists.

@MichaelElpers

The people putting in place affirmative action are the racists.
They are discriminating based on race. Any group not being propped up is being discriminated against as they are being passed over not based on merit but with race as a given factor.

Here I am again as I find myself pondering your last post which is your continued assertion of calling empathy for the marginalized a racist policy.

Im fine woth trying to give scholarships to disadvantaged just leave the color of their skin out of it.

This assertion is what stumped me. I believe what you are effectively saying is that African Americans are given unfair advantages that Asians and other races are not given because of the color of their black skin. Whatś curious and alarming? You identify the advantages blacks are given due only to their skin color and are seemingly in denial that blacks are -  and have been historically marginalized and disadvantaged. I question your vehement resolve to villainize AA as racist and wonder if in fact you hold your own deeply held racist views against blacks. Perhaps this is what troubles you?

Let me ask you.  Would you find it racist if institutions with giving a leg up to whites?  If so it equally racist to do it for anyone else no matter if they are a minority.  It is race discrimination.

No I would not find it racist if disadvantaged and marginalized whites were given help and support if needed. Just as America celebrates the inclusion and equity of all races, whites are among them. Whites will soon be in the minority in America. If a new AA policy to address issues of the marginalized whites is needed, I welcome this 100%. Period. However, it may be a shorter-lived policy, as whites have not been historically marginalized and may need a temporary lift to level the playing fields.

Sure wish ya´ll would stop trying to seemingly reconcile your own racism by demonizing and oversimplifying good intention?  Is ¨Critical Race Theory¨  behind all this strife?

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

You call it empathy because you believe by the color of their skin they are automatically marginalized someone else. Additionally that inevitably leads to people being passed over because of the color of their skin.  Both are definitionally racist.
For some reason many liberals often feel their racism is just if they deem it to help a group they deem to be marginalized.  I think racism is always unjust.

No, im not in denial over historical discrimination.  How long would we have to provide advantages to pay for it?
My point is no matter what the color of their skin, disadvantages can be measured and handed out to people outside of their skin color.
A white kid living in squalor with meth addict parents doesnt have it better off than a black child.  Just leave color of skin out of it.
If you think blacks have more disadvantaged people and therefore theyd benefit more from helping disadvantaged so be it. No reason to look at the color of skin.

Your accusation that i may have deep racist beliefs holds no weight as ypu cannot point out anything that ive said as racist. You like to make a lot of negative inferences of people you disagree with that doesnt follow a logical premises based off their arguments.
Im actually the one trying to remove color of skin as a factor.

Openminded

Argument Topic: You call it empathy because you believe by the color of their skin they are automatically marginalized someone else. Additionally that inevitably leads to people being passed over because of the color of their skin. Both are definitionally racist.

@MichaelElpers

You call it empathy because you believe by the color of their skin they are automatically marginalized someone else. Additionally that inevitably leads to people being passed over because of the color of their skin.  Both are definitionally racist.

No. Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another. Having empathy for the marginalized is understanding the historic history behind their disadvantage. What is the historic disadvantage of blacks? Hundreds of years of dehumanizing, subjugation and slavery. This can be compared to Legacy admissions where historic wealth is passed on from generation to generation.

Additionally that inevitably leads to people being passed over because of the color of their skin.  Both are definitionally racist.

For some reason many liberals often feel their racism is just if they deem it to help a group they deem to be marginalized.  I think racism is always unjust.

No, im not in denial over historical discrimination.  How long would we have to provide advantages to pay for it?

Again, Affirmative Action, in its intent to lift one group of marginalized to level the playing fields for inclusiveness and equity, inadvertently caused other marginalized groups to be overlooked. And we are no longer enforcing the policy of Affirmative Action.

My point is no matter what the color of their skin, disadvantages can be measured and handed out to people outside of their skin color.

Again, African Americans´ disadvantage was hundreds of years of subjugation and NOT the color of their skin.

A white kid living in squalor with meth addict parents doesnt have it better off than a black child.  Just leave color of skin out of it.
If you think blacks have more disadvantaged people and therefore theyd benefit more from helping disadvantaged so be it. No reason to look at the color of skin.

Of course a white child living in poverty due to their parents´ choices is not their fault and they also should be lifted up, helped and understood.This is not empathy due to their skin color. This is empathy due to their circumstance.

Your accusation that i may have deep racist beliefs holds no weight as ypu cannot point out anything that ive said as racist. You like to make a lot of negative inferences of people you disagree with that doesnt follow a logical premises based off their arguments.
Im actually the one trying to remove color of skin as a factor.

Just as your accusation that AA was a deeply racist policy holds no weight as you cannot point out anything that was done because of racism and skin color.

We are debating remember? To make negative inferences is a two-way street. 

And you are actually the one unable to let go of your theory that AA was put in place because of black skin.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

America was created in 1776 so in America it was not hundreds of years of slavery in America.
I think we all understand what the intent is, regardless it is racist and a dumb way to evaluate disadvantage.

Why not evaluate disadvantes based on objective measures and not just color of skin?
Why not evaluate everyone based on individual circumstance and not the color of their skin?

Actually absolutely can and have shown that AA is racist not only by policy but also in practice. And i never said it was put in place because of black skin.
By definition:
AA evaluates disadvantage primarily by evaluating differences in equity  among races (color of skin).  It doesnt look at individual circumstance or other objevtive measures of disadvantage.  Even if a black student lived well off with a good education they would still consider that student in AA.  Because they are primarily looking at color of skin.

In practice:
Colleges have admitted to raising scores and admittance of black students while lowering those of asian students.  Are they looking at individual circumstances? No they are basing off race.

Asians have also had some historical disadvantages in America but their scores are being lowered because diversity to a liberal is based on race and sex.  Why are Asian admittance and scores being lowered?  Have they has no historical disadvantages?

Now im still waiting on the racist ideals that I supposedly hold?

MayCaesar

@MichaelElpers

It goes like this on the West these days...

- You are in favor of racial discrimination in order to remedy historical injustices? You are an anti-racist.
- You are in favor of treating people as individuals and not paying any heed to the color of their skin? You are a racist.

If the shade of your skin is similar to the shade of the skin of someone who was discriminated against 200 years ago, then not giving any privileges to you is racist. And if the shade of your skin is similar to shade of the skin of someone who enslaved someone else 200 years ago, then you are supposed to quietly hand your goodies over.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Minors with Gender Dysphoria have other mental health disorders also

According to Puberty Blockers and Suicidality in Adolescents Suffering from Gender Dysphoria  showed that following genital surgery, transgender patients were 4.9 times more likely to attempt suicide and 19.1 times more likely to have died from suicide, after adjusting for the presence of psychiatric comorbidities.

A study shows that a majority of minors diagnosed with gender dysphoria were previously diagnosed with other mental health disorders:

A systematic review of adolescents experiencing gender dysphoria (aged 12–18) (Thompson et al., 2022) demonstrated that comorbid mental health issues were present in 22–78%. Specifically, the prevalence of mood disorders ranged from 30 to 78%, anxiety disorders from 21 to 63%, and suicidal ideation from 12 to 74%.

Openminded

Argument Topic: America was created in 1776 so in America it was not hundreds of years of slavery in America.

@MichaelElpers

@MichaelElpers

America was created in 1776 so in America it was not hundreds of years of slavery in America.

Actually African Americans were already enslaved when they arrived in 1619. Interesting you believe that this statement was crucial to the debate as even 248 years of slavery should have proven historic subjugation. Let´s not forget also the trans-Atlantic slave trade that began in the 1500s and continued through the 1800s. 400,00 of 12 million enslaved were sent to America. 

I think we all understand what the intent is, regardless it is racist and a dumb way to evaluate disadvantage.

Hopefully you understand that the intent was to ensure that all Americans have equal opportunity in education and employment to benefit society as a whole. If it was a ¨dumb¨ way to evaluate disadvantage just how would you go about ensuring this? Perhaps you should offer your expertise in this field.

Why not evaluate disadvantes based on objective measures and not just color of skin?

It would be hard to fairly measure objectively a DESCENDENT of a historically subjugated and enslaved race. Subjugation means TO BE KEPT DOWN. That is precisely the African Americans´ history, generations of subjugation, and precisely what Affirmative Action was put in place for - to fight for equal rights in America - equal opportunity, justice and equity. E pluribus unum. Out of many-one. That is America. For one to be objectively measured means the measured must be on level playing fields to begin with. The fairly measured must have been offered equal opportunity as a chance to prove themselves in order to be measured fairly. Colin Kapernick comes to mind. Kneeling during the anthem, peacefully and in silence, in a long endured grief, humbly protesting the unjust death of George Floyd. And fearing Floyd´s death would go unnoticed as thousands of others had. But mostly in fear that his death was yet another reminder of HIS subjugation.  How was he objectively measured? He was ousted from the NFL despite remaining in top playing shape and possessing the talent needed. Despite his merits - that very objective measurement you´re talking about because he took a knee that insulted the morally superior.

Why not evaluate everyone based on individual circumstance and not the color of their skin?

See above, And yes racism occurs in America against all races. Your insistence is misguided. As if this is something nefarious and that the Asian Americans are being discriminated against and subjugated. Please read the attached.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc

Actually absolutely can and have shown that AA is racist not only by policy but also in practice. And i never said it was put in place because of black skin.

I believe it was inferred.

By definition:
AA evaluates disadvantage primarily by evaluating differences in equity  among races (color of skin).  It doesnt look at individual circumstance or other objevtive measures of disadvantage.  

Even if a black student lived well off with a good education they would still consider that student in AA.  Because they are primarily looking at color of skin.

I believe this is untrue. I´ll need to look into this.

In practice:
Colleges have admitted to raising scores and admittance of black students while lowering those of asian students.  Are they looking at individual circumstances? No they are basing off race.

While colleges may consider race as a factor in admissions, typically they aim to create a diverse student body considering a more broad view that benefits society such as academic performance, extracurricular activities, personal background, socioeconomic status and other elements. It´s complex.

Asians have also had some historical disadvantages in America but their scores are being lowered because diversity to a liberal is based on race and sex.  Why are Asian admittance and scores being lowered?  Have they has no historical disadvantages?

I believe right wing extremist TV and social media has perhaps incited fear and anger in millions of Americans. Right extremists news tend sto sensationalize, exaggerate and even create amorphous problems (drag queen readings) and turn them into something nefarious. Again, please see attached article.

Now im still waiting on the racist ideals that I supposedly hold?

Ditto.

https://www.npr.org/2023/07/02/1183981097/affirmative-action-asian-americans-poc

Openminded

Argument Topic: It goes like this on the West these days...

@MayCaesar
In the West we call this flimflam.

Openminded

Argument Topic: And i never said it was put in place because of black skin.

@MichaelElpers

Michael_Elpers said:

Actually absolutely can and have shown that AA is racist not only by policy but also in practice. And i never said it was put in place because of black skin.

Really Michael Elpers?

Michael: Its actually pretty incredible, you and people who advocate for AA and diversity quotas are playing a gigantic racial stereotype: A person is automatically less privledged or less well of  if they are black.

Michael: Im fine woth trying to give scholarships to disadvantaged just leave the color of their skin out of it.

Michael: Im actually the one trying to remove color of skin as a factor

Michael: If you think blacks have more disadvantaged people and therefore theyd benefit more from helping disadvantaged so be it. No reason to look at the color of skin.

Openminded says:

For somebody who wants the color of their skin to not be an issue, you sure have a hard time letting the color of their skin go.  Again, you identify the advantages Affirmative Action gives blacks due to their skin color. You refuse to acknowledge that their advantage and help given was due to their historic subjugation.

And then shamefully pit Asian Americans against African Americans.
I do believe we have a real live racist here on this site. 

I don´t believe he resides in America thankfully. 

Barnardot

@just_sayin ; A study shows that a majority of minors diagnosed

A study as you call it says totally nothing of the sort does it? No it doesnt. In fact it says:

To date, there is scant literature comparing the mental health

Doesnt it? And it studied patients from one clinic who all ready had issues. Doesnt it?

And I suspect that proberly all trans gender people have issues any way because bully boy religious cranks go round dicktating to them how bad they are dont you think?

If they are treated with respect like most civilized people do then they wouldnt have any psycho issues any way and they are treated the same way as people with an over bite or cleft pallet. 

And of the people that do get the operation have you ever bothered to do the research to find out weather these people would be even worse if they didnt have the operation?

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

I dont agree with legacy admissions.

"If it was a ¨dumb¨ way to evaluate disadvantage just how would you go about ensuring this? Perhaps you should offer your expertise in this field."

I have. Look into disadvantages like available education, 1 parent household, income level, ect.

Kapernick was kneeling in 2016. he wasnt in the league when for george floyd died.  
How was he objectively measured? No idea, at the time he wasnt playing particularly well and no one wanted the team distraction he was creating for a backup qb, not to mention the money he may have been asking for. Other players knelt and were not let go. If patrick mahomes knelt today you think the chiefs are letting him walk? The majority of the NFL is made of black players.Try again.

Asian Americans were being discriminated against as documented in a book and as evidence the supreme court shutdown race based affirmative action.

"Their research demonstrated that, when controlling for other variables, Asian students faced considerable odds against their admission.

To be admitted to elite colleges, Asians needed SAT scores 140 points higher than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points higher than blacks.

An Asian applicant with an SAT score of 1500 (out of a possible 1600 on the old SAT) had the same chance of being admitted as a white student with a 1360 score, a Latino with a 1230, and a black student with a 1050 score.

Another way of looking at it is that among applicants who had the highest SAT scores (within the 1400-1600 range), 77 percent of blacks were admitted, 48 percent of Hispanics, 40 percent of whites, and only 30 percent of Asians"

Lastly its quite appaulling you believe you are demonstrating my racism by boldening quotes stating "leave skin color out of it".
That couldnt be more of an oxymoron.

Repeating myself for the last time Ive demonstrated your and AAs racist beliefs multiple times.

1. AA uses race as a primary factor to measure discrimination and diversity. What do you call when you treat people differently based on race?  Definitionally Racist.
The supreme court even ruled against "race base admissions".

2.  You have used peoples "whiteness" as a reason to dismiss their arguments multiple times.  You even had to apologize to May after he clarified he was not white suddenly given more credence to his arguments. Your reasons to dismiss were based on race. Definitionally Racist.

Jews have been historically discriminated and subjugated and Asians were put into internment camps even after slavery had ended.  Why are they not benefitting from AA?

Openminded

Argument Topic: I dont agree with legacy admissions.

@MichaelElpers

I dont agree with legacy admissions.

Would be interesting to research just how many unfair legacy admissions America distributes. I do believe this will be on the chopping block next. And with good reason.

"If it was a ¨dumb¨ way to evaluate disadvantage just how would you go about ensuring this? Perhaps you should offer your expertise in this field."

I have. Look into disadvantages like available education, 1 parent household, income level, ect.

Respectfully, this was not your offering. This is exactly what Affirmative Action was put in place to do. To consider the candidate be given an advantage to level the playing fields and ensure equity and benefits to America based on circumstances like poverty, one parent households, athletic ability, leadership skills, moral accomplishments, etc.

Kapernick was kneeling in 2016. he wasnt in the league when for george floyd died.  
How was he objectively measured? No idea, at the time he wasnt playing particularly well and no one wanted the team distraction he was creating for a backup qb, not to mention the money he may have been asking for. Other players knelt and were not let go. If patrick mahomes knelt today you think the chiefs are letting him walk? The majority of the NFL is made of black players.Try again.

I believe you´re correct. If Mahomes took a knee during the anthem, they would not dismiss him. If it were a player less valuable ($$$$$) - not sure.

I was unaware of the timeline on this. Nevertheless, that he peacefully and humbly protested Floyd´s death and was let go because of taking a knee did in fact raise eyebrows for many and shed more light on the injustice against blacks. The outcome however was favorable as many in the NFL, blacks, whites, began to peacefully and humbly protest by taking a knee.

Asian Americans were being discriminated against as documented in a book and as evidence the supreme court shutdown race based affirmative action.

Did you read the NPR article link I sent? It is interesting and explains that the practice of pitting Asian Americans against Blacks was used to reconcile that blacks are the most historically discriminated against. I believe this practice of pitting one against the other was in fact race-based. This is much like abortion opponents pitting the unborn against the mother to justify their illogical judgment. Please provide text on the discrimination of Asians that was  ¨documented in a book¨.

https://www.npr.org/2023/06/29/1181138066/affirmative-action-supreme-court-decision

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2023/apr/13/affirmative-action-asian-americans-us-universities

¨Their research demonstrated that, when controlling for other variables, Asian students faced considerable odds against their admission.

Would be interested in seeing this research. Can you provide a credible, unbiased source for this?

To be admitted to elite colleges, Asians needed SAT scores 140 points higher than whites, 270 points higher than Hispanics, and 450 points higher than blacks.

An Asian applicant with an SAT score of 1500 (out of a possible 1600 on the old SAT) had the same chance of being admitted as a white student with a 1360 score, a Latino with a 1230, and a black student with a 1050 score.

After researching, this is in fact true in some instances and in some universities but appears to be a 15 year-old study. 100% equity is an unreasonable goal for any policy expectation. I did read that on average Asian applicants were in fact faced with higher score expectations compared to other ethnic groups. However, its important to understand that statistics on this vary from college to college and it was not universal and not based solely on scores. The admission process is complex and various other factors are considered such as extracurricular activities, submitted essays, personal recommendations and the applicant´s background and history - not to mention legal regulations, court rulings and other initiatives considered to promote diversity and equity.

Another way of looking at it is that among applicants who had the highest SAT scores (within the 1400-1600 range), 77 percent of blacks were admitted, 48 percent of Hispanics, 40 percent of whites, and only 30 percent of Asians"

I believe your stats above were based on a 2009 study by Princeton University and just one study made 15 years ago. But worth looking into more.

Lastly its quite appaulling you believe you are demonstrating my racism by boldening quotes stating "leave skin color out of it".
That couldnt be more of an oxymoron.

Several times you mentioned skin color loudly and clearly. I reread your previous posts and I do believe you equate race and skin color as one and the same regarding African Americans. While they are certainly related, they are not equal. Race is a social/cultural construct that includes many factors like physical attributes (yes, skin, hair, facial features), but also ancestry, nationality and one´s cultural heritage. Skin color is one aspect of racial difference and identification. You tend to oversimplify and over identify with the practice of AA due solely on the apparent black skin and overlook the other more complex issues involved.

Repeating myself for the last time Ive demonstrated your and AAs racist beliefs multiple times.

And the above statement is a glaring discomfort of your own. You, in fact, appear unable to reconcile your very own racist beliefs and fears.

1. AA uses race as a primary factor to measure discrimination and diversity. What do you call when you treat people differently based on race?  Definitionally Racist.

This is progress on your part. You admit it is due to race and not skin color here. And again, the policy was meant to build equity, opportunity and a more diverse society and justice for all - not as a racist policy. As all policies tend, the pendulum tends to swing too far in the opposite direction and needs to be readdressed. It was, and it is no longer a policy.

The supreme court even ruled against "race base admissions".

Yes they have. I fear that the advantages and benefits of a diverse society in America will be lost. 

2.  You have used peoples "whiteness" as a reason to dismiss their arguments multiple times.  You even had to apologize to May after he clarified he was not white suddenly given more credence to his arguments. Your reasons to dismiss were based on race. Definitionally Racist. 

I´m not understanding your assertion that I use ¨whiteness" as a reason to dismiss other arguments. This in fact sounds like fear and paranoia and even sounds as if you believe your whiteness is under threat?  Can you expand on this? 

My apology to May was because I lumped him in with Just-sayin. Their debate style, intelligence, prudence and decency are definitely not the same at all - that was the reason for my apology.

Jews have been historically discriminated and subjugated and Asians were put into internment camps even after slavery had ended.  Why are they not benefitting from AA? 

I am sure that Jews and Asians have in fact benefited from AA.

I have learned much and admittedly I did not understand the unintended inequities against Asians and other races while implementing AA.I still maintain that it was a policy meant to benefit America initially and not a racist policy. The policy of Affirmative Action is no longer a thing. My debate with you is based on your assertion that Affirmative Action was a racist policy, proponents of AA are racist, and I am a racist. It does appear that African Americans in the end perhaps benefited more from the policy. Could it be that they in fact needed the most? However, it is a complex issue. 

Respectfully, it seems you present an inability to acknowledge some possible issues with race and skin color and the admittance that African Americans possess an historic history of subjugation. Do you feel your whiteness is threatened? 

MichaelElpers

@Openminded ;

That has been my offering.  My  problem with AA is that it considers race as one of its primary factors. Other problem is as you stated these liberal value often look for equal equity not opportunity. One provides equal  opportunity and bases in meritocracy while equity solely seeks to have equal representation discarding meritocracy primarily basing representation in racial diversity.

You can call out that race and skin color are different and while they are, skin color by far the most common  distinguishment as well as historical distinguishment.  When they ask your race they even denote by "White" and "Black".
We didnt pit Asians against Blacks.  AA was doing that by using race as a primary factor for admissions.

I dont know what you mean by is my whiteness threatened? My white skin provides no source of prideful or negative identity to myself. Its solely the reflection of light off my skin that people can identify on the color spectrum.
Certainly I can see patterns of white racism that are socially acceptable in todays society.  Id call them out just like id call out any other form of racism.

just_sayin

Today a trans student entered an Iowa public school and shot and killed a 6th grader and injured 5 others.  To many leftists have been more concerned about pushing a political agenda than acknowledging that over 50 percent of minors who identify as trans had diagnosed mental health issues before their gender dysphoria diagnosis.  

Researchers at UW Medicine found that the use of puberty blockers and hormones didn’t improve the mental health of trans-identified teens, but published a study claiming they did. Internal emails reveal that when the researchers were caught, officials at UW Medicine and Seattle Children’s Hospital advised each other against correcting the misinformation they put out.

“Thanks to the science journalists Jesse Singal and Jason Rantz, we now have confirmation that the UW knew that the study did not in fact find any causality but covered up this inconvenient fact due to the warm glow of positive media coverage,” said Sapir.

A dirty secret is that there are few long term studies on minors who get 'gender affirming care'.  Some studies are only for a few months and often limit the range of questions to get the response they want.  That's why Europe has moved to restrict gender affirming care, while the US has pushed for it.  One long-term study on adults in Sweden shows that 10 to 15 years after sex-reassignment surgery, the suicide rate of those patients was 19 times that of comparable peers. To date, no long-term studies on minors transitioned under the “gender affirming” approach exist, as it is a relatively new phenomenon.

Children should not be political tools to push an agenda and we should all be concerned at how many 'scientists' will compromise scientific inquiry to push their agenda.  

Barnardot

@just_sayin ;acknowledging that over 50 percent of minors who identify as trans had diagnosed mental health issues before their gender dysphoria diagnosis.  

Thats right. There not going to acknowledge such a totally wrong statistics in the first place. 

But never mind about that. If as you say 50% of minors had diagnosed health issues before then what does that mean and what do we do about it?

First obviously they need councilling because they have no doubt suffered from bullying and vilification from others when they grew up.

And secondly those who really do need there doolies chopped up and boob enlargements need after surgery councilling to make them fit into society and be accepted for who they are.

And thirdly the third point is that the laws about vilificating minority people should be enforced more so that ignorant bigoted religious people can be dealt with when they go round spewing out vial stuff.

Openminded

Argument Topic: That has been my offering.

@MichaelElpers
That has been my offering.  My  problem with AA is that it considers race as one of its primary factors. Other problem is as you stated these liberal value often look for equal equity not opportunity. One provides equal  opportunity and bases in meritocracy while equity solely seeks to have equal representation discarding meritocracy primarily basing representation in racial diversity.

Actually millions of Americans prioritize equality above opportunity. It´s called egalitarianism. Opportunity is based solely on merit and ability. When equality is considered, it broadens the qualifications to gain entry into universities.  When equality is prioritized, considerations include-  but are not limited to strong leadership skills, historic background that strengthens one, essays that describe ones´ good character, and past humanitarian efforts -- in ADDITION to merit and ability. When equality is considered it prioritizes equal representation first yielding a more level playing field. This makes the decision much more complex, but it turn, much more beneficial to America.  E Pluribus Unum, our national seal - out of many, one. America is the melting pot of many races and each race deserves equal representation first and foremost to expand the benefits to America as a whole.

As equality supercedes opportunity in AA decisions, the same argument SHOULD be used to ban trans men and women from participation in their transitioned gender sports. Millions like myself believe this should not be legal. Equality is not a determining factor here - equal opportunity is. So the playing fields are unequal. Trans men who compete in womens´ sports have an unfair advantage. This is unequal equity in my opinion. In this case the biological women are disadvantaged. If equal opportunity (merit-based traits) is the measuring stick, then trans males will have the advantage here as they have biological muscular strength that females do not possess.  It seems that in fact equal opportunity supercedes equality. Not fair is it? 

You can call out that race and skin color are different and while they are, skin  color by far the most common  distinguishment as well as historical distinguishment.  When they ask your race they even denote by "White" and "Black".

We didnt pit Asians against Blacks.  AA was doing that by using race as a primary factor for admissions.

Yes, checkboxes for white and black are used as it is the most distinguishable identifier for less serious applications - surveys that also provide a box that says ¨prefer not to answer¨.

I blame the media and the previous prez for propagating anger, fear and race resentment. They routinely pit one race against another or scapegoat. Trump and his close ally (was his ally), Fox News, scapegoated immigrants as America´s villains ad nauseam touting immigrants to be ¨poisoning the blood of America¨ (yes, a trump quote) and ruining America. This proved to be an effective tactic used to pit America against immigrants. Divide and conquer; a divided country is one more easily conquered. Could it be possible that the underrepresented white race propagated the theory that Asians were underrepresented because blacks were overrepresented? Pitting Asians against Blacks to ensure the white race will once again be superior? This was successful. Without AA now, whites can once again benefit the most with legacy admissions, athletic recruitments, wealthy donor parents, students of VIPs etc. Whites win when the underprivileged are underrepresented. But I´m guessing that legacy admissions is under the chopping block as we debate.

I dont know what you mean by is my whiteness threatened? My white skin provides no source of prideful or negative identity to myself. Its solely the reflection of light off my skin that people can identify on the color spectrum.
Certainly I can see patterns of white racism that are socially acceptable in todays society.  Id call them out just like id call out any other form of racism.

Whites have historically enjoyed privilege. It´s been said that by 2040 whites will be a minority group. Perhaps this is what is creating great discomfort and chaos in America?  While many Americans may not view themselves as privileged because of their economic or social status, the advantage of being in the majority racial group is real, even if often hidden. It is something we need to face and reckon with without scapegoating another race. I´m interested in hearing about patterns of white racism that are socially acceptable today? 

Saying Affirmative Action is a racist policy is like saying offering a ladder to help the shortest person reach high shelves is Heightism. 

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

You said equity not equality.  
Equality of opportunity seeks to give equal opportunity to all individuals and yes let merit win.
Equality when viewed simply as equity requires collectivist divisions be made in policy in order to gain exact equal representation amongst the divided groups.
If for example you are looking to create equity amongst racial groups playing basketball.  For one your policy will 100% have racist intent as it is using race as it primary determining factor.  Then you will either have to cap or make it harder for any race that is currently under represented while uplifting those with under representation.  Do you affirm Asians have under representation in the NBA?

Feminists, SJWs, ect who draw these collectivist race, sex, orientation quotas only look to create equity amongst groups theyve deemed marginalized and only focus on the benefits.  Do you also want to create equity for women as plumbers, imprisonment, death in war, ect.

Equal equity amongst racial groups requires racist policies, amongst sex requires sexist policies. Etc.

Im against illegal immigration no matter the race.  We dont think Asians were underrepresented, we think colleges wanted to reach "diversity quotas" and therefore were discriminating against Asians because they would have been overepresented based on their collectivist ideaology.

Believing legacy admissions supports whites is wrong doesnt justify creating racist policies to outweigh.  Just say both are wrong.
Also I dont believe the legacy admissions is a policy created to uplift whites, it's a money ploy. Colleges want money from wealthy alumni so they attempt to give privedges to them. Its basically lobbying.

For consistently insinuating that whites have this racist fear of not being a majority in the U.S. its quite odd that its been swaying in that direction for a long time and the majority hasnt done much to curb it. Maybe we arent racist.

"Saying Affirmative Action is a racist policy is like saying offering a ladder to help the shortest person reach high shelves is Heightism."

First off your analogy shows that if ladders focus on the quality of shortness
Then by comparision the quality AA is focused on is Race.  Racist.
Race is supposed to be quality that doesnt in anyway define the worth of an individual. Equity in  diversity quotas and AA laughs in the face of that ironically making that the most important aspect of a person.

Next the ladder is available to anyone that can purchase the item and doesnt give shortness priority.  No one would say you are 5'4 and she is 5' that means the shorter gets ladder priority.
Unlike admissions or diversity hiring practices which would say we have 2 Asians and 1 white person that means we should dismiss the next Asian individual and majorly consider the next black individual.
Odd consideration if race doesnt matter.

MayCaesar

Openminded said:

Whites have historically enjoyed privilege. It´s been said that by 2040 whites will be a minority group. Perhaps this is what is creating great discomfort and chaos in America?  While many Americans may not view themselves as privileged because of their economic or social status, the advantage of being in the majority racial group is real, even if often hidden. It is something we need to face and reckon with without scapegoating another race. I´m interested in hearing about patterns of white racism that are socially acceptable today? 

Saying Affirmative Action is a racist policy is like saying offering a ladder to help the shortest person reach high shelves is Heightism. 

Perhaps you should read what people are actually saying, rather than misanthropically attribute the worst possible motivation to them. They (not all, but many, and in my observation, the majority) are criticizing the fact that people of some races are treated explicitly preferentially by certain policies than people of other races. It is not about any particular races, but just the fact that there is this discrepancy.

I personally do not care at all how many people of given races there are. I definitely want there to be more Asian women, I guess, because I am attracted more to them than to other women - but that is my personal preference and has nothing to do with my moral outlook. What is the ratio of "white" people to "black" people, I could not care less. Can be infinity, can be 0, can be anything in between - makes no difference to me. I have lived in areas that were almost exclusively populated by "white" people, and in areas that were dominated by "black" people, by Latin people, by Asian people... The race of the people surrounding me was never on my mind.
It is curious how racial thinking is so deeply ingrained in you that you do not even realize that it is possible to not think that way. That it is possible to genuinely look at someone as an individual, and not as a "member of race X". When I lived in Japan, it did not cross my mind a single time that the people around me were "Asian". I knew that they were Japanese, linguistically and culturally, and I found it interesting to talk to them and find out more about their society - but the fact that I was among people of a different "race" than me was not something I consciously realized.

Offering a ladder to the shortest person addresses the problem directly related to his height. What is it about having dark skin color that intrinsically makes it harder for someone to, say, make money on Wall Street? Care to explain in what way "black" people are inferior to other people?
Furthermore, "black" people are known to be better runners than any other people. Would you consider it reasonable to, say, give "white" people better running shoes than "black" people to even out the playing field?

Barnardot

@MayCaesar ;Offering a ladder to the shortest person addresses the problem directly related to his height. 

Frank Zappo once said. We are all colored other wise we wouldnt be able to see each other.

MichaelElpers

@Openminded

What do you think?

First off your analogy shows that if ladders focus on the quality of shortness

Then by comparision the quality AA is focused on is Race. Racist.

Race is supposed to be quality that doesnt in anyway define the worth of an individual. Equity in diversity quotas and AA laughs in the face of that ironically making that the most important aspect of a person.

Next the ladder is available to anyone that can purchase the item and doesnt give shortness priority. No one would say you are 5'4 and she is 5' that means the shorter gets ladder priority.

Unlike admissions or diversity hiring practices which would say we have 2 Asians and 1 white person that means we should dismiss the next Asian individual and majorly consider the next black individual.

Odd consideration if race doesnt matter.

Also this :
Furthermore, "black" people are known to be better runners than any other people. Would you consider it reasonable to, say, give "white" people better running shoes than "black" people to even out the playing field?

Do you think they need to curb the amount of blacks playing basketball in the nba and replace with different races?  I dont because i dont cate what race people are.

Dreamer

@MichaelElpers

"Today, the consensus among scientists is that race is a social construct, and that using it as a proxy for genetic differences among populations is misleading."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_genetics

The genetic differences between individuals of the same race is greater than differences between races.  I used to be able to find a source for this, but can't find it now.

"race is not inherent in our genetics, but rather a social construct developed over time"

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/is-race-a-social-construct-the-natural-history-museum-investigates-30957654/

"Racial categories are weak proxies for genetic diversity and need to be phased out "

" race is also understood to be a poorly defined marker of that diversity and an imprecise proxy for the relationship between ancestry and genetics"

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/race-is-a-social-construct-scientists-argue/

As for Black people being better at basketball, that is a stereotype. Many stereotypes are self-fulfilling prophecies, people expect Black people to be better at this task and perceive it as such. Then, those who buck the trend suffer social consequences. If anything it is due to confirmation bias that white people perceive Black athletes as superior.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1469029217307823

Enough of the scientific racism.

Dreamer

This guide is 54 pages but thorough.

"While often assumed to be a biological
classification, based on physical and
genetic variation, racial categories do not
have a scientific basis.7"

https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/ama-aamc-equity-guide.pdf

MichaelElpers

@Dreamer

"As for Black people being better at basketball, that is a stereotype. Many stereotypes are self-fulfilling prophecies, people expect Black people to be better at this task and perceive it as such. Then, those who buck the trend suffer social consequences. If anything it is due to confirmation bias that white people perceive Black athletes as superior."

Well i never actually stated black people were better at basketball.  My comment was referring to AA
"Do you think they need to curb the amount of blacks playing basketball in the nba and replace with different races?"

But here in lies my questions then:

How are you accounting for 70% of players being in the NBA being African America. when they only make up 12% of the U.S. population? 

If all things were equal then youd expect the NBA makeup to be the same as the population makeup.
Really I can think of only a couple of options.
1. African Americans at least from an elite perspective are naturally inclined to better at basketball.
2. Its based on culture/environmental factors
3. Whites are being discriminated against.

Which one is it?

Do you think DEI/AA should be applied to the NBA to reflect equity amongst population makeup?