Trump: “I’m a Nationalist”

[FecalFace]

Makes perfect sense.

One values what is theirs over what is not

Besides that, the idea of putting America first is a simple market transaction. If I have to have money taken from me, it should be going back to me or my group, not some shithole

You understand history enough to know what happens when there is extreme social inequality. Ready to try it again?

There is virtually zero social inequality today when compared to any other time or any other place in history

Step off the ledge

A white man living in OC, who haven't experienced even the slightest hardship in life, claims that inequality doesn't exist.



Over and over again, same dumb sh!t.
Wymyns are equal enough.
Trans people and gays want "special treatment".
Racism doesn't exist.



Emotionally retarded Proud Boi scum.

You so assured about what you know about me. Its cute

I see you're back to using the Cosmo terms!

Why don't you set the record straight.

What hardship have you endured in your life?

Are you not white?

Have you experienced discrimination?

Please explain in detail. Thanks.

 

[Ifallalot]

I've explained many times, but why waste the typing when you know more about me than I do?

 

[afoaf]

You cannot create equity or equality of outcome

no, but you can get rid of "codified inequality"

Special protections don't stop racism or bias; they create resentment and different kinds of inequality.

no, but they make impotent the ability of the individual's racism and bias from being
wielded against another citizen.

if laws that directly address demonstrable failures of the system to protect the rights
of individuals foments resentment, that is an unfortunate side effect of measures which
do comparably far greater good.

should we have an Equal Rights Act and a 14th amendment or not?

 

[FecalFace]

I've explained many times, but why waste the typing when you know more about me than I do?

When did you explain the hardships and discrimination you endured?

 

[StuAzole]

laws that treat all people equally didn't work

so we had to codify certain protections

it's not complicated

there is still plenty of inequity and bias and it's not a result of
incompatible cultures or genetic predispositions per GD; it
seems a uniquely American institution when you look at income
inequality and criminality in other developed nations.

Hence your need to codify disparate treatment as an attempt to get the equitable outcome. You're now just half a step away from telling us that the ideals of a meritocracy are inherently racist and the result of the Patriarchy.

I keep waiting for someone to give us examples of how the laws codify disparate treatment. Give me some help.

 

[Itriggeralot]

I've explained many times, but why waste the typing when you know more about me than I do?

When did do explain the hardships and discrimination you endured?

He was "forced" to call a transgender person by their preferred pronoun. I can't think of anything worse then that :cussing:

 

[GDaddy]

laws that treat all people equally didn't work

so we had to codify certain protections

it's not complicated

there is still plenty of inequity and bias and it's not a result of
incompatible cultures or genetic predispositions per GD; it
seems a uniquely American institution when you look at income
inequality and criminality in other developed nations.

Hence your need to codify disparate treatment as an attempt to get the equitable outcome. You're now just half a step away from telling us that the ideals of a meritocracy are inherently racist and the result of the Patriarchy.

I keep waiting for someone to give us examples of how the laws codify disparate treatment. Give me some help.

Why would you even ask that question like that?

Affirmative action is disparate treatment. Quotas for hiring are an example of disparate treatment. Preferences given to minority business owners are disparate treatment. The courts being biased against men in divorce and custody actions - to the extent that still occurs - is disparate treatment.

 

[StuAzole]

laws that treat all people equally didn't work

so we had to codify certain protections

it's not complicated

there is still plenty of inequity and bias and it's not a result of
incompatible cultures or genetic predispositions per GD; it
seems a uniquely American institution when you look at income
inequality and criminality in other developed nations.

Hence your need to codify disparate treatment as an attempt to get the equitable outcome. You're now just half a step away from telling us that the ideals of a meritocracy are inherently racist and the result of the Patriarchy.

I keep waiting for someone to give us examples of how the laws codify disparate treatment. Give me some help.

Why would you even ask that question like that?

Affirmative action is disparate treatment. Quotas for hiring are an example of disparate treatment. Preferences given to minority business owners are disparate treatment. The courts being biased against men in divorce and custody actions - to the extent that still occurs - is disparate treatment.

Lulz.

The word disparate means completely different. The legal term "disparate treatment" means treatment of an individual that is less favorable than treatment of others, for a discriminatory purpose.

I'm going to need you to expand on your examples, because they're too general to deal with as is.

Start with current racial quotas. Where are those used today?

 

[Autoprax]

You want to help poor people because that is a huge talent pool that the society doesn't draw from if you don't help them out.

I got a couple poor non white kids getting scholarships at my school and they are so fvcking smart.

Harvard is not that great.

Throwing some mexicans in there is not that big of a deal and keeping some Asians out isn't either.

You can go to a shitty college and just train as hard as fvck and be fine.

That will get you into a decent grad school.

 

[Kento]

You want to help poor people because that is a huge talent pool that the society doesn't draw from if you don't help them out.

I got a couple poor non white kids getting scholarships at my school and they are so fvcking smart.

Harvard is not that great.

Throwing some mexicans in there is not that big of a deal and keeping some Asians out isn't either.

You can go to a shitty college and just train as hard as fvck and be fine.

That will get you into a decent grad school.

It's better to help a disadvantaged minority kid achieve than a trust fundie with sh!t grades but parents who donated to the school.

Funny how none of the people against affirmative action never raise a peep about the legacy admittees or people who paid their way in.

 

[Ifallalot]

laws that treat all people equally didn't work

so we had to codify certain protections

it's not complicated

there is still plenty of inequity and bias and it's not a result of
incompatible cultures or genetic predispositions per GD; it
seems a uniquely American institution when you look at income
inequality and criminality in other developed nations.

Hence your need to codify disparate treatment as an attempt to get the equitable outcome. You're now just half a step away from telling us that the ideals of a meritocracy are inherently racist and the result of the Patriarchy.

I keep waiting for someone to give us examples of how the laws codify disparate treatment. Give me some help.

Why would you even ask that question like that?

Affirmative action is disparate treatment. Quotas for hiring are an example of disparate treatment. Preferences given to minority business owners are disparate treatment. The courts being biased against men in divorce and custody actions - to the extent that still occurs - is disparate treatment.

Lulz.

The word disparate means completely different. The legal term "disparate treatment" means treatment of an individual that is less favorable than treatment of others, for a discriminatory purpose.

I'm going to need you to expand on your examples, because they're too general to deal with as is.

Start with current racial quotas. Where are those used today?

Colleges

And there are now gender quotas for publicly traded board members in CA

 

[afoaf]

should we have an Equal Rights Act and a 14th amendment or not?

 

[Ifallalot]

should we have an Equal Rights Act and a 14th amendment or not?

We don't have an equal rights act

Your 14th Amendment question isn't a good one since most of the programs you're advocating for violate it when read upon face value. The 14A has been a great tool for the SCOTUS to legislate from the bench.

(I missed that post the first time around)

 

[GDaddy]

More women are enrolling and graduating from universities than men. And those numbers dwarf the nepotism and monetary favoritism the high status colleges have used in their admissions programs. Does that mean it's time to boot some of the women in search of the equitable outcome for the men?

No. Of course not. If the women are making those choices and are earning those benefits for themselves then they fully deserve those benefits; and fck the male slackers who can't or won't keep up.

 

[Kento]

More women are enrolling and graduating from universities than men. Does that mean it's time to boot some of the women in search of the equitable outcome for the men?

No. Of course not. If the women are making those choices and are earning those benefits for themselves then they fully deserve those benefits; and fck the male slackers who can't or won't keep up.

What are the application rates?

 

[StuAzole]

Colleges

And there are now gender quotas for publicly traded board members in CA

Two thoughts.

First, show me one university that uses a quota system for admissions today.

Second, explain how requiring public companies to have one female board member is disparate treatment, understanding that those words mean something specific. If a board has 10 members and one spot must be reserved for a woman, are men now looked at less favorably as a whole and is that view related to a discriminatory purpose?

 

[Kento]

Colleges

And there are now gender quotas for publicly traded board members in CA

Two thoughts.

First, show me one university that uses a quota system for admissions today.

Second, explain how requiring public companies to have one female board member is disparate treatment, understanding that those words mean something specific. If a board has 10 members and one spot must be reserved for a woman, are men now looked at less favorably as a whole and is that view related to a discriminatory purpose?

Maybe the men needed some oversight so they didn't spend all day getting drunk at the titty bar.

 

[GDaddy]

If what you're referring to are the lawful set asides for "protected classes" that in itself is "different and not equal" on it's face. All that means is that the "different treatment" is systemic. It doesn't mean it's equal treatment.

 

[StuAzole]

More women are enrolling and graduating from universities than men. And those numbers dwarf the nepotism and monetary favoritism the high status colleges have used in their admissions programs. Does that mean it's time to boot some of the women in search of the equitable outcome for the men?

No. Of course not. If the women are making those choices and are earning those benefits for themselves then they fully deserve those benefits; and fck the male slackers who can't or won't keep up.

Is that really the analogy you want to make? One that suggests women and minorities were, until recently, just slackers who chose not to go to grad school?

 

[StuAzole]

If what you're referring to are the lawful set asides for "protected classes" that in itself is "different and not equal" on it's face. All that means is that the "different treatment" is systemic. It doesn't mean it's equal treatment.

It was a simple question - show me a single university that uses a quota system today.