The hidden Racism of the Far-Left, page 4

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 44 times

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 02:58 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by witness63
Nixon backed affirmative action not because he liked blacks. Just the opposite, it was part of his Southern Strategy to play off working class whites against minorities. Republicans are still doing this today, of course.

Im not going to go through hours of links and videos based on speculation. Can you give a summary of this idea? If it were true it would be very interesting.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 03:00 PM by soficrow

reply to post by Skyfloating

From Poverty in the United States: 2000

US National Poverty Rate: 11.3%

Blacks: 22.1%

Female-household Families: 24.7%

In 2004, 24.7% of African American families lived below the poverty level.

The good news is that in 2008 the black poverty rate increased only a statistically-insignificant two-tenths of a percentage point to 24.7 percent. The worst of the recession, however, has been in 2009. The bad news is that next year’s poverty increase will certainly be larger.

I suspect Affirmative Action is meant to mitigate some of these very real economic disparities.

Fact is, TPTB hold the reins and all the cards. Remove corporate rights and legal safeguards, and Libertarianism makes sense. But until then, it's like gun control in a war zone.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 03:02 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by roguetechie
To the poster who said SOME help is acceptable...

NO IT ISN'T!!!

PERIOD end of story !!!

Lets not drift too far to the right now mate...

I used to be an employer myself and I actually enjoyed giving talented but culturally disadvanted people jobs. Because I wasnt forced to by the control-freaks who want to regulate everything.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 03:12 PM by soficrow

reply to post by Skyfloating

C'mon. It was a really good one-liner...

TPTB hold the reins and all the cards. Remove corporate rights and legal safeguards, and Libertarianism makes sense. But until then...

It's like gun control in a war zone.

Dontcha think?

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 03:14 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by soficrow

I suspect Affirmative Action is meant to mitigate some of these very real economic disparities.

Education would help more than free lunch imo.

In any case: YES it was a good one-liner.

edit on 19-9-2010 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 03:21 PM by SeventhSeal

reply to post by VitriolAndAngst

Because the Right always plays the Race Card. They have to somehow convince themselves they're not racist by somehow accusing the Left of such things.

It's quite astonishing......and cheap.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 03:25 PM by soficrow

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by soficrow

I suspect Affirmative Action is meant to mitigate some of these very real economic disparities.

Education would help more than free lunch imo.

True, and sometimes, just a kind word is enough.

But we're still stuck in corporate-feudal-hell, diving for the crumbs that fall from the table. ...The kind of education that might "help" is not to be found in corporate-sponsored schools and colleges and universities.

["Thank god for ATS," she says with some relief.]

In any case: YES it was a good one-liner.

Blush. Thought you didn't notice.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 03:32 PM by joechip

reply to post by Skyfloating

I am saying that I think blacks have been able to lift themselves out of poverty in the last 100 years and would generally be able to do so in the future too. Are you disagreeing with that?

First of all, I disagree that that is indeed what you are saying. Or what you have said. If you stand behind your quotation it clearly asserts that blacks have largely lifted themselves out of poverty. This is from a book published in 2004, so hardly a standpoint viewing the situation from, let's say, 50 years ago and commenting on the progress since slavery. Let's start there, since your OP did. The quotation does not state that blacks have made great strides in overcoming poverty the past 100 years. If it stated that, one could hardly argue with it. It explicitly voices the spurious notion that poverty among blacks has largely been overcome. If one-quarter of your community were living in poverty, do you think you'd consider that a problem largely solved?

The 100 years, let's take a look at that as well. You clearly stated that racism has been over (to any significant degree) for 100 years. Rather than admit you misspoke, you choose to conflate racism with slavery which is offensive on its face.

Really, you should take a little time with your responses. One liners won't cut it here. I have plenty of arguments on the affirmative action end of things (studies, quotes, etc.) but you need to convince me that you're interested in a real discussion by responding thoughtfully to my posts, first. Maybe you'd just rather I, and my arguments just go away.

edit on 19-9-2010 by joechip because: add quote

edit on 19-9-2010 by joechip because: grammar

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 03:33 PM by Parallex

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Parallex
reply to post by Skyfloating

I think this thread is a baiting excerise and grossly misrepresents the argument here.

The far-left is just as bad as the far-right. I think everyone agrees with that.

No. This specific type of stupdity can only be borne in the mind of a person who has been conditioned to see people as oppressed victims...in other words, someone who has been reading too much far-left literature.

The racism of the far-right is of a different sort. To imply that they are the similar or the same is an attempt to obfuscate the effects of far-left thinking.

If I'm honest - I don't expect or appreciate an ad hominem attack from a forum moderator, especially one 'tarred' with an SJME badge. I sincerely hope I've read this wrong, and that you're not just calling me stupid, when you know full well I'm not.

In answer to the more civilised section of your post -

I have NOT been conditioned to see anything my ad-hom friend. I see things as I see fit - and can certainly tell you that the literature I read is most definitely NOT far-left. If anything, I read material of a slightly more conservative nature.

You do NOT like the fact that I have called your bluff on this one - and it's not hard to see why. This entire thread relies upon the political spectrum being clear cut, and as you see it fit to be. It isn't, quite obviously. Racism is racism - whether it's from the left, or from the right. Discrimination, whether positive or negative is still discrimination.

You are missing the point that the great leveller in this subject matter is that of 'promotion of merit'. You see, when it comes to 'due privilege', I have a distinctly conservative bent to my thinking. I do NOT believe in positive discrimination, as it invariably bases its' evaluative criteria on non-merit based factors. Simply put, it's a clever racists wet dream.

Both the left and the right believe in promotion of merit - it's just that the left applies Utilitarian principles of the social 'body', and the right practices loose adherance to the 'social contract' at best. In an englightened society, it's easily arguable that a 'Social Darwinist' approach is NOT the way forward, as social inequities and negative economies would become rampant - cyclical anarchy would be the result.

So you see, logically, your argument is based upon the idea that left wing thinkers apply social darwinism - this is a fallacy. There is only 'racism' in socialism, when a demographic is excluded from the baseline improvement in societal quality (only as strong as the weakest link) - USUALLY, this is the demograph in questions own fault - self exclusion or failure to adapt culturally to a foreign cultural environment.

Your concept of racism is flawed - and so is your view of the political spectrum. I need say no more.

Parallex.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 03:56 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by joechip
First of all, I disagree that that is indeed what you are saying.

If you know better than me what my opinion is, how can we talk?

You misread the OP. I am NOT saying that poverty has been overcome. I am saying that blacks who have overcome poverty have done so of their own power and not primarily thanks to affirmative action.

I cannot respond to most of your points because I am not arguing that poverty has been overcome.

The 100 years, let's take a look at that as well. You clearly stated that racism has been over (to any significant degree) for 100 years. Rather than admit you misspoke, you choose to conflate racism with slavery which is offensive on its face.

In the case stated above I meant to say that SLAVERY has been over for 100 years, yes.

In every post you have directed at me so far you half-imply that Im a racist. On which grounds exactly? Just curious.

you need to convince me that you're interested in a real discussion by responding thoughtfully to my posts

Im trying, but its difficult.

edit on 19-9-2010 by Skyfloating because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 03:56 PM by vcwxvwligen

Programs like affirmative action are part of a Marxist conspiracy to keep people dependent on the state for basic survival, and to foster hopes of a worldwide Utopia.

They prey not only on non-whites, but also women and children. They never outline what will solve the problem, only that the problem still exists and needs to be resolved NOW.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 04:01 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Parallex
If I'm honest - I don't expect or appreciate an ad hominem attack from a forum moderator, especially one 'tarred' with an SJME badge. I sincerely hope I've read this wrong, and that you're not just calling me stupid, when you know full well I'm not.

No, that was a generalized statement, not at all directed at you personally. I´ll address your other points in another post.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 04:12 PM by Come Clean

Left, right and center doesn't matter. IMO, there is a grand conspiracy against Black Folks. Everywhere in the world Blacks are poor and disenfranchised from the rest of society. Look at American. Look at Africa. Look at Haiti or Somolia.

And it all goes back to the curse of Ham. Here's my theory.

The Gods did in fact create the black man first. But they didn't like them. They were not white. So they made another which probably turned out to be Indians. They didn't like that either. Then they made the Arabs. Unfortunately, they didn't like that either. Then they made the white man. That they liked. It was their best work. I actually think Asians were made from another alien group during that time. Or possibly made by one of the fallen angels to spite our creator. Not trying to be racist against Asians but they do have alien eyes.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 04:13 PM by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Parallex
This entire thread relies upon the political spectrum being clear cut,

Reminds me of your recent thread entitled "Atheism = Left, Religion = Right".

As for the rest of your post: You do understand that on a deeper level, the OP is implying that, the racism coming from the left is unintentional / subconscious?

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 04:18 PM by witness63

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Im not going to go through hours of links and videos based on speculation. Can you give a summary of this idea? If it were true it would be very interesting.

Affirmative Action as we know it today was created in 1969 by Richard Nixon and his Secretary of Labor George Schultz in the so-called Philadelphia Plan. The idea had been around before but not much had come of it before 1969, before Nixon really pushed it.

He used to joke that it really upset George Meany (the head of the AFL-CIO) so much that he would call up and start using the "n" word all the time. This is exactly what Nixon wanted, to increase the tensions and hostilities between white workers and blacks, with Republicans saying "Look, they're taking your jobs". They have been doing this for 40 years, but only historians remember who started it and why.

At the time, the Democrats didn't even support Nixon's plan, but preferred to use the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) which was effectively gutted under Nixon and Reagan and never been allowed to function in the way it was intended. The EEOC didn't have the quotas and timetables that Nixon's plan had, but it had far greater legal powers to go after employers that were still practicing racial discrimination. That's hardly ever been done, though.

Nixon's plan was purely political, based on trying to stoke the white backlash and resentment against black civil rights gains, and in this respect it has succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. No one who listens to Nixon's tapes would ever believe he was anything but a racist, and did not care about blacks in the slightest.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 04:20 PM by Come Clean

Lost book of Enki

Enki the matter was pondering, what was done each step and admixture
he considered.
Of all that we have tried and changed, one thing was never altered!
to Ninmah he was saying:
Into the womb of the Earth female the fertilized egg was always
inserted;

Perchance this is the remaining obstruction! Thus was Enki saying.
Ninmah at Enki gazed, with bewilderment she him beheld.
What, in truth, are you saying? Of him an answer she required.
Of the birth-giving womb I am speaking! to her Enki was responding.
Of who the fertilized oval nurtures, to birth-giving carries;

In our image and after our likeness to be, perchance an Anunnaki womb
is required!
In the House of Life there was silence; words never heard before Enki
was uttering!
They gazed at each other, about what in each other's mind they were
thinking.
Wise are your words my brother! Ninmah at long last was saying.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 04:20 PM by witness63

Originally posted by vcwxvwligen
Programs like affirmative action are part of a Marxist conspiracy to keep people dependent on the state for basic survival, and to foster hopes of a worldwide Utopia.

Yes, created by the "Marxist" Richard Nixon in 1969? Why?

How come I have never heard any Republicans talk about that?

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 04:34 PM by babybunnies

Have you seen the definition of what constitutes "far left" and "far right".

By definition, any organization that promotes itself as either of these things is a racist organization.

Old news.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 04:42 PM by Parallex

Originally posted by Skyfloating

Originally posted by Parallex
This entire thread relies upon the political spectrum being clear cut,

Reminds me of your recent thread entitled "Atheism = Left, Religion = Right".

Indeed - you sound like you're trying to make a point there...?

Originally posted by Skyfloating
As for the rest of your post: You do understand that on a deeper level, the OP is implying that, the racism coming from the left is unintentional / subconscious?

If that's what you're trying to say, then yes, you're right. You'll have to forgive me when I say that your thread here doesn't seem to suggest your belief in this...

If we are in agreement then, that left wing thinking could actually produce unintentionally racist outcomes, does that then mean that it's NOT racist? Rather, it is flawed and imperfect like humanity? Surely, for a person or entity to be racist, it must exhibit directed intent with malice....

If I'm honest, your thread seems to have taken the idea that I've highlighted in my previous post and here - (that socialist behaviour can unintentionally produce discriminatory outcomes) - and run a mile down Daily Mail street. You have almost appeared to intentionally portray left-wing thinking's minor failings as comparable with right-wing racism. Given the presence of the crazy anti-left mentalists on here, your thread is bound to receive support from their quarter.

I'm all for exploring undiscussed politics - but without context and the restraint of reality - it's just another right-wing propaganda thread.

(Thankyou for not calling me stupid by the way!)

Parallex.

reply posted on 19-9-2010 @ 04:43 PM by joechip

reply to post by Skyfloating

You misread the OP. I am NOT saying that poverty has been overcome. I am saying that blacks who have overcome out of poverty have done so of their own power and not primarily thanks to affirmative action. I cannot respond to most of your points because I am not arguing that poverty has been overcome.

.

I contend, then, that you misread your own opening quotation. Let's take a look at the sentence, shall we?

"Affirmative Action in the U.S. has made blacks...who have largely lifted themselves out of poverty, look like people who owe their rise to affirmative action and other government programs" - Dr. T Sowell

A fifth grade English lesson tells us that the clause "who have largely lifted themselves out of poverty" refers to blacks and qualifies not those blacks who have "lifted themselves out of poverty," but blacks in general. It makes a qualifying statement about "blacks." If the sentence meant what you took it to mean it would read:

"Affirmative Action in the U.S. has made those blacks who have lifted themselves out of poverty, look like people who owe their rise to affirmative action and other government programs"

The word "largely" would not even fit in the restructured sentence. I hope this suffices to make my point.

I was not telling you what your opinion was, merely what your words (quoted and otherwise) mean.

Words are important.

As far as your contention (not exactly a retraction, but we'll take it) that you meant to say "slavery" instead of "racism," okay, but can't you see that you still fail to explain how your point is served by that change? Were institutionalized racist policies NOT an impediment to african-american economic betterment? You are still conflating "racism" and "slavery," if you fail to address this.

If you can't see the inherent racism in both of these points, I doubt I'll be able to point them out in a way that makes sense to you. To me they are self-evident.

edit on 19-9-2010 by joechip because: insertion of the word "of:" to quote correctly.

edit on 19-9-2010 by joechip because: insertion of a necessary space