Is America a racist nation?

[Farfromgeneva]

spade: A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era than today.

womens tattoo of spade: it is well known that white women get a spade or ace of spades tattoo to show they like black men. It is a calling card basically.

A spade is a spade

Learned something new today. Thanks.

I couldn't help but giggle every time I saw it and just had to say something.

You guys don’t know about Motörhead and Lemmy do you?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3mbvWn1EY6g

That one was too easy for us. For a second I was a like what about that Scottish pop band Ace of Spades that had that song “I saw the signs” or whatever that truly truly horrific song was. Then I realized it was Ace of Bass…

[Typical Lax Dad]

spade: A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era than today.

womens tattoo of spade: it is well known that white women get a spade or ace of spades tattoo to show they like black men. It is a calling card basically.

A spade is a spade

Learned something new today. Thanks.

I couldn't help but giggle every time I saw it and just had to say something.

You guys don’t know about Motörhead and Lemmy do you?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3mbvWn1EY6g

That one was too easy for us. For a second I was a like what about that Scottish pop band Ace of Spades that had that song “I saw the signs” or whatever that truly truly horrific song was. Then I realized it was Ace of Bass…

Good pop music.

[Farfromgeneva]

spade: A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era than today.

womens tattoo of spade: it is well known that white women get a spade or ace of spades tattoo to show they like black men. It is a calling card basically.

A spade is a spade

Learned something new today. Thanks.

I couldn't help but giggle every time I saw it and just had to say something.

You guys don’t know about Motörhead and Lemmy do you?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3mbvWn1EY6g

That one was too easy for us. For a second I was a like what about that Scottish pop band Ace of Spades that had that song “I saw the signs” or whatever that truly truly horrific song was. Then I realized it was Ace of Bass…

Good pop music.

Oh no. On this one I am going to have to strongly disagree. That “bands” music makes my ears bleed. May as well throw some New Kids on the Block my way

[Typical Lax Dad]

spade: A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era than today.

womens tattoo of spade: it is well known that white women get a spade or ace of spades tattoo to show they like black men. It is a calling card basically.

A spade is a spade

Learned something new today. Thanks.

I couldn't help but giggle every time I saw it and just had to say something.

You guys don’t know about Motörhead and Lemmy do you?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3mbvWn1EY6g

That one was too easy for us. For a second I was a like what about that Scottish pop band Ace of Spades that had that song “I saw the signs” or whatever that truly truly horrific song was. Then I realized it was Ace of Bass…

Good pop music.

Oh no. On this one I am going to have to strongly disagree. That “bands” music makes my ears bleed. May as well throw some New Kids on the Block my way

I should have said back when pop music was actually popular. I don’t know what pop music is today.

[PizzaSnake]

spade: A derogatory term for an African American, more commonly used in the post-Civil War era than today.

womens tattoo of spade: it is well known that white women get a spade or ace of spades tattoo to show they like black men. It is a calling card basically.

A spade is a spade

Learned something new today. Thanks.

I couldn't help but giggle every time I saw it and just had to say something.

You guys don’t know about Motörhead and Lemmy do you?

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3mbvWn1EY6g

That one was too easy for us. For a second I was a like what about that Scottish pop band Ace of Spades that had that song “I saw the signs” or whatever that truly truly horrific song was. Then I realized it was Ace of Bass…

Good pop music.

Oh no. On this one I am going to have to strongly disagree. That “bands” music makes my ears bleed. May as well throw some New Kids on the Block my way

Swedish. Not surprisingly, the vocalists (sisters), learned to sing at church. Most of it is crap, but listen to the sound made at :25. Bet you can’t make that sound. Ever.

[youthathletics]

"Racists may prefer one race to another, but they'll prefer themselves to everyone else....so they will do what is profitable".

Interesting conversation that separates racisms from discrimination.

Having heard and read Sowell before, I was wondering whether we had a new take to consider, so I started the video.

As soon as he puts up the argument that slavery has included all races, as if proving that the prior reading by the interviewer was incorrect, I turned it off.

It's a fundamentally dishonest argument.
The prior statement was clearly referencing slavery in America and its legacy, not slavery in ancient eras.

He's a smart guy, so knows better.

So, nothing new...Sowell is dishonest intellectually and it's made him a ton of money, personally.

That dishonesty and personal grift makes his logic on any other argument not credible.

I suspect I could could sift through all of his points and find something that resonated as true, but it's not worth the effort as he presents this overall argument as being cohesive and interdependent...with right out of the box intellectual dishonesty at its core.

What race has not had some form of slavery, as you imply TS is lying? It is my understanding that it dates back BCE? Maybe you are taking a myopic POV, or viewing the discussion as it applies to 'only America'.

Maybe you are concerned that he is trying to minimize 'slavery' and the toll it has on people...I believe he is attempting to have us critically think about the 'whole' and not the 'sliver in time', in order to separate the oil from the water.

Furthering the discussion, it could very easily be part of a CRT curriculum, of which you are for in school education. Yet, you shoot down anything from his lips, while also saying he is a smart man.

EDIT: looks like I was typing while you were. my points still apply, after reading your last comment.

No, he's not.
He's responding to a specific set of statements, the context is clear.

I don't need to say he's lying, simply that his argument is fundamentally intellectually dishonest...he knows better, yet he uses a fallacious argument. That's intellectually dishonest.

Of course slavery preexisted the slavery in America. But he's addressing racism and its connection to slavery in the United States, ancient slavery is not relevant to the ideology that was used to justify slavery in America...he then tries to pretend that this ideology only arose when the Declation declared a seemingly different ideology, the only way to explain this contradiction was to create an ideology of racial superiority...sorry, that preexisted for over 100 years and was used all over the world in European colonial expansion.

and no, I'm not "for" CRT in the school curriculum... CRT is a very specific legal analysis and is properly dealt with in law school and/or perhaps some college courses. What I'm "for" in "school curriculum" is an honest examination of world history and in American History in specific, an honest examination of the various choices made, and their implications both then and now, with no shying away from the unpleasant or uncomfortable.

Sowell breaches that honesty right off the bat, then as I watched further, he did it again...he's a grifter.

Now, if you said you wanted to have a class devoted to the topic of race and slavery and its legacy in America, say a senior level HS elective even, or more likely a college elective, and you wanted to use Sowell's argumentation as a way to examine how fallacious argumentation has been used throughout our history, ok.

I took a terrific course in preparation for an Honors thesis in college, fall of '79, examining the work of 1956 Nobel winner William Shockley when he turned to the relationship of race and IQ...fascinating exercise in critical thinking and writing. But I was fully educationally prepared for that level of analysis by then. And I recall the argument that I'd had with my dad on the same topic and his retort "you think you are smarter than Nobel scientists?" Shockley's Nobel was in electronics, he was a racist eugenicist using his fame and intellectual credibility to truly evil purpose. It was later found that he'd even falsified his data. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... m-shockley

TS is responding to a question, after the interviewer read a passage from his book. I'd assume, if we are both locked in on the same topic, our thought process would be in the context of the topic....hence the title of the YouTube Clip (Solution To ELIMINATE RACISM Completely). As discussed at the 3:35 mark.

In the end, my takeaway was that racism exists in the mind of the individual, and discrimination is the outward action. And b/c of this, we should be sure to draw the distinction between the two before labeling. The vision, is that racism would eventually eat itself alive, b/c we have made such large strides to avoid discrimination through moral and legal law.

Heading out for the remainder day.....appreciate the back and forth.

The passage of the book is his, Sowell's, claim that these statements (made by others) are fallacies. It's a dishonest construct, because he answers the question he himself has created, with an irrelevant argument in the context of American racism and discrimination...straight on through, dishonest.

But to your point about Sowell's views, the interviewer described Sowell's position as just "ignore" racism, as it's simply something in people's minds, as if it has nothing to do with the "overt" discrimination that he described. Ignore it, problem "solved".

There's no solution he says to racism (contrary to the YouTube title description) rather we should just ignore it...it's inevitable, so don't bother.[/b]

And then he blithely makes comments about "construction workers" in the South being hired almost exclusively (by non-union shops- yes unions were highly racist at the time) and going up north to compete...until laws in the 20's were passed to stop this...he ignores that the workers were being hired at wages whites weren't willing to work for...an extension of the economics of slavery...same phenomenon in apartheid South Africa...until laws stopped the hiring...well sure, the laws were overt acts of discrimination, but so too was the prevailing economic system paying blacks less than whites...not because their work was inferior, but rather because they had the power and could get away with it.

And the heck with Jim Crow, lynchings, etc as being based in racism, ignoring all of the pseudo intellectuals who propagandized about racial superiority,...no, this is just people looking out for their own economic interests...

It's a hell of a position to take that the "solution" to racism is to ignore its existence and its impact on decisions made, whether overt or systemmatic.

But it's a heck of a grift.

I think you are stuck, equally applying racism and discrimination...they are distinctly different and that is what TS is arguing. In theory, we all are racists, b/c we have bias, so if we except that we all have bias, then we are left with nothing more than action....which is discrimination; his entire point.

HIs blithely comment, as you note, is based on historical precedence, dating back to before Christ. It was the norm, and the USA solved this discrimination tactic with Davis-Bacon on Federal projects. Footnote: it was not exclusive to only black people it applied to all people b/c contractors where screwing employees...it further enforced certified payroll, to avoid ANY and ALL discrimination (nothing to do with race)...see the difference now?

[Typical Lax Dad]

"Racists may prefer one race to another, but they'll prefer themselves to everyone else....so they will do what is profitable".

Interesting conversation that separates racisms from discrimination.

Having heard and read Sowell before, I was wondering whether we had a new take to consider, so I started the video.

As soon as he puts up the argument that slavery has included all races, as if proving that the prior reading by the interviewer was incorrect, I turned it off.

It's a fundamentally dishonest argument.
The prior statement was clearly referencing slavery in America and its legacy, not slavery in ancient eras.

He's a smart guy, so knows better.

So, nothing new...Sowell is dishonest intellectually and it's made him a ton of money, personally.

That dishonesty and personal grift makes his logic on any other argument not credible.

I suspect I could could sift through all of his points and find something that resonated as true, but it's not worth the effort as he presents this overall argument as being cohesive and interdependent...with right out of the box intellectual dishonesty at its core.

What race has not had some form of slavery, as you imply TS is lying? It is my understanding that it dates back BCE? Maybe you are taking a myopic POV, or viewing the discussion as it applies to 'only America'.

Maybe you are concerned that he is trying to minimize 'slavery' and the toll it has on people...I believe he is attempting to have us critically think about the 'whole' and not the 'sliver in time', in order to separate the oil from the water.

Furthering the discussion, it could very easily be part of a CRT curriculum, of which you are for in school education. Yet, you shoot down anything from his lips, while also saying he is a smart man.

EDIT: looks like I was typing while you were. my points still apply, after reading your last comment.

No, he's not.
He's responding to a specific set of statements, the context is clear.

I don't need to say he's lying, simply that his argument is fundamentally intellectually dishonest...he knows better, yet he uses a fallacious argument. That's intellectually dishonest.

Of course slavery preexisted the slavery in America. But he's addressing racism and its connection to slavery in the United States, ancient slavery is not relevant to the ideology that was used to justify slavery in America...he then tries to pretend that this ideology only arose when the Declation declared a seemingly different ideology, the only way to explain this contradiction was to create an ideology of racial superiority...sorry, that preexisted for over 100 years and was used all over the world in European colonial expansion.

and no, I'm not "for" CRT in the school curriculum... CRT is a very specific legal analysis and is properly dealt with in law school and/or perhaps some college courses. What I'm "for" in "school curriculum" is an honest examination of world history and in American History in specific, an honest examination of the various choices made, and their implications both then and now, with no shying away from the unpleasant or uncomfortable.

Sowell breaches that honesty right off the bat, then as I watched further, he did it again...he's a grifter.

Now, if you said you wanted to have a class devoted to the topic of race and slavery and its legacy in America, say a senior level HS elective even, or more likely a college elective, and you wanted to use Sowell's argumentation as a way to examine how fallacious argumentation has been used throughout our history, ok.

I took a terrific course in preparation for an Honors thesis in college, fall of '79, examining the work of 1956 Nobel winner William Shockley when he turned to the relationship of race and IQ...fascinating exercise in critical thinking and writing. But I was fully educationally prepared for that level of analysis by then. And I recall the argument that I'd had with my dad on the same topic and his retort "you think you are smarter than Nobel scientists?" Shockley's Nobel was in electronics, he was a racist eugenicist using his fame and intellectual credibility to truly evil purpose. It was later found that he'd even falsified his data. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate ... m-shockley

TS is responding to a question, after the interviewer read a passage from his book. I'd assume, if we are both locked in on the same topic, our thought process would be in the context of the topic....hence the title of the YouTube Clip (Solution To ELIMINATE RACISM Completely). As discussed at the 3:35 mark.

In the end, my takeaway was that racism exists in the mind of the individual, and discrimination is the outward action. And b/c of this, we should be sure to draw the distinction between the two before labeling. The vision, is that racism would eventually eat itself alive, b/c we have made such large strides to avoid discrimination through moral and legal law.

Heading out for the remainder day.....appreciate the back and forth.

The passage of the book is his, Sowell's, claim that these statements (made by others) are fallacies. It's a dishonest construct, because he answers the question he himself has created, with an irrelevant argument in the context of American racism and discrimination...straight on through, dishonest.

But to your point about Sowell's views, the interviewer described Sowell's position as just "ignore" racism, as it's simply something in people's minds, as if it has nothing to do with the "overt" discrimination that he described. Ignore it, problem "solved".

There's no solution he says to racism (contrary to the YouTube title description) rather we should just ignore it...it's inevitable, so don't bother.[/b]

And then he blithely makes comments about "construction workers" in the South being hired almost exclusively (by non-union shops- yes unions were highly racist at the time) and going up north to compete...until laws in the 20's were passed to stop this...he ignores that the workers were being hired at wages whites weren't willing to work for...an extension of the economics of slavery...same phenomenon in apartheid South Africa...until laws stopped the hiring...well sure, the laws were overt acts of discrimination, but so too was the prevailing economic system paying blacks less than whites...not because their work was inferior, but rather because they had the power and could get away with it.

And the heck with Jim Crow, lynchings, etc as being based in racism, ignoring all of the pseudo intellectuals who propagandized about racial superiority,...no, this is just people looking out for their own economic interests...

It's a hell of a position to take that the "solution" to racism is to ignore its existence and its impact on decisions made, whether overt or systemmatic.

But it's a heck of a grift.

I think you are stuck, equally applying racism and discrimination...they are distinctly different and that is what TS is arguing. In theory, we all are racists, b/c we have bias, so if we except that we all have bias, then we are left with nothing more than action....which is discrimination; his entire point.

HIs blithely comment, as you note, is based on historical precedence, dating back to before Christ. It was the norm, and the USA solved this discrimination tactic with Davis-Bacon on Federal projects. Footnote: it was not exclusive to only black people it applied to all people b/c contractors where screwing employees...it further enforced certified payroll, to avoid ANY and ALL discrimination (nothing to do with race)...see the difference now?

Do your own homework.

https://fee.org/articles/davis-bacon-ji ... -stand/amp

[a fan]

What race has not had some form of slavery, as you imply TS is lying?

Yes. He's playing games with language. Ask him again: is slavery in America based on race? He'll say "yes". And now we can move on.

Maybe you are concerned that he is trying to minimize 'slavery' and the toll it has on people...I believe he is attempting to have us critically think about the 'whole' and not the 'sliver in time', in order to separate the oil from the water.

Yes. Let's separate the oil from the water. Sowell is practicing sophistry to take your attention from where it should be focused: on the American Constitution. Where slavery violated pretty much the entire Bill of Rights, save, I'd imagine, Amendment III.

Then the discussion is how we have failed black Americans, and failed to live up to this document for, oh, this entire time. And how vestiges of this mistreatment STILL exist.

Example I've given many times: every HS in America has access to illegal drugs...we all know this, yes?

Do the police treat kids in, say, Denver, the same as they did in the suburbs I grew up in? F no. And it's not even a close call. In one case, getting popped and searched happens all the time....in others? You'd get a "fury of Karens" (much like a murder of crows) marching to city hall if you EVER put little Caitlyn up against the wall....let alone drop a knee on her neck for several minutes. Let alone make her a career criminal before she's 18.

How far would "if you don't want to do the time....don't do the crime" work if Federal agents started undercover operations in MIAA schools, looking to take down cocaine dealers operating in those schools without a fear in the world?

There are MILLIONS of Americans who don't want to even THINK about this, let lone discuss it in schools, let alone actually do something about it. Any of the above would be helpful.

[Typical Lax Dad]

What race has not had some form of slavery, as you imply TS is lying?

Yes. He's playing games with language. Ask him again: is slavery in America based on race? He'll say "yes". And now we can move on.

Maybe you are concerned that he is trying to minimize 'slavery' and the toll it has on people...I believe he is attempting to have us critically think about the 'whole' and not the 'sliver in time', in order to separate the oil from the water.

Yes. Let's separate the oil from the water. Sowell is practicing sophistry to take your attention from where it should be focused: on the American Constitution. Where slavery violated pretty much the entire Bill of Rights, save, I'd imagine, Amendment III.

Then the discussion is how we have failed black Americans, and failed to live up to this document for, oh, this entire time. And how vestiges of this mistreatment STILL exist.

Example I've given many times: every HS in America has access to illegal drugs...we all know this, yes?

Do the police treat kids in, say, Denver, the same as they did in the suburbs I grew up in? F no. And it's not even a close call. In one case, getting popped and searched happens all the time....in others? You'd get a "fury of Karens" (much like a murder of crows) marching to city hall if you EVER put little Caitlyn up against the wall....let alone drop a knee on her neck for several minutes. Let alone make her a career criminal before she's 18.

How far would "if you don't want to do the time....don't do the crime" work if Federal agents started undercover operations in MIAA schools, looking to take down cocaine dealers operating in those schools without a fear in the world?

There are MILLIONS of Americans who don't want to even THINK about this, let lone discuss it in schools, let alone actually do something about it. Any of the above would be helpful.

Some edumacation for the young athlete:

“While it’s true that slavery has existed in many forms throughout history, on the eve of the American Civil War, the United States was the most powerful slaveholding society on Earth. That power reflected the unique development of the institution of slavery over the two centuries leading up to the Civil War. Four qualities marked American slavery:

1) the growth of the enslaved population outside of the slave trade,

2) the “heritable” status of the mother,

3) the permanence of servitude, and

4) the chattel principle.”

Beginning in the 1650s, in response to demographic and economic change, and the threat from Bacon’s Rebellion, the Virginia legislature passed race-based laws limiting the rights of black people regardless of free or unfree status. The legislature codified two of the key elements of American slavery: a black servant was enslaved for life, and any child born of an enslaved woman was automatically enslaved. These laws took hold across the colonies and developed in tandem with market capitalism, creating “chattel” slavery—the treatment of human beings as commodities; products to be bought, sold, given, inherited.

Between 1619 and the late 1700s, labor in the British colonies transitioned from mainly white European indentured servants to enslaved black people [Footnote 1]. Masters put enslaved black people to work everywhere from fields to factories; on ships and in homes. The enslaved population relative to white people varied dramatically; small in the northern colonies, outnumbering white people in some southern counties.

Compared with enslaved populations in Central and South America, the male to female ratio in the British colonies was fairly balanced. Among other factors, eventually including forced pregnancies, this fertility led to a growth in the population of enslaved people in the colonies. This positive birth rate of the enslaved population is unique to American slavery. In much of the rest of the slaveholding world at the time, enslaved people were born in Africa and forced into slavery often as young adults. An enslaved person in the British colonies could have been the third, fourth, even fifth generation born in the colonies.

The young athlete believes black Americans are just bellyaching because Tom Sowell said so…..remember the Barbary Coast!

1650 to 1964…..a sliver in time.

https://www.archives.gov/milestone-docu ... rights-act

1964 to 2022. Time to move on. That’s ancient history. Discrimination isn’t racism.

[youthathletics]

What race has not had some form of slavery, as you imply TS is lying?

Yes. He's playing games with language. Ask him again: is slavery in America based on race? He'll say "yes". And now we can move on.

Maybe you are concerned that he is trying to minimize 'slavery' and the toll it has on people...I believe he is attempting to have us critically think about the 'whole' and not the 'sliver in time', in order to separate the oil from the water.

Yes. Let's separate the oil from the water. Sowell is practicing sophistry to take your attention from where it should be focused: on the American Constitution. Where slavery violated pretty much the entire Bill of Rights, save, I'd imagine, Amendment III.

Then the discussion is how we have failed black Americans, and failed to live up to this document for, oh, this entire time. And how vestiges of this mistreatment STILL exist.

Example I've given many times: every HS in America has access to illegal drugs...we all know this, yes?

Do the police treat kids in, say, Denver, the same as they did in the suburbs I grew up in? F no. And it's not even a close call. In one case, getting popped and searched happens all the time....in others? You'd get a "fury of Karens" (much like a murder of crows) marching to city hall if you EVER put little Caitlyn up against the wall....let alone drop a knee on her neck for several minutes. Let alone make her a career criminal before she's 18.

How far would "if you don't want to do the time....don't do the crime" work if Federal agents started undercover operations in MIAA schools, looking to take down cocaine dealers operating in those schools without a fear in the world?

There are MILLIONS of Americans who don't want to even THINK about this, let lone discuss it in schools, let alone actually do something about it. Any of the above would be helpful.

You are doing the very same thing as MDlax. Using history to paint the future. His entire argument is our way to finally get out of it.

[Typical Lax Dad]

What race has not had some form of slavery, as you imply TS is lying?

Yes. He's playing games with language. Ask him again: is slavery in America based on race? He'll say "yes". And now we can move on.

Maybe you are concerned that he is trying to minimize 'slavery' and the toll it has on people...I believe he is attempting to have us critically think about the 'whole' and not the 'sliver in time', in order to separate the oil from the water.

Yes. Let's separate the oil from the water. Sowell is practicing sophistry to take your attention from where it should be focused: on the American Constitution. Where slavery violated pretty much the entire Bill of Rights, save, I'd imagine, Amendment III.

Then the discussion is how we have failed black Americans, and failed to live up to this document for, oh, this entire time. And how vestiges of this mistreatment STILL exist.

Example I've given many times: every HS in America has access to illegal drugs...we all know this, yes?

Do the police treat kids in, say, Denver, the same as they did in the suburbs I grew up in? F no. And it's not even a close call. In one case, getting popped and searched happens all the time....in others? You'd get a "fury of Karens" (much like a murder of crows) marching to city hall if you EVER put little Caitlyn up against the wall....let alone drop a knee on her neck for several minutes. Let alone make her a career criminal before she's 18.

How far would "if you don't want to do the time....don't do the crime" work if Federal agents started undercover operations in MIAA schools, looking to take down cocaine dealers operating in those schools without a fear in the world?

There are MILLIONS of Americans who don't want to even THINK about this, let lone discuss it in schools, let alone actually do something about it. Any of the above would be helpful.

You are doing the very same thing as MDlax. Using history to paint the future. His entire argument is our way to finally get out of it.

Ol’ Tom needs to fire off a memo.

[a fan]

You are doing the very same thing as MDlax. Using history to paint the future. His entire argument is our way to finally get out of it.

You lost me. I'm talking about how things are today. Right now. Are we meeting the words in the Constitution right now. Today.

Cited one, and only one, concrete of example of not living up to the Bill of Rights.

No future tense. Present tense. What did I miss?

[Typical Lax Dad]

You are doing the very same thing as MDlax. Using history to paint the future. His entire argument is our way to finally get out of it.

You lost me. I'm talking about how things are today. Right now. Are we meeting the words in the Constitution right now. Today.

Cited one, and only one, concrete of example of not living up to the Bill of Rights.

No future tense. Present tense. What did I miss?

Don’t you realize that Tom Sowell is a black guy that has been writing for the wall street journal for 35 years. Discrimination isn’t racism because we are all, to some degree, racist. Guys like Tom know how to end racism. We can start by saying it doesn’t exist. B

[MDlaxfan76]

He's a grifter, plain and simple.
Smart guy, no doubt, but a grifter.

[youthathletics]

You are doing the very same thing as MDlax. Using history to paint the future. His entire argument is our way to finally get out of it.

You lost me. I'm talking about how things are today. Right now. Are we meeting the words in the Constitution right now. Today.

Cited one, and only one, concrete of example of not living up to the Bill of Rights.

No future tense. Present tense. What did I miss?

this very discussion all day is his point. No one is arguing bad things have taken place.

You are making his point….the Constitution protects against one to discriminate (verb), while racist (noun) is an individual bias that can perpetuate discriminatory action against the Constitution. Meaning, we have everything in place to no longer tolerate discrimination, and to weed out the racists/bias of people the focus and attention must continue to be centric to the Constitution.

I suppose it is philosophical argument, with an intent to educate the difference between being a racist vs. acting on discriminatory behavior.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You are doing the very same thing as MDlax. Using history to paint the future. His entire argument is our way to finally get out of it.

You lost me. I'm talking about how things are today. Right now. Are we meeting the words in the Constitution right now. Today.

Cited one, and only one, concrete of example of not living up to the Bill of Rights.

No future tense. Present tense. What did I miss?

this very discussion all day is his point. No one is arguing bad things have taken place.

You are making his point….the Constitution protects against one to discriminate (verb), while racist (noun) is an individual bias that can perpetuate discriminatory action against the Constitution. Meaning, we have everything in place to no longer tolerate discrimination, and to weed out the racists/bias of people the focus and attention must continue to be centric to the Constitution.

I suppose it is philosophical argument, with an intent to educate the difference between being a racist vs. acting on discriminatory behavior.

You continue to remove all doubt.

[MDlaxfan76]

You are doing the very same thing as MDlax. Using history to paint the future. His entire argument is our way to finally get out of it.

You lost me. I'm talking about how things are today. Right now. Are we meeting the words in the Constitution right now. Today.

Cited one, and only one, concrete of example of not living up to the Bill of Rights.

No future tense. Present tense. What did I miss?

this very discussion all day is his point. No one is arguing bad things have taken place.

You are making his point….the Constitution protects against one to discriminate (verb), while racist (noun) is an individual bias that can perpetuate discriminatory action against the Constitution. Meaning, we have everything in place to no longer tolerate discrimination, and to weed out the racists/bias of people the focus and attention must continue to be centric to the Constitution.

I suppose it is philosophical argument, with an intent to educate the difference between being a racist vs. acting on discriminatory behavior.

I've read what you wrote 3 times and I still can't parse out the logic.

What does "perpetuate discriminatory action against the Constitution" mean?
Do you mean that people violate the Constitution because of their racist beliefs (in their mind) but we should ignore that racism, only focus on "discrimination"....and, then it's just fine with those with racist beliefs and assumptions to 'read' the Constitution and decide that various practices are not discrimination? As if their racism doesn't matter?

for instance, integration and affirmative action were long understood to be an appropriate response to the long tail of earlier discriminatory practices, creating systemic disadvantages...over the fierce, often violent objections of those who held racist beliefs and who sought to preserve their own systemic advantages and status...and, inexorably those racists went to work, funding and supporting pseudo intellectuals like Sowell and with organizations like the Federalist Society, to change who was in position to 'read' the Constitution quite differently. Even a 'moderate' like Roberts became convinced (giving him the benefit of the doubt here) that racism was no longer an issue to be addressed in protecting voting rights in states which had a history of discriminatory practices...and right away, once those protections were removed, those states moved to utilize discriminatory practices again.

Sowell is wrong...but the reward for his grift is very powerful.

Are racism and discrimination identical words, with identical meanings...no.
But no one was arguing they were.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/ar ... ct/671239/

[DMac]

Racism....had a little confirmation of my thoughts about racism and military brats. Maybe this DMac adventure doesn't belong on this thread but do I care? Nope, not one little tiny bit.
Went to the gson's hockey game yesterday, they're now thirteen year olds a few of whom can play. Gson's a nice complimentary player, looks far more to pass than shoot, dishes out some nice feeds. He's not aggressive enough, doesn't have the fire in the belly to get to the cage but a decent enough player all in all. They won, 4-3, came back from 0-2, was actually a pretty entertaining game.
Was an old timer there wearing a Navy hat, so being me I went over and struck up a conversation with him. Went the usual way as to when you were in, where you went, what you did, etc. Turns out he had enlisted in '67 (draft influenced) in the nuclear power program, this is an outstanding program that not just any old shmo can get in. Stayed in for 20+ years (think he said 23) and retired. When I got to my recruiting duty part he said he had been a recruiter for a few of his years too (this was his shore duty rotation for 3 years....then back to the water). When I asked him where, he said NRD (Navy Recruiting District) Newark, NJ. Asked him when, he said 74-77. I was there from 73-77. What are the odds? We knew some of the same people, he had been at the Port Jarvis office, I was in Jersey City and Bayonne. Didn't recognize him but our paths undoubtedly crossed at the Christmas party or some other occasions when it was an all hands on deck affair.
Now to the racism part. Turns out he was a military brat too, father retired Army. I told him my thoughts about being raised on military bases which are as diverse as any place I've ever been. GIs stationed all over the world, bringing back wives. Tons of different ethnicities, mixed races, and different colors are the norm. I told him I thought people raised in these environments were far less likely to be racists and judge people by what color and how they looked than those raised in typical small town USA where everyone looks and sounds pretty much the same (this was rather shocking to me when my father retired and we moved to one of those...predominately Italian Catholic). He agreed with me 100% and knew exactly what I was saying. Don't really get to talk with many people like that with that kind of experience so it was kind of nice.
Okay, that's all I've got. Carry on with the bickering.

[MDlaxfan76]

Racism....had a little confirmation of my thoughts about racism and military brats. Maybe this DMac adventure doesn't belong on this thread but do I care? Nope, not one little tiny bit.
Went to the gson's hockey game yesterday, they're now thirteen year olds a few of whom can play. Gson's a nice complimentary player, looks far more to pass than shoot, dishes out some nice feeds. He's not aggressive enough, doesn't have the fire in the belly to get to the cage but a decent enough player all in all. They won, 4-3, came back from 0-2, was actually a pretty entertaining game.
Was an old timer there wearing a Navy hat, so being me I went over and struck up a conversation with him. Went the usual way as to when you were in, where you went, what you did, etc. Turns out he had enlisted in '67 (draft influenced) in the nuclear power program, this is an outstanding program that not just any old shmo can get in. Stayed in for 20+ years (think he said 23) and retired. When I got to my recruiting duty part he said he had been a recruiter for a few of his years too (this was his shore duty rotation for 3 years....then back to the water). When I asked him where, he said NRD (Navy Recruiting District) Newark, NJ. Asked him when, he said 74-77. I was there from 73-77. What are the odds? We knew some of the same people, he had been at the Port Jarvis office, I was in Jersey City and Bayonne. Didn't recognize him but our paths undoubtedly crossed at the Christmas party or some other occasions when it was an all hands on deck affair.
Now to the racism part. Turns out he was a military brat too, father retired Army. I told him my thoughts about being raised on military bases which are as diverse as any place I've ever been. GIs stationed all over the world, bringing back wives. Tons of different ethnicities, mixed races, and different colors are the norm. I told him I thought people raised in these environments were far less likely to be racists and judge people by what color and how they looked than those raised in typical small town USA where everyone looks and sounds pretty much the same (this was rather shocking to me when my father retired and we moved to one of those...predominately Italian Catholic). He agreed with me 100% and knew exactly what I was saying. Don't really get to talk with many people like that with that kind of experience so it was kind of nice.
Okay, that's all I've got. Carry on with the bickering.

Actually, a great story. Thanks.
Yes, exposure to diversity (of any sort) helps one be far more comfortable with such. Getting to know people, liking them, caring about them, changes who we see as being with "us", part of "us". A lack of exposure enables walls of distrust between "us" and "them" based on "difference" perceived. Lots of science on this, gets down to very fundamental survival instincts.

On the grandson, never know...my son similarly didn't care about personal scoring, but did care a ton about team performance...A solid midfielder or attack man, as a big guy early he gravitated first to defense, then to the goal...