"Leftists hate white people"
...is one on the more common absurd phrases trotted out on this page .
can I ask what the reasoning is?
I don't know why leftists hate white people... only they can answer that.
shareThere have been a lot of critical race theory advocates who have gained a wide following and their teachings generally state that the US is a white supremacist nation and that some form of reparations will need to redress prior acts of discrimination. Christopher Rufo has a website that tries to educate people on critical race theory. Ibram X. Kendi is an "anti-racism" advocate who stated that the only remedy for racist discrimination is ANTI-RACIST DISCRIMINATION. That means racial discrimination against "whites" in the present to compensate for historical acts of racism.
https://christopherrufo.com/crt-briefing-book/ * CRT research by Chris Rufo *
https://youtu.be/1QhLW1A70G8 * Chris Rufo vs Joy Reid *
The Black Lives Matter movement demands are littered with references to white supremacy.
https://blacklivesmatter.com/blm-demands/ * white supremacy? *
https://www.heritage.org/civil-society/heritage-explains/how-identify-critical-race-theory
The BS below is about supposed "whiteness". I personally think the terms white and black are outdated since skin color is not an accurate indicator of one's genetic make-up. There are tons of people who are mixed-race and they are calling themselves black/white/whatever.
https://nmaahc.si.edu/learn/talking-about-race/topics/whiteness * Whiteness BS *
Those who are used to privilege will find equality a threat!
That is the reason you and Rufo attack all attempts to end racism and create a society where everyone is treated with dignity and respect and have equal opportunity.
Rufo instigates hatred with his lies and propaganda. He promotes racism!
There are many different types of privilege and I'm not convinced that white privilege has existed in the US for the last fifty years. It could be argued that the US was a white supremacist nation before the sixties but the US passed civil rights legislation that equal opportunities to all.
There is a difference between equality and equity. Equity means equality of outcome among some policy makers so I need to see the details before I support so-called equity. I support equality of opportunity but I do not support equality of outcomes. The gentleman in the Linkedin article wrote a little about the difference.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/equality-opportunity-vs-outcome-patrick-o-reilly
Rufo is not against equal opportunity and he does not support racism. Rufo is trying to alert people to the lies and propaganda of the left-wing wackos who are promoting various types of equity and critical race theory. Most people will applaud efforts to bring about equity until they realize the true meaning of the term.
White male farmers were initially denied loan relief by the Biden administration in an effort to promote equity. Supposedly, white farmers have derived greater benefits from loan programs so current white farmers were denied loan relief. That is discrimination against white male farmers.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/social-justice/democrats-pivot-on-race-based-loan-relief-as-white-farmers-sue
Several states adopted a health equity approach to rationing covid treatments that moved "non-white" people to the front of the line for the various covid treatments. This was based on some federal health equity approach that determined that non-whites were at greater risk of dying from covid and that white traditionally had better access to healthcare. Once again, these policies discriminated against whites in order to advance equity.
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/race-based-covid-rationing-ideology/621405/
https://nypost.com/2022/01/10/fda-wants-race-ethnicity-factored-in-administering-covid-drugs/
The Biden administration also discriminated against white male business owners for the covid relief since white males are supposedly not from a socially or economically disadvantaged group.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/13/biden-admin-sued-for-pushing-white-men-to-back-of-the-line/
I will always advocate for equality of opportunity but I condemn equality of outcomes. I believe in a meritocracy so the most qualified person should get the job. I do not believe that the solution to prior discrimination is current discrimination.
When I get on an airplane, I want the most qualified candidates flying and landing that plane. If I ever have heart surgery, I want the most qualified candidates operating on me. Their race, gender or creed does not matter to me.
Now you like Socialism?
shareI've never condemned socialism. I would argue that the US economy has many socialist elements in the way that the tax code benefits certain industries. I'm generally in favor of regulations since I don't trust companies to clean up their waste and keep toxins out of their products.
shareWhite men in general want privilege instead of equality based on 400+ years of racist and sexist legislation and policies granting that privilege at the expense of everyone else.
Majority of those farmers are conservatives who hate Socialism, therefore don't ask for money.
"Restaurant Revitalization Fund, which is only processing applications from “priority groups” — women, veterans, or “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals” — "
It sounds like the whiners are a bunch of rich white men attempting to get money in which they're not entitled. It's not discriminating against white men because it says veterans and “socially and economically disadvantaged individuals” aka: poor. Veterans and poor can be white men, too. Therefore, the whiners are likely entitled rich men trying to steal.
The United States is only 256 years old so there hasn't been 400 years of racist and sexist legislation and policies.
You can't claim that farmers are conservatives who hate socialism. Most farmers have a strong working relationship with the government since the government controls/sets prices and provides aid. Farmers put food on the table for US citizens and the rest of the world.
The term "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals" is code for NO WHITE MALES! It's true that white veterans will benefit from the programs but government programs should also provide benefits to people who are not veterans. The link below has the language explaining the SBA term "socially and economically disadvantaged individuals".
https://theodorewatson.com/8a-social-economic-disadvantage/#:~:text=Under%20federal%20law%2C%20socially%20and,regard%20to%20their%20individual%20qualities.
Enslaved Africans arrived in North America as early as the 1500s. Laws other than English laws applied.
It's common knowledge that Conservatives have been brainwashed to hate Socialism. Most farmers are Republicans.
Again, you can't read. Economically disadvantaged individuals means poor. It sounds like you admit that white men are an elite class who are not poor, therefore are not entitled to financial help for the poor.
Socially disadvantaged individuals are POC discriminated by white males which caused the POC to poor.
Very tiresome to hear white males whining about their nonexistent discrimination:
"White Fear: How the Browning of America Is Making White Folks Lose Their Minds" by Roland S. Martin
Whatever happened in Hispaniola and Mexico in the 1500's is totally irrelevant to the USA. My ancestors showed up in the US in the early 1900's so I don't owe anything to descendants of people enslaved in the 1500's. Most Europeans were serfs or slaves in the 1500's and they are not asking for reparations. Life is not fair and it was EXTREMELY UNFAIR in the 1500's. English law in the colonies did not allow slavery until 1641 so the people that arrived to the British colonies were indentured servants.
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/timeline/slavery.htm#:~:text=1641,slavery%20as%20a%20legal%20institution.
The language of EQUITY generally provides benefits to groups that are historically underserved, underrepresented, disadvantaged and disenfranchised. White males are never included in this category. Section two of Biden's racial equity executive order defines who is underserved and white males are excluded.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/
If you read books, you would know American history. Blacks were on the East Coast, ex. Florida, in the 1500s. Not irrelevant since American history doesn't start with white Englishmen. Your ethnocentrism is racist.
Your ancestors reeped the benefits built on the backs of Black people who were legally denied the opportunity to benefit = whiteskin privilege.
400+ years of pro White male legislation and policies = reparations & affirmative action. White wealth created from stolen land, kidnapped & enslaved people plus favorable laws for white skin.
Slavery existed long before 1641 in the U.S.. Learn history. Read books! rif.org
Yes, white men are at the top of the race hierarchy in the U.S. therefore not considered "historically underserved, underrepresented, disadvantaged and disenfranchised". It's ridiculous to claim victimhood when you control everything!!!!! And exploited other groups.
You're an idiot. When you read garbage you think garbage.
White folks are not losing their minds. I'm a white folk, and all the white folk I know don't buy any of this crap.
You are just as bad, and probably worse than the trolls from the Right-wing because presumably you know better, when clearly you do not.
White Replacement Theory
* White Replacement Theory holds that minorities are overtaking a country’s White majority and destroying White culture.
* It often leads to violence, including the May 2022 mass shooting in Buffalo, New York, that killed 10 people.
* Once a fringe theory, White Replacement Theory has gone mainstream over the last several years, via social media, politicians, and media personalities.
... about 30 percent believe that increased immigration is causing native-born Americans to lose their economic, political, and cultural power. The difference between Democrats and Republicans on that latter question is surprisingly narrow, at 27 percent to 36 percent, respectively.
This conspiracy theory attacks the heart of America’s melting pot ethos, and it shouldn’t be left unchecked.
https://www.rd.com/article/white-replacement-theory/
You're in major denial.
So, you subscribe to White Replacement Theory?
share"White folks are not losing their minds. I'm a white folk, and all the white folk I know don't buy any of this crap."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saQ-a0pm6HU
Denial much!
“The Great Experiment: Why Diverse Democracies Fall Apart and How They Can Endure.” by Yascha Mounk.
“The history of diverse societies is grim. We all know the reasons. Ethnic hatreds come easy. When scapegoating demagogues stoke them during hard times, they make the classic promise: Break the democracy pact, and people like you can be great again."
"How Democracies Die" by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt
This book agreed about the risk with the challenge of maintaining a democracy with increasing diversity.
"The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America" by Richard Rothstein
This depressing book details the lengths in which the federal and local government conspired to segregate the country. The effects exist today.
"Race, law, and American society: 1607-present" by Gloria J Browne-Marshall
Supreme Court decisions which supported racism.
If the 1866 Civil Rights Act and the 13-15 Amendments had been followed instead of ignored, the progress made during Reconstruction would have continued and a more egalitarian society, without the history of KKK terrorism, lynchings, Jim Crow, etc., would be a reality today.
When you deny white fear (hate and anger too), you deny this very ugly history and its legacy of ongoing racism. Not cool!
None of that supports this White Replacement Theory you are so hot for.
share"White folks are not losing their minds. I'm a white folk, and all the white folk I know don't buy any of this crap."
The origin of White Replacement Theory is white supremacy and racism which you deny exist.
Denial of racism is an example of internalized racial superiority. Denial is a tactic to avoid working to end racism.
You just make up stuff to annoy people as you go.
> white supremacy and racism which you deny exist.
Whatever gave you the idea that I don't think white supremacy or racism exist? Or that you could accuse someone or something so obviously stupid that it reflects immediately on your own foolishness.
You make up some nonsense and then you elaborate on it like it exists. You do this all the time, just like an AI computer program.
"Whatever gave you the idea that I don't think white supremacy or racism exist?"
"White folks are not losing their minds. I'm a white folk, and all the white folk I know don't buy any of this crap."
I do not think that racism or white supremacy does not exist. I do agree that White Replacement Theory is true. You're so busy name-calling and posting that you seem to not bother reading and comprehending what people are saying ... at least me.
So, let me put it clearly and simply, there are racists, and there are white supremacist, and there are people who believe in White Replacement Theory - but I am not not one of any of those groups.
I do not believe there is any conspiracy to destroy white people in America, though that is sometimes how it might seem to certain groups - but look at the other side of minority groups that have gotten disciminated against and had violence and class used against them systemically.
I do think there has been a concerted class war on the American working class by the elites at the top that have short-circuited democracy, and hot-wired the military industrial complex and our many wars.
In trying to remedy that it will affect what I guess people call White Privilege, so white people use that to play the victim. As a white person who has had a pretty good life, I am theoretically fine with the idea of Equal Opportunity and even quotas, thought the implementation of these efforts has been flawed and hurtful to different people of all classes.
I do however hypothesize that there is an effort by the Right to construct or interfere with these efforts to set them up so they will fail or generate maximum kickback in order to divide the people and skew what should be a democratic process.
I hope that is clear because your comments and replies to me on various issues have been offensive, ignorance and asinine in many cases.
"... it will affect what I guess people call White Privilege, so white people use that to play the victim"
Like joej2923 who repeatedly claimed that currently there was racism against whites, but not blacks. I was specifically addressing him with the "White Fear" book when you attacked me:
You're an idiot. When you read garbage you think garbage.
White folks are not losing their minds. I'm a white folk, and all the white folk I know don't buy any of this crap.
You are just as bad, and probably worse than the trolls from the Right-wing because presumably you know better, when clearly you do not.
> The book is about fear driven by White Replacement Theory.
Then you should stick to that, and since presumably you know it is a hot-button issue, take some care as to how you present your ideas - cause that is not what I see from you, and in fact end up agreeing with a lot of the criticisms of the moronic right. When things get that convoluted you should perceive a problem and course correct.
By the way, if I am defensive, ( whether I agree or disagree with ), so what? What you really mean to say is that if someone is defensive it is leave for you to not listen to the substance of their comment, and to feel free to react in any thoughtless way possible.
Your main habit is to proclaim some statement you believe in, and insist others think the way you do by including links that no one is going to read or accept like homework. The fact that you do that instead of thinking though your position and clearly stating, and then listening to a reply breeds chaos and confusion.
[deleted]
The comments between Joej and I were not limited to White Replacement Theory since he was bringing up different issues. It addressed one specific comment from him.
I notice that you're allowing Joej's racism to go unaddressed while you attack me for attempting to not allow his bigotry to go forward without challenge. After all, silence = complicity.
Joej's evil is obvious, your ineffective reactions to it, and other expressions that shoot yourself in the foot and turn people against you might be something you can improve.
shareYou have a habit of provoking fights with left-leaning posters. That's something you can improve.
shareMaybe, but then again maybe those Left-leaning posters don't really have the depth of knowledge or understanding they think they do.
As well, when I reply to you, you never bother to read and think about what I wrote or respond to it. You merely double down on your own opinion.
By the way, ever read any of my posts to Right-leaning posters?
Like this ...
> Snowflakes shouldn't be in Politics
Make up your mind whether you want to discuss something like a civilized human being or just insult and troll like the mass of Right-Wing trollls her do.
Using the word snowflake is offensive and unacceptable in conversation.
[deleted]
You began by attacking and insulting me. Don't ask for behavior which you don't do.
shareAt the end of the day, Biden admin. needs to reword it so it doesn't seem like they're being supposedly 'racist' towards Whites or doing 'reparations'. The way I see it, they could've just said, "Black farmers didn't get these benefits while White farmers did, we're just now giving access to these funds for Black farmers now. Nothing was taken from White farmers."
Wording matters. That way the Rubes won't start making stuff up about oh noes Dems are being waycist. Less fuel for Tucker to make his segmented pieces.
I'm trying to point out to viewers of this thread that the lefties are being racist towards white males in the name of EQUITY. It's stealth reparations due to supposed historical discrimination against underserved communities. The executive order below in section two identifies underserved communities AND WHITE MALES ARE EXCLUDED. I'm a middle-aged white male so I probably need to invest in some heels, wigs and fake boobs to qualify as "underserved".
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/ * No white males *
I would argue that the black farmers who were discriminated against are either dead or out of the business. The black farmer in the article wants compensation for discrimination against families that happened before 1964. A lot of these lefties want compensation for 400 years of discrimination and the US is only 256 years old. I don't believe that funds should be reserved for people who are descendants of people who were supposedly underserved. Some crazy lady in California wants to pay blacks $1M each for reparations but that won't be enough.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11605393/Chair-Californias-reparations-task-force-demands-black-homeless-compensated-slavery.html
I just want to see them do away with blackness and whiteness BS. Megan Markle calls herself BIPOC but she's only 43% African. Obama's absentee father was Kenyan and Obama qualified for various affirmative action programs. Kamala claims to be black but her mom is Indian and she spent her teen years in Canada. The average "black" person in the US is 20-30% caucasian so very few people are truly black or white.
Doesn't objectively state * no white males *. There is a caveat with '; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.' so I would assume if you're white and adversely affected, it applies to them as well.
shareWhite males are certainly excluded from the text of the Biden administration executive order pasted below. I suspect white women are the other protected class. This language combined with the lawsuits against the Biden administration included below shows the true intent of this equity policy.
Sec. 2. Definitions. For purposes of this order: (a) The term “equity” means the consistent and systematic fair, just, and impartial treatment of all individuals, including individuals who belong to underserved communities that have been denied such treatment, such as Black, Latino, and Indigenous and Native American persons, Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders and other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; and persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality.
(b) The term “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life, as exemplified by the list in the preceding definition of “equity.”
These are the lawsuits made by white males against the Biden administration over the supposed equity policies.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/social-justice/democrats-pivot-on-race-based-loan-relief-as-white-farmers-sue
https://nypost.com/2021/05/13/biden-admin-sued-for-pushing-white-men-to-back-of-the-line/
Biden admin wanted whites at back of line for covid treatments.
https://nypost.com/2022/01/10/fda-wants-race-ethnicity-factored-in-administering-covid-drugs/
There is a lot of language that is used for equity and it usually means promoting underrepresented, disadvantaged, underserved or some other term. It usually means no white males but white women are sometimes left out. The standards below from US Law Title 13 were used by the SBA to determine if a business was eligible for loans for "socially disadvantaged" businesses.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-124/subpart-A/subject-group-ECFR4ef1291a4a984ab/section-124.103
The Oscars rolled out their representation/inclusion standards for 2024 Best Picture nominees and white males were excluded from the list of underrepresented racial and ethnic groups. Disney also rolled out their inclusion standards that mandate percentages of "underrepresented groups". I've seen the term diversity, equity and inclusion a few times and that means replacing white males with BIPOC. My overall argument is that the best qualified person should get the job irrespective of their race or gender.
https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-establishes-representation-and-inclusion-standards-oscarsr-eligibility
https://reimaginetomorrow.disney.com/assets/ABC-INCLUSION-STANDARDS-ONE-PAGER-6-16-21.pdf
> I'm trying to point out to viewers of this thread that the lefties are being racist towards white males in the name of EQUITY.
That's such nonsense ... all of this garbage is coming from the Right. The Right makes these accusations based on either one severely bizarre case or just makes stuff like - like when they said Biden wants to forbit Americans to eat hamburgers.
All of this chaos and distraction is coming from the Right, and their money has a negative effect on the Left as well.
These equity programs are definitely coming from the left. I listed below my five examples that I consider to be leftist equity programs. I pulled most of these from my prior posts. I am not aware of any right-wingers promoting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
Example One:
The Biden administration excluded white farmers from a covid relief package and they made changes to the law after losing court challenges from white farmers.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/social-justice/democrats-pivot-on-race-based-loan-relief-as-white-farmers-sue
Example Two:
Biden excludes white males from underserved communities in section two of the racial equity executive order.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government/
Example Three:
This is the lawsuit filed by a white man who was denied covid relief since his business was not owned by a member of a socially disadvantaged community.
https://nypost.com/2021/05/13/biden-admin-sued-for-pushing-white-men-to-back-of-the-line/
Title 13 of US law excludes white males from socially disadvantaged classification and this classification was used to force white male owned businesses to the back of the line for Small Business Association loans.
https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-13/chapter-I/part-124/subpart-A/subject-group-ECFR4ef1291a4a984ab/section-124.103
Example Four:
White males were excluded from the inclusion standards of the Oscars best picture awards below.
https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-establishes-representation-and-inclusion-standards-oscarsr-eligibility
Example Five:
FDA recommended prioritizing non-whites for covid treatments in the name of health equity.
https://nypost.com/2022/01/10/fda-wants-race-ethnicity-factored-in-administering-covid-drugs/
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/01/race-based-covid-rationing-ideology/621405/
So what? Those are not reverse racism, that is reacting to where the problems are for people. You're just a KKK'er trying to start a race thing.
share"I'm not convinced that white privilege has existed in the US for the last fifty years."
Name a few industries and/or institutions in which white men don't overwhelmingly hold the most power and control?
"equality and equity"
Your definitions are incorrect.
1. Equality means each person gets the same resources and opportunities.
2. Equity acknowledges some groups/person are at a disadvantage and strives to give them what they need to have equal access to resources and opportunities. (Blacks have faced 400+ years of active discrimination and racism in legislation and policies with ongoing negative results.)
This image explains it:
https://static.diffen.com/uploadz/3/37/Equality-equity-justice-lores.png?_gl=1*1a9fe74*_ga*MTc5ODY2ODU5OS4xNjcyOTY2ODA1*_ga_68854RYLK1*MTY3Mjk2NjgwNC4xLjEuMTY3Mjk2NzA5OS4wLjAuMA..
"left-wing wackos"
Your bigotry is showing.
"Rufo"
He's a BS artist with an agenda. He admitted that he made-up a negative definition for CRT and then exploited it:
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/591e58f72994cab66b93f891/f2c77c55-9b30-421e-8138-a9c465e1d280/rufo+tweet.png?format=1500w
"The definition of critical race theory has been subverted into a concept that conservative Whites can rally against in the name of free speech, unity, and traditional values. Yet what they are really doing is arguing for the maintenance of the status quo: An education system that maintains White supremacy while shutting out any voices that center minority perspectives or try to analyze social inequities."
"farmers"
Your whole article is about systemic racism against black farmers:
"The funds were supposed to correct the Agriculture Department’s historic denial of loans to ethnic minorities based on race, saving scores of Black farmers with untenable debts from foreclosure." How would you correct this racist injustice which is negatively affecting black farmers today?
"covid"
Subscription needed.
Anyway, you're wrong. Different outreach methods were used to reach minorities since the government attempts weren't as effective. Churches reached out with excellent results.
There have historically been more working age white men in the population so it makes sense that there would be more of them in positions of power in various industries. The demographics of the nation are changing so more minorities are becoming leaders of various industries and I don't have a problem with that. I do not see any relationship between white privilege and the number of executives in a company, industry or institution. Many people do not aspire to hold power and control over various institutions. There are plenty of people who would rather own their own small-business or raise a family. The civil rights legislation of the sixties does make it illegal to discriminate against people.
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-movement
I will keep my definitions of equality and equity. I also know that equality and equity will never truly be possible since LIFE IS NOT FAIR. All citizens in the US have an opportunity to pursue their dreams but not everybody is guaranteed a corner office or a gold medal.
The Bloomberglaw article about farmers was about the Biden administration having to backtrack on their initial plan to exclude white farmers from the loan program. White farmers sued and the legislation was changed to allow white farmers to benefit from the government program. The racist injustice was excluding white farmers from the aid program because of the color of their skin. That's discrimination against white farmers!
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9680675/Judge-halts-Bidens-unconstitutional-4BN-program-pay-debt-farmers-color.html * Biden administration discriminates against white farmers *
This NYPOST article below covers the discrimination against whites that is related to health equity. That other article is a subscription article that I could originally access.
https://nypost.com/2022/01/10/fda-wants-race-ethnicity-factored-in-administering-covid-drugs/
"I'm not convinced that white privilege has existed in the US for the last fifty years."
You're retracting this statement. White men hold power and control over EVERY institution and industry without exception. You couldn't name one!
"demographics"
Nope. 400+ years of racist legislation and policies which empowered white men and discriminated against black people:
1. "The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America" by Richard Rothstein
2. "Race, law, and American society : 1607-present" by Gloria J Browne-Marshall
3. "When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America" by Ira Katznelson
Remember that your farmer link discussed historical systemic racism against black farmers by denying them loans which caused their present-day hardship!
"exclude white farmers from the loan program"
You can't read! The program is specifically for black people who were historically discriminated against by white people. White farmers were the ones who received advantages based on their skin color so they are not suffering therefore the program isn't for them.
"to allow white farmers to benefit"
You still can't read. The program is still for those who faced past discrimination which means not for white male farmers. The issue was to ensure black farmers get the loans since they were specifically targeted against discrimination instead of other groups who weren't targeted, but may attempt to take advantage of it like LGBT or white females.
You still haven't addressed how you would remedy years of racism against POC farmers?
"LIFE IS NOT FAIR"
Life is not fair for black people because of 400+ years of racist legislation and policies against them. But, life is privileged for white men thanks to 400+ years of favorable legislation and policies which created a huge advantage.
"civil rights legislation"
Racists have been chipping away at that legislation since it was signed. De facto racism and some de jure racism and government policies exist.
NY Post is racist and lies a lot. I don't see anything racist in the fda document:
https://www.fda.gov/media/149534/download
Btw, it's not racist to acknowledge demographic differences. 65+ are mentioned as being at higher risk because they're more likely to be hospitalized from covid. That's not ageism. It's a medical fact which doctors need to address.
I'm not retracting my statement. I don't think white privilege has existed in the US for the last fifty years. Individuals do not control institutions and industries. There are regulators, boards of directors and shareholders that curb executive power.
I'm not reading any of your social justice books since I don't have time for that woke nonsense. Please cite articles from reputable news outlets or other institutions.
You can't read. The Biden administration gave up on the discriminatory race-based farm program when they lost in court. It looks like they opened it up to white farmers while keeping a separate fund available for black farmers.
There is no remedy for alleged discrimination against dead farmers. Life is not fair for farmers or anyone else.
The United States has only been a country for 246 years so there hasn't been 400 years of racist legislation and policies. The 1619 Project is more woke nonsense.
Page 3 of the FDA document notes that RACE is a medical condition. You can't read! There is a link on page three to the cdc website and that has info on health equity.
https://www.cdc.gov/healthequity/whatis/ * More woke nonsense - Health Equity *
It is discriminatory to tell white people to get in the back of the line for covid treatments.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/new-york-prioritize-non-white-people-low-supply-of-covid-19-treatments
Name a few industries and/or institutions in which white men don't overwhelmingly hold the most power and control?
woke definition - being conscious of racial discrimination in society and other forms of oppression and injustice.
The opposite of woke is racist.
You can't read. The program is still for discriminated black farmers who are still alive.
Blacks have been in North America since the early 1500s long before 1619.
"page 3 of the FDA document"
No there isn't. RIF.ORG for you. Now, I understand the reason you don't read books.
Your links to racist Murdoch-owned media propaganda is a joke. I bet you don't have a library card.
Those who are used to privilege will find equality a threat!
Slavery was not legal in the colonies until 1641 so the 1619 Project should be renamed the 1641 Project. The Africans and Europeans that arrived before 1641 were indentured servants. Indentured servitude was no picnic but they did eventually get their freedom.
https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/first-african-slave-ship-arrives-jamestown-colony#:~:text=It%20was%20the%20White%20Lion,food%20on%20August%2020%2C%201619.&text=Scholars%20note%20that%20the%20arrivals%20were%20technically%20sold%20as%20indentured%20servants.
https://www.ferris.edu/HTMLS/news/jimcrow/timeline/slavery.htm#:~:text=1641,slavery%20as%20a%20legal%20institution.
https://guides.loc.gov/indentured-servants
Interestingly enough, the first indentured servant declared slave for life was a black man and his owner was also a black man. Slavery was not necessarily about race. Slavery has existed throughout history and I would argue that it was more about cheap labor. There is still a problem with owners who want cheap labor.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/horrible-fate-john-casor-180962352/ * Black man enslaved another black man *
I am open to equality of opportunity but I condemn efforts to produce equity. Life is not fair so some people with greater gifts will be able to achieve more success. I want to live in a meritocracy that rewards talented people.
US is and was never a meritocracy or there wouldn't have been Jim Crow laws, race-based multigenerational slavery, Black codes, voter suppression, redlining, gerrymandering, Sundown towns, etc..
Race-based slavery in the 1500s existed in America. Only a racist denies the existence of American slavery.
You're only open to opportunities for white men.
You whine more than Prince Harry!!!!!
Black farmers & White farmers
Example: I purposely crash my car into yours, and a judge awards you $45k for repairs and your medical expenses. Before you collect, a random stranger unconnected to the case demands that he receives part of the money too! Should I give him a percentage of your $45k?
I just finished reading that the U.S. government agreed to RECENTLY pay black farmers over $1 billion because of racist government policy which denied SPECIFICALLY black farmers any GOVERNMENT loans and other finances for decades which caused most of them to lose their farms and PRESENT few remaining black farmers to have severe debt. White farmers were always helped!!!!
It's not discrimination against white farmers!!! It's justice to rectify government wrongdoing against black farmers similar to the $45k. Only black farmers should receive the money since they were the ONLY GROUP harmed by government racism which continues NOW with a debt racial disparity caused by that racism!
I'm not here to argue with you or anyone else. Only educate.
Black farmers had to sue the government! The money is connected to the lawsuit.
https://growpath.com/black-farmers-case-success/
https://www.npr.org/2022/08/31/1120126881/debt-relief-for-black-farmers-shows-challenges-of-pursuing-racial-equity-with-po
White men did the same thing after slavery. Land set aside by the U.S. government specifically for former black slaves for restitution payment and a new start as free people was given to WHITES ONLY. Those white men never suffered under centuries of slavery therefore didn't deserve free land set aside for former black slaves. Blacks received no land nor money.
You are here to argue. You are too stupid and crazy to educate anyone. I am trying to educate people about the madness of various lefty social justice propaganda. Your car crash example is totally irrelevant. The facts and circumstances of a crash are dissimilar to the facts and circumstances of a farm discrimination case.
I don't know about your legal case but the other discriminatory program was challenged by white farmers and some of the money was made available to white farmers. It looks like there is some sort of race-based preferences in there but I hope the Supreme Court can eradicate that language. As I've mentioned before, I consider race-based preferences to be discriminatory.
https://news.bloomberglaw.com/social-justice/democrats-pivot-on-race-based-loan-relief-as-white-farmers-sue
The US government did not set aside land for slaves. General Sherman issued a field order reserving land for former slaves BUT he did not have the authority to confiscate lands. General Sherman was a barbarian who practiced total war and he probably would be considered a war criminal by today's standards.
https://chnm.gmu.edu/exploring/19thcentury/whoownsthisland/pop_seaislands.html * Field Order 15 *
https://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/shermans-march * Sherman Total War *
https://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/history-archaeology/shermans-field-order-no-15/ * Field Order 15 Overturned *
You cannot say with certainty that white men never suffered in the history of the US. Farming has always been a difficult lifestyle since crops can fail. There were plenty of poor whites who were sharecroppers. Income distribution has NEVER been equal since LIFE IS NOT FAIR. Communism has NEVER worked so I won't fall for any Marxist critical theories.
https://www.mshistorynow.mdah.ms.gov/issue/farmers-without-land-the-plight-of-white-tenant-farmers-and-sharecroppers
https://www.simplypsychology.org/critical-theory.html * Marxist crit th *
"I don't know about your legal case"
Obviously!!!! The HISTORICAL class-action suit filed by black farmers, Pigford v. Glickman, in which the Federal government had already acknowledged anti-black discrimination against black farmers and reached a settlement that white people are attempting to steal.
No surprise that you support slavery re: the Civil War.
Special Field Orders No. 15 was legitimate and reversed by pro-slavery Southerner Johnson who took power after Lincoln's assassination. If Lincoln had lived, a fully integrated society could have been created instead of your hate-filled segregated racist cesspool.
Thousands of anti-black laws, court decisions and policies were created and enacted by white men throughout America's history:
The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America
by Richard Rothstein
Race, law, and American society : 1607-present
by Gloria J Browne-Marshall
Racists like yourself consider the pursuit to end racism with Communism. Your white supremacist ideology has no place in the future of the U.S..
That Pigford case was a horrible settlement by a horrible Clinton administration. The US government settled and made a bad deal.
You are again spewing lies about people who disagree with you. I have never supported slavery in any of my posts so don't lie about my positions. I am not a racist and I do not have white supremacist beliefs.
You are the racist and you constantly lie. You are also a left-wing wacko!
Even KKK leader David Duke doesn't consider himself a racist.
Your attacks on a Union General hero speaks volumes as to whose side you're on re: the Civil War.
Ending racism is considered a bad deal to you.
[deleted]
Be specific about what is racist from my comment?
shareStill waiting.
sharetik tok, tik tok.
Still waiting...
You owe me an apology.
shareYou don't deserve an apology. Your posts are racist towards white men. You falsely accused white men of promoting racism. You keep lying about the 400-year history of the USA while the USA has only been around for 256 years. You also fail to recognize that there are poor white families. You always mention rich white men and there are certainly white families that are struggling to make ends meet. Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk are not representative of every white male. You have also blamed the supposed poverty of POC on the supposed discrimination of white males. You are blaming white people/males for the supposed problems of POC. People of all races have lost their savings in stock market crashes, cryptocurrency crashes and other unforeseen accidents.
share"You falsely accused white men of promoting racism."
Name anti-black Supreme Court Decisions, laws, and policies supporting slavery, discrimination and segregation written by someone other than white men in this country's history.
"256 year"
American history doesn't begin with the British. This land was inhabited long before they came. Blacks were here for 400 years.
"poor white families"
Poor white families weren't targeted for slavery, lynchings, Jim Crow, denied jobs, education, voting & housing, etc. based on race. Blacks were!
I'm not doing your research for you. YOU HAVE TO PROVE ME WRONG! You need to show me anti-black laws/policies formulated in the last fifty years that are still on the books.
America is a continent and its history does not directly impact the country called the United States of America. There is also a statute of limitations for most crimes so atrocities from 500 years ago are too old for any sort or prosecution or remuneration.
There was discrimination against various immigrants with white skin throughout the history of the US. The Irish, Germans and Italians were all discriminated against due to their ethnic identities. Some argue that prohibition was largely supported due to anti-German sentiment.
https://www.history.com/news/teen-debunks-professors-claim-that-anti-irish-signs-never-existed
https://www.history.com/news/anti-german-sentiment-wwi
https://www.wiscontext.org/world-war-i-turned-milwaukees-germans-and-their-beer-targets
https://www.history.com/news/the-grisly-story-of-americas-largest-lynching * Sicilians *
Irish, Germans and Italians, Poles, Greeks and Jews weren't considered white:
"Working toward whiteness : how Americas immigrants became white ; the strange journey from Ellis Island to the suburbs" by David R Roediger
I know WASPs who still consider "ethnic whites" to be of lower status to "real" whites.
There are thousands of racist laws/policies still on the books and affecting black people!
Long list in this book:
The color of law : a forgotten history of how our government segregated America
by Richard Rothstein
This book mentions continuing federal and local government policy to zone black areas for toxic waste sites while protecting white areas. Because of this racist national policy, black areas now contain disproportionate amount of polluting and toxic waste sites, landfills and other hazardous sites.
https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1310/ML13109A339.pdf
http://archive.gao.gov/d48t13/121648.pdf
The Dakota Access Pipeline was a good example of this racism. Originally, designed to go through white areas, it was deemed to hazardous and instead placed in Native areas where it threatened their water supply. It was finally shutdown after years of protests. I'd expect racist Trump to reopen it if he's reelected.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-pipeline-energy-transfer-idUSKBN2471TQ
Racial zoning and single-family zoning laws were used to segregate. The latter is still on the books in thousands of white suburbs and towns nationally to maintain segregation.
Also the federal programs of HUD, PWA and USHA all created and maintained segregated housing which still exists today.
Louisiana Seeks To Redefine Who Is Considered Black To Limit Black Representation!! That is happening now."
“This is Jim Crow-era stuff — a state with a Black population of over 30% has a single Black member of Congress. That’s crazy,” said Sophia Nelson, an attorney admitted to the bar of the Supreme Court. “Southern states with large Black populations want to control where the Black voters are represented and how. It keeps power in white hands, not in Black ones.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/black-vote-louisiana-elections-diluted-gop-redefining-blackness-rcna55348
RACISM LIVES IN THE U.S.!!!!
In my book, Germans, Irish, Poles and Jews are white. I think Sicilians appear white. I do want to continue to stress that the whole concept of white and black is outdated.
There are always going to be individuals who think that others are beneath them. It's only a problem for the US if the law allows citizens to be discriminated against with impunity.
There are toxic waste areas that affect people of all races. I'm considered white and I've lived near TWO superfund sites in my lifetime. I would never accept a book recommendation from you since you are crazy, stupid and illiterate.
Your 1987 church report on toxic waste is so weak. When I want scientific data, I'm not relying on a church. You also pulled a 1983 report on only FOUR toxic waste sites BUT there are currently over 1,300 superfund sites in the US.
The Dakota Access Pipeline was cancelled after a unified effort from many Native Americans and WHITE environmentalists. Many people of all races do not want Canadian tar sands oil being shipped to the US. The Canadian Tar Sands are an international environmental disaster. The Keystone pipeline ruptured in Kansas last month so environmental disasters happen everywhere and impact all races.
I don't want the federal government telling my local government that the racial mix of my neighborhood is wrong. It will be a losing issue if Dems try to enforce the Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing regulations. The Feds need to stay out of housing!
https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/07/biden-wants-to-desegregate-the-suburbs-naturally-trump-is-furious/
Systemic racism does not exist in the US but there will always be individual acts of racism committed by racists like YOU!
Your own link proves the federal government policy instigated segregation in housing!
Plenty of anti-black laws/policies formulated in the last fifty years that are still on the books which I proved!
Your OPINION about Germans, Irish, Poles, Italians and Jews is irrelevant since you don't know anything about American history.
Your OPINION about toxic waste sites is also irrelevant since you know nothing about Federal policy nor law since you're too stupid to read a government report.
Your OPINION about racism is typical for a racist like yourself who supports slavery and segregation.
Only FACTUAL information counts which I provided. I would expect a racist like yourself to run away from FACTS like government reports, lawsuits, court decisions, federal and local settlements re: discrimination and Supreme Court decisions which I linked.
Of course, you support ongoing racism while denying like all racists do!
This is a message board so my opinion certainly matters. When I post my opinions, I corroborate them with current articles from reputable media outlets and respected institutions.
My opinion about toxic waste sites matters since I have lived near TWO superfund sites during my lifetime and I have actually made charitable contributions to environmental organizations.
I have never supported slavery or segregation. I do not support federal government overreach regarding personal matters like people's bedrooms and housing. The US is a republic and housing is a state and local matter.
You only provided outdated and irrelevant reports to support your leftist, wacky and racist opinions. I've provided enough facts to support my positions and my opinion matters.
FACTS trump your incorrect racist OPINION. Your SINGLE personal example is irrelevant. The FACT is black areas are much more likely to contain toxic sites as numerous government studies show which were already linked.
"housing is a state and local matter"
"The Feds need to stay out of housing"
Your two comments are a perfect example of your stupidity! Fed programs like HUD, FHA, PWA, USHA, and the Lanham Act all stipulated that housing had to be racially segregated which is the real cause for nationwide segregation that continues today.
People were literally evicted from their houses if it was located on a block with homeowners of a different race. Homeowners were also forbidden to sell their homes to someone who wasn't the "correct race" for their block.
You're a racist who prefers to wallow in your own ignorance which is the reason why you reject facts and books.
For INTELLIGENT people who enjoy learning, this award-winning, critically-acclaimed, best-selling book details how the federal government created nationwide segregated housing:
"The Color of Law: A Forgotten History of How Our Government Segregated America" by Richard Rothsteinshare
"Segregation is categorized into two types by Rothstein, de jure and de facto. While de facto segregation simply exists due to people's habits, de jure segregation is the result of laws and ordinances that discriminate against minorities. In the preface of the book, Rothstein argues that, if it can be shown that housing segregation in America is the result of de jure factors rather than simply de facto, then all Americans have a constitutional obligation to remedy the problem. The book is devoted to arguing that intractable segregation in America is de jure in nature, being the result of explicit government policies at the local, state, and federal levels.
Focusing on post-Reconstruction racial segregation in the United States, the book provides a history of subsidized housing, the phenomenons of white flight and blockbusting, and the concept of racial covenants, which all factor into the history of housing segregation in America. In the book's discussions of the history of subsidized housing, it exposes policies in FDR's New Deal that oversaw construction of public housing, built with federal tax dollars, in which African Americans were systematically excluded. Among discussions of other government programs to the same end, the book finds that African Americans were excluded from most FHA insured loans, due to the high risk of providing mortgages on homes in racially mixed neighborhoods, and shows a pattern of US courts upholding private exclusionary agreements, known as covenants, which forbade the sale of homes to minority groups."
Nevermind the fact that there were plenty of white abolitionists before and after the Civil War who opposed slavery. But they want to act like that's not a thing. Just like they'll refuse to believe that democrats were the ones for slavery at that time.
shareI agree. There were plenty of white abolitionists and civil rights advocates.
I've always viewed people as individuals. The critical race theory propagandists want to lump everyone into groups. According to critical race theory, white supremacists and white sympathizers have created a systemically racist system to oppress people of color. I was pointing this out to my leftist wacko arch-nemesis that critical race theory is related to Marxist critical theory. If this social justice nonsense proliferates, they'll be sending white people to concentration camps in a few years.
https://www.simplypsychology.org/critical-theory.html
Whites should never have begun chattel slavery in the U.S..
There were white and black abolitionists. Why are you omitting black people?
The Statue of Liberty was commissioned by a French abolitionist to celebrate the end of slavery in the U.S..
Sorry. Wasn't trying to be racist. Just that Critical Race Theory acts like all white people were okay with slavery.
shareNo, it doesn't.
CRT is the study of why racism and racial disparity continues in the Judicial system years after Civil Rights Legislation.
CRT has nothing to do with slavery.
[deleted]
[deleted]
You are right. Leftists do not hate white people. Leftists are psychopaths and therefore are incapable of feeling hate or any other emotion. Leftists just view people as objects to manipulate.
Psychopath people view parental instinct as a nuisance to their psychopath plans and this is why conservatives are a thorn in the side of leftists. Conservatives are people who have parental instinct and therefore feel like protecting their kids and leftists do not like that conservatives have this parental instinct.
Project much?
shareyou sound like a moron when you use your "Psychopath people" phrase without ever explaining wtf that means
Errr, half his post was describing what psychopath people are/do....
actually yes , i must have been reading too fast.
Although I disagree with his assertions that:
Leftists are incapable of feeling hate or any other emotion.
Leftists just view people as objects to manipulate.
Generalizations are fine so long as they are against people on the left.
shareGeneralizations are fine, period. They are useful tools for thinking about stuff.
Do you like pizza?
I disagree. I think they often times are used as a means to justify prejudice and discrimination.
It's ok but not a favorite food of mine. Why?
Because just because you generally like Pizza, doesn't mean that I would order a meatlovers with extra anchiovies and peppers, and assume that you would like it.
Because I know what the word Generalizations MEAN.
You on the other hand, insist on acting as though individual exceptions disprove them.
You should really knock that shit off.
Yet you make assumptions based off generalizations constantly.
I know what the word generalizations mean also. An exception can disprove the generalization in a specific scenario. That is why it is an exception to the generalization.
It is why I do not go by a generalization, you can be wrong and it is not an iron clad fact. It is easy to look at a statistic and walk away. It is another thing to look at why things are that way generally. Problem is people like you only want to look at the surface rather than actually examine the issue. It is thinking you can analyze an NBA game by only looking at a stat sheet. You can't it does not tell the whole story.
THe way that you say, "people like you only want to look at the surface"?
That's a generalization.
Do you realize how fucked up that is, considering all your shit talk about it?
Sure but the point stands. Only looking at the stat sheet or surface is ignorant. There is more to unfold but you aren't interested.
Also I'm not acting like a generalization is a fact. You act as if they are.
Got it. It is ok for YOU to use generalizations, but it is wrong for ME to do the same.
Standard lefty double standard.
Nope I figured rfght fire with fire. You do it therefore you gave me the freedom to do it. Typical conservative don't like their logic thrown back at them.
Also nice twisting of words. I don't use them as facts where as you do. Your gaslighting is noted and dismissed. Get educated you are a joke.
Ah, another pathetic rationalization.
It is worth noting that you admitted that my generalization was TRUE, but you refused to accept it anyways, and your generalization is nonsense.
I did not admit your generalization was true. Comprehension isn't your thing huh?
No I think my generalization is better than yours honestly.
You now deny that Hollywood is mostly left leaning? Really? Seriously ?
shareLol you have multiple multiple generalizations not just that one.
shareAnd they are all just as reasonable as that one, and you reject htem all, because you are utterly unreasonable.
Nope they are not. As I said before you can't stand the fact that a generalization is not a fact.
shareYou know what would have really gave that assertion of your some weight?
You citing an EXAMPLE, of an unreasonable generalization I made.
Funny you didn't think of that. It's really, really obvious.
To be clear, for those with Asperger's, I am being sarcastic and strongly hinting that you could not back up your assertion, because it was bullshit and you knew it.
Oh I can back up assertions easily you would simply ignore it if I did. You made the generalization that Hollywood discriminates against whites. Which is ironic considering the majority of lead roles are straight white heterosexual males. How if they are the majority are they being discriminated against or are they oppressed? Discrimination can exist in many forms but I am failing to see how white males are oppressed in Hollywood. Enlighten me.
shareMajorities can be and have been and are discriminated against in history and the real world.
That you think that is not the case is just you being intensely ignorant of history and current events.
Discrimination occurs when an INDIVIDUAL is discriminated against based on racism. That is true regardless of what is going on with with other slots.
You are looking at people not as people, but as groups. That is ironically exactly what racist do.
AND that you cite that as an example of an unreasonable generalization, is thus shown to be another fail on your part.
Yep but you are not showcasing how they are being discriminated against. See you have a double standard. I asked you flat out if no black actresses were allowed to audition for Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises was it discrimination against black women? You said no. However when I asked if no white actresses were allowed to audition for Catwoman in the Batman you said that was discrimination against whites.
So in other words it is only discrimination if it is done against whites. Second Alicia Vikander auditioned for the role of Catwoman in the Batman so that shows whites were not discriminated against for that role.
I never denied discrimination can happen against the majority but you are not helping your case. Elaborate. The majority of roles are still white heterosexual males. Yet you guys act like there are no straight white males left in Hollywood. It is a joke.
So, lets turn it around for a moment.
Imagine that some white guy said, in response to a claim that a black man was discriminated against, for a job,
"hey, he was allowed to apply for it. We gave him an interview. We just didn't hire him becuase he was black, thus no discrimination."
Becuase that is your position on the Catwoman role. l
BOOM.
Lol nope you fail again. You fell right into a trap I set. A black woman did not even audition for the Catwoman role in the Dark Knight Rises. Meaning they were not even given a shot at all. I have a stronger case to make that discrimination occurred against black women considering no black woman even auditioned for Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises.
Which means the discrimination was not even subtle against Black Women. Even if you wanted to make a case of discrimination against whites in the Batman it would be worse in the Dark Knight Rises. Therefore I actually have a stronger case to make claims of discrimination than you do. So if discrimination against whites happened in the Batman it damn sure happened against blacks in the Dark Knight Rises.
Boom checkmate! Man thank you that was so easy!
You've admitted that the character has mostly been seen as white.
Limiting casting to a character to people that fit the role, is completely justified.
Are you seriously saying that...say, white actors should have been seriously considered for the role of say, T'Challa?
I mean, that is absurd. You are just talking nonsense and shit.
And you think that was you TRAPPING ME? lol!!!
Depending on which comic you are trying to emulate. Year One is one of the most beloved Batman comics. In that comic Selina Kyle is not white. She is in most interpretations white but as proven with that comic it is shown she is not always portrayed as white. Matt Reeves was very open he was trying to emulate that comic book.
Zoe Kravitz fits the Year One comic aesthetic so yes I agree limiting it to mixed ethnicity is just fine. Thanks for confirming that for me lol. This also proves the director is allowed to look for whatever he chooses for a role. In the Dark Knight Rises they wanted a white Catwoman here they wanted a mixed one. No discrimination is taking place either way. If you want to play that game then I can claim discrimination against blacks. See how stupid that is?
Show me a comic well received where T'challa is white. I will wait.
Boom checkmate!
Yet, he somehow failed to emulate that comic when it came to Gordon...
How strange...
Here is the formal policy of Warner Brothers on the matter.
https://www.warnermedia.com/es/story/we-shape-our-communities
WarnerMedia is committed to diversity, equity and inclusion, as moral and business imperatives. It is essential that our workforce, content and creative partners reflect the diversity of our society and the world around us. Together, with other production companies, networks, guilds, unions, talent agencies and others in the industry, we all must ensure there is greater inclusion of women, people of color, the LGBTQ+ community, those with disabilities and other underrepresented groups in greater numbers both in front of and behind the camera.
So, the company has a stated goal of discriminating in favor of "people of color". And BOMB, the only race flips, in The Batman are of white characters to black...
Coincidence?
Wasn't that interpretation of Gordon already done in Batman Begins with Oldman? Yes it was. It's the same reason we don't see his parents get killed in that alleyway. It's been done before and you run the risk of repeating stuff done in previous films.
It says we should showcase that our society is diverse which it is. Including more races does not mean you are discriminating against another. It means you are opening up the door for a larger audience by including more races. This is because whites were primarily getting most the roles in Hollywood and they still are. The main character is still white and again race is only swapped when it is essential to the character. Gordon and Catwoman's race is not essential to their character.
I like how you could provide no comic book of T'challa being white. I find that hilarious.
But you just said that he was emulating YEAR ONE.
You keep making excuses for each individual action, but refuse to look at the overall trend.
Which just HAPPENS to fit the stated policy of the company to make these decisions based on race, so that they can, as you put it, "showcase that our society is diverse".
Which, is as I have always said, is a POLITICAL MOTIVE.
And, you go further and insist that it is a good thing.
While stile denying that it is happening.
How does your brain not explode?
When it came to Catwoman because that style of Catwoman hadn't been done before in a Batman film. Notice he also emulated the Long Halloween as well? Notice he emulated the stuff that had not been done before? Such as making Falcone her father.
No excuses logical reasons that you don't like.
Including more people to give them opportunity is not a bad thing. I don't care what you say. Our society is diverse and reflecting that in films only will make your audience grow. This is not the 1920's anymore times are changing.
So,, he WASN'T emulating year one, he was drawing from the whole of the franchise history, so, using YEAR ONE, as the reason for the change, doesn't really fly.
So, that excuse is shit canned.
You want to "include more people to give them opportunity" because you think it is a good thing? Than have the balls to admit that you are doing it, for NON STORY REASONS, and defend it honestly.
Yes he was emulating Year One. I just proved that considering that is what Zoe Kravitz's Selina Kyle looks like. She is almost a spitting image of the Year One comic. I simply showed how he did not emulate stuff done in previous films. He did not only pull from Year One he also pulled from other comics as well. Nolan emulated Year One elements in his films also. Nolan's Gordon strongly resembles the Year One Gordon. Therefore emulating that Gordon again you run the risk of repeating Nolan's version of Gordon. The idea is to stand out. Nolan also emulated elements of the Long Halloween, however he did not pull the story beats with Falcone that the Batman did. Therefore you were free to play the angle of Falcone being Catwoman's father because it had not been done before.
Nope the excuse is still logical. You are simply salty. I have openly showed the way of thinking that went into these films. Lets just say this I thank God you do not make films. You would be a trash film maker. There is a reason you are sitting at home and Matt Reeves is making financially and critically successful films.
I am defending it honestly. The beautiful thing is you can include more people of any race and it is perfectly fine. The race of Catwoman had no bearing on the story or quality of the Batman film. You do not like more people getting an opportunity other than whites? Well that sounds like a personal problem to me.
Which was it? Was the call made to cast a black Catwoman, to "emulate Year ONe", or was it to "include more people of any race"?
Year one I personally think. It's why she looks just like it. That's no coincidence.
shareSo, Gordon being black, is that "emiulating" something else, or was it to "include more people of any race"?
shareAs I stated before the Year one Gordon had been done already. Oldman's Gordon emulated that Gordon already. Just because you emulate elements of a comic does it mean you follow it completely.
Change for the sake of change is sometimes needed. Burtons Batman emulated elements of the killing joke. Mainly in joker falling in acid. The Joker film emulated elements as well but you notice it didn't do the acid aspect? Why simple because Burton did it already. It did the failed comedian aspect. Something never done with Joker in live action.
Doing aspects and emulating plot beats or design choices done already makes your film dull. Amazing Spiderman and man of steel fall victim to this pitfall. We already had seen the origin story of Superman and Spiderman. Therefore repeating it is tedious. It's why it's good we didn't see the Wayne's killed in the alleyway again. We get it by now how many times have we seen it?
Making the mayor elect black, was that to emulate an earlier Batman, or to "include more people of any race"?
shareThat's a character created for the film. Just like how Rachel was for the Nolan series. Why does her race matter? I wouldn't care if she was white or any other race. You saying the mayor elect can only be white?
See you don't care about if the actors are good you care about what race they are.
It's not about whether or not I "Care", it's about what YOU said.
YOU said, "include more people of any race", yet every single time it looks like that might be the case, you claim it was for artistic reasons.
Do you think that the director, just ignored the stated policy of his employer to increase diversity and he just HAPPENED to do so, for various artstic reasons, just as sort of a coincidence?
Pretty lucky. Otherwise, if he artistic vision had been too white, he might have been fired, for not following policy...
What a lucky guy...
Oh ok so this basically you feeding into your generalization. So then by your logic since the film was made by Warner brothers anytime a person of color portrays a role that generally was white it's political by default. Okay let's go with that. However that means you lied to me earlier. So then it's not possible for a colored person to portray Catwoman since the film is made by WB. You told me it was possible for her to be a different race and it not be political. So was that a lie from you? I mean you read the policy so going by that you lied to me then correct?
shareThat bit where you stated "my logic"? YOu got it wrong.
I posted the formal stated policy to show that there is an INTENT to make these decisions not based on legitimate artistic reasons but on political or "include more people of any race" reasons.
No reasonable person would interpretet that to mean that I thus believed that EVERY single decision made from that point on would be based solely on that.
The fundemental issue here is that our society as a whole, including if not especially Hollywood, is committed to an irrational and impossible goal,
ie discriminating in favor of various minorities without discriminating against whites.
That is why, when I suggest that several of the casting decisions (among others) were based on racial and political reasons instead of legitimate artistic reasons, you took the irrational stance of DENYING that was done in each case, while JUSTIFYING such behavior, as a general practice.
And you got quite heated about it.
Why would you get angry about an accusation of behavior, that you admit that you support?
The reasonable response to my accusation, from someone like yourself, would be one of complete indifference.
Something like,
"Well, maybe, who cares?"
But, you can't do that, because then you admit that the white people that were denied those specific roles were racistly discriminated against.
Nope that is why I mentioned the policy at the end of my response. Simply because you want to include more minorities does it mean the decision is political you took it to mean that.
I took it that way because you made that accusation against the film the minute Kravitz was casted. So that is why when I asked you if there was a way for Catwoman to not be white and it not be political you lied to me. You should have just been honest and said no there is not she has to be white otherwise it is political.
It is not an impossible goal. They are including more diverse groups and the film was a success by fans and by critics.
You can include more diverse people without discriminating against whites. You are simply upset that it is not the 1920's anymore. As I said if you apply your logic that means that not allowing black actresses to audition for Catwoman that is discrimination against blacks.
I gave logical reasons that you could not come against. I proved that with Catwoman they were emulating Year One. Then you jump to Gordon I said the Year One Gordon was done in Batman Begins. That is why you do not see the film repeat certain things done in previous films. Such as his parents getting shot in the alleyway. You kept flailing around once you realized this was the decision made.
I did say who cares. You then proceeded with your bigoted logic. I care if the film is good or not. Guess what the film was a success and you are not getting your way. Life will go on we do not need your stamp of approval.
Nope I can go with your logic but you do not like when I apply it fully because then it concedes that there is more discrimination against blacks as well. Blacks were discriminated against for The Dark Knight Rises because no blacks were allowed to audition.
That was all shit. Seriously. It was shit, and it was vague and poorly structured so it was not clear which shit was supposed answering which point, which they didn't anyways.
Your cowardice is unbelievable.
You celebrate the GOAL of "including", and defend it, as a policy or intent, but deny that it happens, in every case I bring up.
That is a dishonest coward wanting something, but not having the balls to admit the cost.
By your logic black women were discriminated against for not being allowed to audition for Catwoman in the dark knight rises. It's dumb logic. See I love how you can't refute this. See you only think it's discrimination when it happens to whites. Funny how when your logic is applied elsewhere on the other end it doesn't apply.
Also I'm upfront about a leftist agenda but not when it doesn't apply.
If you consider the agenda of "including" a good thing, why do you get so hostile and defensive when I assert that it has been implemented in a specific example?
shareBecause you only ever want to call out discrimination one way.
shareI consider anti-white racism to be a far larger and more pressing matter than other forms, thus I tend to post about it, rather than the much less prevelent or accepted anti-black or brown racism.
Your answer btw, seems to indicate that you are admitting that the act of "including" is a form of discrimination.
AND I still don't see that as much reason to be so angry and hateful. We are talking about "including". Don't you WANT to celebrate it, when it happens?
I disagree with you. I think people like you race bait and adopt the us vs them immediately at the drop of a hat. I can only imagine how badly you would complain if blacks held the majority and then complained about racism. You immediately mock anyone who claims racist by saying wacism. I find this funny because Candace Owens sued her school for racism against her. She did this after claiming she had never experienced racism in her life. You say nothing about this. You do not because she will say the talking points you love and plays for your team. This indicates your behavior. You protect whoever is on your political side. Notice how I defended Rittenhouse and called out BLM? You do not have the ability to do this.
No I am saying if you apply this logic which is dumb then discrimination exists in lots of areas not just here. Just by including other races does it mean you are discriminating against another. If only white people could apply for a job in the past is that right? See what you are doing is okay now since not only white people can apply for this job now it is discriminating against whites. It is like saying oh well since now black people have equal rights now that means it comes at the expense of whites. No it just now is more equal than it used to be.
I get hateful and angry when people protect their team no matter what they do. I had people defending Chauvin simply because Floyd was a criminal. Am I saying Floyd is a saint? Nope! However your camp likes to use his history as a means to downplay anything Chauvin did and gaslight people to justify it. Floyd being a good person or not has nothing to do with Chauvin's actions being unacceptable. You have displayed the pattern of not calling out corruption on your side.
None of that answers my question, of why you are support "including" in general, as a policy goal, but resist and get defensive and angry when I state my opinion that a certain act was part of the policy you support.
Let's step back for a second, and try from a different angle.
If a new movie came out and an cannonically white character was race flipped from white to black, for "inclusing" reasons, you would support that, right? And celebrate it as a good thing, right?
That's teh policy of the studio. And of the national government. And nearly all major employers.
So, you would celebrate it, and support it, right?
Once again That only is an issue for me if the character's race is essential to the character. Just because you generally saw Catwoman as white does it mean that is the only thing she can be. If a white man portrayed MLK yeah obviously not a good thing. The Same thing if a black person portrayed Lincoln.
A character like Mulan's race is essential to her character even though she is fictional. She has only ever been portrayed as that and her ethnicity is baked into her character's entire story.
Do you see the difference? I am honestly asking. Gordon and Selina Kyle's race has no bearing on their character's story. What changes if they are a different race really? Gordon is still a hard nosed older cop who is an ally to Batman. Selina Kyle is still a femme fatale love interest for Batman. If they swapped a character's race who was essential to their character I would be right along side you. Also a tiny side note I actually disagreed with the firing of Gina Carano. I disagree with her politically on aspects but I do not think she should have been fired. That was some BS.
If a new movie came out and an cannonically white character was race flipped from white to black, for "inclusing" reasons, you would support that, right? And celebrate it as a good thing, right?
That's teh policy of the studio. And of the national government. And nearly all major employers.
So, you would celebrate it, and support it, right?
I just answered your question. I will answer it again. If the character's race is essential to the character and they change it I would back you. In the case of Catwoman and Gordon their race is not essential therefore you claim does not apply in this scenario.
shareYou did not answer it. I asked a question about the policy you support. YOur answer was to ignore that question and to address a rare hypothetical way that you might NOT support it.
While not addressing whether or not you support the implementation of a policy that you have repeatedly voiced support for.
Why is it that you support the policy but fear to express support for IMPLEMENTING the policy of "including"?
I support giving more people an opportunity yes. That answer your question?
shareThanks. Very telling that I had to drag that out of you.
Becuase, you want to pretned that that "opportunity" is NOT at the cost of anyone.
Also, you really don't want OPPORTUNITY, you want OUTCOME.
And that means DENYING opportunities that should, in the normal course of events, from innocent WHITE people.
Which you are fine with.
Jim Gordon being black is just another example of the ginger genocide. We need to save the gingers. That bugs me more than catwoman since Batwoman is probably going to black. Fortunately, the Batwoman movie was cancelled due to excessive wokeness.
https://boundingintocomics.com/2020/12/15/every-single-redheaded-comic-book-character-that-has-been-race-swapped/
I don't consider Zoe Kravitz to be black since she is the daughter of Lenny Kravitz and Lisa Bonet. According to my calculations, Zoe Kravitz would be around 50% Jewish. Lenny Kravitz had a Russian Jewish dad and a Black/Bahamian mother. Lisa Bonet had a white Jewish mother and a half-black half-Cherokee father. Zoe Kravitz looks more Jewish to me than black.
I don't like the diversity & inclusion standards since it means a Viking movie is less likely due to the issues of casting two many white people. Hollyweird did produce the Northman movie but I considered it to be an attack on Viking culture.
https://www.oscars.org/news/academy-establishes-representation-and-inclusion-standards-oscarsr-eligibility
https://reimaginetomorrow.disney.com/assets/ABC-INCLUSION-STANDARDS-ONE-PAGER-6-16-21.pdf
I already answered it. You did not have to drag anything out of me.
See I like this. You are fine with opportunity being in favor of whites. The minute someone wants equal opportunity you think that means oh now whites are oppressed. No it simply means now minorities have the same chances they have. It levels the playing field.
Oh yes the Ben Shapiro argument. Nope also not true. I work a job, pay my own bills and have never asked for a free handout in my life. No substance abuse issues or legal issues. Not even a speeding ticket on my record. You are fine with your race starting the race before anyone else pretending like it is a fair race. Not everyone starts in the same place. It is our job to make life as fair as we possibly can. Can it be totally fair? No but you do try to make things as fair as possible.
Nope that just makes it to where minorities have a fair shot. Why in the NBA did they change the rules when Wilt Chamberlain got in the league? There was no defensive 3 seconds or offensive 3 seconds in the paint. Wilt was 7,1. Ever wonder why some of his records are ridiculously inflated? This was changed so that guys who weren't skyscrapers could actually have some kind of chance. You are a person who is fine with the rules or playing field being in favor of someone to a degree where it is just flat out broken.
So no I am fine with equality not equal outcome. If you mess up your chance that is on you but you should have an equal opportunity from the start. You are the guy who looks at the result without looking at the beginning. Oh that person won the race! Okay did they both start at the same place? Did that person who won take performance enhancing drugs? You are not interested in any of that. Oh black people get arrested more the end. You ever wonder why? Could it be that poverty breeds more crime or we not going to look further into anything and only examine the surface?
You claim to want equal opportunity, but the policy you are supportin openly calls for specfically discriminating in FAVOR of minorites, to INCREASE representation.
That is not equal opportunity, that is a bias in favor on one group, at the cost of another, ie whites.
That is why you get so defensive when we discuss specific examples of the policy and are so resistant to admitting that it WAS an example of the policy. Because at some level you do understand that this is unfair.
Because minorities do not get the representation that whites do. Whites have most of the roles in Hollywood do they not?
Then why even with that policy in place do whites still make up the majority?
No I get defensive because you act as if it was fair before the policy was in place. You are fine with whites having more opportunities than minorities this does not bother you. You showed your true colors by not looking at why blacks get arrested more than whites. You walked away from the conversation right there. You do not ever ask why.
So, you admit it. The policy you support does MORE than just call for EQUAL OPPORTUNITY, but calls for ACTIVE DISCRIMINATION in order to reach an EQUAL OUTCOME, that you want.
Yet, your gut reflexive when challanged on any specific example is to look for excuses to say that this is NOT an example of the policy.
AND when asked to clearly admit your support for the policy, your initial response was to focus on hypothetical examples where you would oppose the implementation of the polcy.
Do you not see that your behavior is NOT the behavior of a person that thinks that their policy position is a GOOD THING?
On some level, you know that what is being done, is morally wrong. Your behavior shows that.
Nope it calls for minorities to get more opportunities. Lets look at it from this angle. Do you feel minorities had the same opportunities that whites did in Hollywood yes or no?
Nope also not true. When a race is swapped that is essential I will back you. You just want to apply it everywhere and get mad that I do no accept that. To a hammer everything looks like a nail. Ghostbusters 2016 I gave you, She Hulk I gave you. This is not good enough though. You being a fan of Critical Drinker shows what type of person you are as well. You are not looking for an analysis you are looking to be told what you want to hear.
If it is just "more opportunities" you would NOT be constantly using "majority of roles" as a defense. That shows what you consider the goal, ie the OUTCOME, not INDIVIDUAL OPPORTUNITIES OR RIGHTS.
"Essential" is just an excuse you have to pretend that an example of the policy, is NOT an example of the policy.
Policies are to be discussed and considered in a cost benefit analysis.
But you and people like you, make that impossible by refusing to be honest about the policies you support, in this case, specifically the COST of the policy.
You cannot discriminate in FAVOR of one group, without discriminating AGAINST another group.
Thus, rational discussion of the issue, is impossble. The only way the policy can be decided or protected is though power. YOu people need to have the power to silence those that tell the TRUTH.
See you are dodging the question. Do minorities have equal opportunities to whites in Hollywood Yes or no? Forget outcome do they have equal start/opportunity?
No it is calling it what it is. If the race is not essential it does not matter what ethnicity portrays them. So then you should be just as outraged when a character that is traditionally another race is whitewashed correct? This is where your credibility takes a huge hit. Notice how you say nothing about Tiger Lily being whitewashed in the movie Pan? Why is that?
By giving equal opportunity does it mean you are discriminating it means you are giving equal opportunity. What is happening is since you have had your way so long equality then feels like oppression to you. You are probably one of the all lives matter people without realizing what is being said. Are you an all lives matter type person? Do you stand by that argument?
1, Minorites have mandated discrimination in their favor.
2. That is just b.s. to hide specific examples of intentional anti-white discrimination in order to meet the policy you support.
3. I have never "had my way". I have no "feelings" from before the pre A.A. era. That was before I was born. Thus, your point is just not true.
No answer the question. See I love this you will not answer the question. I answered yours now answer mine. Also whites still have more roles in Hollywood than minorities do. Therefore they still have more opportunity even with that policy in place. So no wrong.
No it is not. Notice I openly said that I do not care so long as the race is not essential.
Yeah you have. It is quite obvious by your behavior. Or perhaps your parents did and now you are outraged by equality.
1. i answered teh question. My answer is that minorities have mandated discrimination in their favor.
2. Is it possible for an employer to discrimination AGAINST say... black men, for a job were race is irrelevant, less say... promotion to manager. Oh, and the employer is white and he hires an OLD WHITE GUY.
In your opinon, despite the lack of "essential" is it possible that that employer discriminated with racism in his heart?
3. Please explain HOW it is obvious from my behavior, or admit you are just talking nonsense as a form of stonewalling.
And yet whites still have more opportunities than minorities in Hollywood. Even if I grant you that discrimination whites still have more opportunities than minorities do in Hollywood. So you are not the victim. Even though I disagree I can give you ground on your point and it still does not change the fact that whites still have more opportunity than minorities do. Even with me playing devil's advocate to your point it still does not help it.
I answered this already. Discrimination against any race can occur. Yes it is possible. However see you only want to call this on one side. Why did you say nothing against the whitewashing of Tiger Lily but you are all over anything if it is against a white person? Notice how I actually am willing to call out a movie that is leftist trash such as Ghostbusters 2016 or She Hulk? You are not willing to call it on the other side. This was evident when you called Candace Owens brilliant. She is brilliant because she is right wing it goes no deeper than that. You ever see me call someone brilliant just because they are leftist? Nope because I do not play for a team like you do.
Because you only get outraged when it is done against whites. I have seen nothing from you about the whitewashing of Tigerlily in Pan. Nothing about Scarjo in Ghost in the Shell. I could go on and on.
1. Your answer proves my case. YOu are focused on OUTCOME, which you want MORE INCLUDING, even if it means ANTI-WHITE DISCRIMINATION. While I want equality of opportunity.
You support racist discrimination, in pursuit of your goal. I oppose it.
2. i did not ask if it could occurr against any race. I asked if it could occurr in the absense of "essential"-ness. From my example and your inability to even face the question, it clearly can. Your denials are weakness and cowardice.
3. I speak out against injustice done to me and mine. In no way does that prove your claim of "being used to discriminated in favor of". Using that logic, MLK grew up wtih "priviledge" because he spoke out against Jim Crow. LOL. yoUR logic is nonsense.
How is it equal opportunity when whites get to audition for most of the roles even with the policy in place now? It still is in favor of whites even with the policy in place. So if it is like that even with that how was it equal before? This was proven when you said it is not discriminating against black women if they were not allowed to audition for Catwoman in the Dark Knight Rises. Equal opportunity would be if blacks and minorities were allowed to try out for that role also. Funny how your logic gets debunked easily huh? I thought it was supposed to be equal opportunity? See a white actress was allowed to audition for Catwoman in The Batman. Therefore they had an opportunity.
You support discrimination against blacks I do not.
Which is why I answered that anything is possible. You do not get to use that though to apply it anywhere you choose simply because it is a possibility. It is possible to survive jumping off the golden gate bridge but your chances are not high.
Oh yes it does it showcases a pattern. “Justice will not be served until those who are unaffected are as outraged as those who are.” You are unaffected by discrimination against blacks therefore you do not care. I actually care when an injustice is done to anyone but in this case it is not happening. I gave you Ghostbusters 2016. Notice how you do not give me Tigerlily? You constantly side step it. This is you being a coward and a snake oil salesmen.
I've made my point(s) clearly over and over again, and you are just talking shit.
Peopel keep pm me, telling me to not waste my time with you, that you are a bad person and/or dishonest.
I wiill take their good advice and resume ignoring you now.
Your point got debunked. If there is more opportunity for white people than that is not equal opportunity. You think that repeating a point somehow makes it suddenly change. My point stands you are not for equal opportunity you want a country which favors white people. Do not worry your way of thinking is not long for this world. Your education was free today. Hit me up anytime you need to be further educated. Educating ignorant folks like you is my favorite thing to do. I have had people on here tell me that you are not worth the time of day. Keep on licking them boots brother.
shareI'm convinced it's because republican white males have low self-esteem.
shareLOL you're always on a fountain of lies. Have you seen today's leftist male? They look like fucking idiots and try so hard to fit in.
I mean if this is what men on the right are competing with, they have nothing to worry about!
https://www.imagebam.com/view/MEHW91O
What sense does any of that make??? He's wearing a mask, has a hammer and sickle tattoo, he's wearing a BLM shirt, has on rainbow flip flops, and an I can't breathe hat on. What in the actual fuck?
The average white leftist male has a test count of like 175 lmao.
shareHe's wearing a mask, has a hammer and sickle tattoo, he's wearing a BLM shirt, has on rainbow flip flops, and an I can't breathe hat on. What in the actual fuck?
Well its clearly some conservative parody then isnt it.
If you think thats realitly then theres no point discussing it as you not on same planet
If you don't think that is the reality for leftist soyboy commie simps then it's because you are part of the cult dummy.
shareThis says it all
https://twitter.com/i/status/1611059972925952002
Leftists just hate humanity in general. That's why they go after Whites and Asians the hardest because we pretty much run the show and they impose perpetual victimhood on other races to act as their foot soldiers but let a dark skin man say something outside what they find acceptable and you'll see some real racism.
shareThere is a little bit of that going on, yes. I've also seen first hand what Black privilege looks like as well. The I can be racist and you can't because slavery or shit like that or pulling the Jessie Smollet victimcard.
share