Work is like a sandwich

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 198
Topic's author
#151
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Policy that disproportionately effects people of color is systemic racism. Even assuming that it is unintended racism it is still a problem that needs to be addressed and I feel no obligation to be so generous in my assessment. If that is unclear to you then I believe you are misunderstanding purposefully and I can think of no reason to do so other than to shield racist individuals and systems from criticism. Even if you are not a racist yourself that is not a noble pursuit. 
#152
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
So to be clear, racism can only affect people of color and not white people?
Topic's author
#153
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So to be clear, racism can only affect people of color and not white people?
In a majority white country where the white population is the privileged group? It is unlikely to negatively impact them in the same systematic way that enforces poverty. 

Maybe they could be subjected to racist comments but not systemic  racism. That is not to say it is inconceivable that such a system could be instituted but in the United states the systems of oppression on average harm people of color disproportionately.

If you do not recognize the difference between the way white people are treated by the system and the way people of color are treated then it is because you are willfully ignoring the facts.
#154
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Let's say then that the government decides to implement a new law concerning wages. Giving the reason that black people are disproportionately affected by poverty, this new law states that black people must earn at least 10% more than white people.

Without getting too hung up on the likelihood of this particular law or the exact amount, would a law such as this be considered systemic racism against white people or not?
Topic's author
#155
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
It might be considered by some as a way of redressing some of the racism although it is unlikely to become policy for a number of reasons. If you are genuinely interested and not just trying to maneuver the conversation to some kind of gotcha moment you might consider asking someone who actually has studied critical race theory. I can discuss the brain but I am not a neurologist. I can discuss racism with you but I am not a sociology professor and more specifically not one who specializes in critical race theory. 

#156
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
You may not have studied CRT but you are stating that the teachings of it are indisputable facts.

For instance, most people would say that negatively discriminating against someone based on their skin color is racism. Yet as you said, and as is consistent with CRT, discriminating against white people is not actually racism - it's justice.

I reject any system that can justify negatively discriminating against anyone based on the color of their skin. And that's just one basic foundation of understanding in CRT.
Topic's author
#157
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
For instance, most people would say that negatively discriminating against someone based on their skin color is racism. Yet as you said, and as is consistent with CRT, discriminating against white people is not actually racism - it's justice.
In order to address racism in any meaningful way we must find a way to make up for hundreds of years of explicit and implicit racism which had crushing effects on entire neighborhoods financially. How would you make up for the loss in equity from people of color statistically being far more likely to be denied home loans or for loss of wages from being statistically more likely to be passed over for a position,  promotion or raise? To redress the systemic targeting of black communities by police and also higher conviction rates? Even if there were no current racism and there is, the effects of past racism would still be enough on their own that we cannot really claim to be a nation of equality. 
I reject any system that can justify negatively discriminating against anyone based on the color of their skin. 
Me too but I might be able to get behind one that redressed such discrimination past and present. 


#158
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
If you advocate for negative discrimination of anyone based on that person's skin color, you are a racist. No exceptions. Perhaps you need to examine how CRT has impacted your basic foundations of understanding in such a way that you could actually embrace racist attitudes toward white people.
Topic's author
#159
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Redressing inequality is not discrimination. I'm open however to your ideas for addressing inequality. How do you intend to bridge the wealth gap and perhaps even reversing to some degree the huge amount of white privilege endemic to the system?
#160
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Redressing inequality is not discrimination.
"[Negatively and explicitly discriminating against white people based on the color of their skin] is not discrimination."

That is explicit racism against white people. Stop being a racist.

#161
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
Policy that disproportionately effects people of color is systemic racism.
Yes, but show me a current government or private industry policy that expresses systemic racism. That has been an open challenge by me in forum and in debate. No one, to date, has been able to demonstrate a single policy, let alone a legal statute, that expresses racism, which means that the racism you observe is by individuals in the system but not the documented system, itself. You can show numerous citations where academic, political, and journalist people charge systemic racism, but none of them can point to a currently documented, in-force policy or statute.
So much for the validity of the claims of CRT. So, why are yahoos clamoring to teach it to our kids? 
Not to mention that the payment of reparations for slavery visited upon ancestors, but that currently is nonexistent, is unconstitutional. Article I, section 9: No ex post facto law shall be passed.
#162
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@949havoc
war on drugs............

#163
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@949havoc
does not have to be explicit to be racist.
#164
BigPimpDaddy
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 224
0
2
6
BigPimpDaddy's avatar
BigPimpDaddy
0
2
6
-->
@949havoc
You can show numerous citations where academic, political, and journalist people charge systemic racism, but none of them can point to a currently documented, in-force policy or statute.
doesnt have to be in force.

What happened yesterday affects today
#165
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@BigPimpDaddy
war on drugs............
Cite the policy specifics.

does not have to be explicit to be racist.
To be systemic, yes, it does need to be explicit.

doesnt have to be in force.

What happened yesterday affects today
Yes, it must be specific, and it must be current, because old policies and statutes are no longer documenteed and in force, therefore, it is people within the system, i.e., individuals, who act with racial animus, but they have no leg to stand on legally.
Topic's author
#166
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
show me a current government or private industry policy that expresses systemic racism.
Racists are not explicit in their language because of the social backlash. Instead the policy is implicitly harmful. 
Topic's author
#167
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
Redressing inequality is not discrimination.
"[Negatively and explicitly discriminating against white people based on the color of their skin] is not discrimination."

That is explicit racism against white people. Stop being a racist.
I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. Also this whole thing started about the exploitation of wage slavery and how it takes a lot of potential satisfaction at work and now you have me arguing about who should make the most currency for their labor. This is a distraction from the actual argument rather than any sensible counter argument. 
Topic's author
#168
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
To be systemic, yes, it does need to be explicit.
Please elaborate. How would implicit policy not be systemic? For example a statute against camping in city limits explicitly prevents everyone from sleeping in parks but the practical implication is that it is illegal to be homeless. No one has to say that it is illegal to be homeless making camping in city limits allows that policy to be enforced. 
Topic's author
#169
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
it must be specific, and it must be current, because old policies and statutes are no longer documenteed and in force, therefore, it is people within the system, i.e., individuals, who act with racial animus, but they have no leg to stand on legally.
This is, if you truly believe it, incredibly naive.
#170
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
From my post #154:
Let's say then that the government decides to implement a new law concerning wages. Giving the reason that black people are disproportionately affected by poverty, this new law states that black people must earn at least 10% more than white people.

Without getting too hung up on the likelihood of this particular law or the exact amount, would a law such as this be considered systemic racism against white people or not?

Your answer in post #155 included this statement:
It might be considered by some as a way of redressing some of the racism...

Then my post #156:
I reject any system that can justify negatively discriminating against anyone based on the color of their skin. And that's just one basic foundation of understanding in CRT.

Your answer in #157:
Me too but I might be able to get behind one that redressed such discrimination past and present.

Everything points to you believing that laws which definitionally discriminate against white people are not actually discrimination. Rather, such a law would be redressing racism/discrimination/inequality. Call it what you want, but according to what you said...

Explicit discrimination against white people = redressing inequality

So I was just filling in the blanks with what you made clear.



Also this whole thing started about the exploitation of wage slavery and how it takes a lot of potential satisfaction at work...
And you ended by creating a compensation scale based on how hard you work and the type of work you do. Since there is undesirable work, we should give people more respect (essentially a currency) which they can use to acquire more resources. And we compensate like this because people don't find a lot of satisfaction in pumping sewage.


...and now you have me arguing about who should make the most currency for their labor.
You have also admitted that you believe explicit discrimination against white people is a just action in addressing racism. Because what better way is there to fight racism than with more racism?
Topic's author
#171
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
discrimination against white people 
Firstly the wealthy one percent are the ones who created the system. The world is what they made it so simply saying white people doesn't address the actual problem although it is true that the one percent are overwhelmingly white. Secondly it would not be discriminatory to be made to share prosperity with others. Why must you do worse for someone else to do better? Can't we all help each other? One of the big problems with racism is in fact that it can be used as a tool by the one percent to keep everyone down. Now forget about critical race theory. Its conclusions such as I understand them are not incorrect and so far as I know no policy makers are seriously considering redressing the wealth gap anyway. It is a tangential issue in our discussion at best.
Topic's author
#172
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
So I've been thinking about it and I have a question. 

How dare you?

How dare you compare the plight of the African American people throughout the centuries and today with the idea that someone else might be paid a little more than you? 

May as well say you understand veterans because you built a box fort once or that you know what prison does to people because your mom grounded you for a whole year.

It isn't just hyperbolic it is insulting. 

I also decided I don't care to enforce people of color making more money than whites I realy want the one percent to share there trillions of dollars with everyone. The money, space and resources exist to care for everyone if it weren't being hoarded by rich narcissists who absolutely see working whites as equal with working blacks. Equally inferior to them.
#173
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8
-->
@secularmerlin
No one has to say that it is illegal to be homeless 
Yet, the number of cities making homelessness illegal is on the rise. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-it-illegal-to-be-homeless/

There was a time when the government was not in the business of providing low-income housing as an entitlement. once an entitlement is offered, we find that people will abdicate their personal responsibility to be personally productive and self-sustaining. Why work when you can feed off the public trough? As of the end of Q22021, over 9M jobs have gone unfilled. https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/LMJVTTUVUSQ647S
Gee, I wonder why?
I think you will find that it is the the benefit of people to stop feeling entitled and get to work. What, you don't want to be a dishwasher in a restaurant to bet back on your feet. Who said our wants superimpose over our needs? One should do what is needed, then deal with what is wanted. So, need a job? Take one. Need a better job. Be educated to fill it. 

But, you complain that I am naive. I believe in personal responsibility, and fulfilling that responsibility.  But, Obama told you that there comes a time when you have made enough money. Seems he forgot he told you that, doesn't it? His wealth is increasing, but he doesn't want you to do that, too. Hypocritical is the salient word here. 
Call me crazy, and make all your excuses why people should not have that attitude or personal responsibility..
Topic's author
#174
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Yet, the number of cities making homelessness illegal is on the rise. 
Besides the point I'm making which is that it would not be necessary to make homelessness illegal in order to justify arresting the homeless. 
I believe in personal responsibility, and fulfilling that responsibility.  
So do I. I just don't think that has to be tied to employment. It is interesting to me that despite my continued corrections you keep arguing as though I am in favor of people being lazy and entitled when what I really want is for people to be free and fulifilled.
There was a time when the government was not in the business of providing low-income housing as an entitlement.
IF basic necessities such as food, water, shelter and medicine are privileges that can be revoked if one refuses to be exploited THEN the 'right to life' is by extension also merely a privilege that can be revoked if one refuses to be exploited. 

Freedom from tyranny is meaningless without freedom too act on your own will.
#175
949havoc
949havoc's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 816
3
2
8
949havoc's avatar
949havoc
3
2
8

Freedom from tyranny is meaningless without freedom too act on your own will.
Says the guy who argues for determinism
Topic's author
#176
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@949havoc
Says the guy who argues for determinism
That you do not choose your actions only makes it all the more vital that people not be needlessly constrained. To do otherwise is to punish them for things over which they have no control which is not justice. 

More importantly it is counter to the greater good. 
#177
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
How dare you compare the plight of the African American people throughout the centuries and today with the idea that someone else might be paid a little more than you?
You are the one who wants to use the power of the law, a system where everyone should be treated equally regardless of the color of your skin, to enforce the unequal treatment of one racial group in preference of another.

The fundamental problem with the plight of black people in American history was that black people were not treated equally under the law. Isn't that what the civil rights movement was about - equal rights?

What did we call it when black people weren't treated equally under the law? Racism.

What do you call it when white people aren't treated equally under the law? Justice.

If you aren't striving for everyone to be treated equally under the law regardless of their skin color at all times, you are a racist. And for all your talk of humanitarianism and lifting up the poor, you will still have to deal with the fact that you are prejudiced against a group of people based on the color of their skin.
Topic's author
#178
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
The fundamental problem with the plight of black people in American history was that black people were not treated equally under the law. 
AND that they continue to be on unequal footing.

I don't really support the idea of employment anyway so really it is inaccurate to say I am in favor of some employee making more than others but you keep ignoring that.

And again do not compare being paid a little less than another person for whatever reason to being paid less and given fewer opportunities and being subjected to extra violence and to be persecuted by the law for generations AFTER generations of bondage.

Also I am not doing it because of the color of there skin. That was determined by the previous racism itself. Whites were unfairly privileged and I don't know how to redress that without disadvantaging them somehow until equality is achieved. Like a handicap in golf. If you agree with a handicap in golf you should be in favor of some sort of reperations.
#179
Fruit_Inspector
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 855
3
4
7
Fruit_Inspector's avatar
Fruit_Inspector
3
4
7
-->
@secularmerlin
Whites were unfairly privileged and I don't know how to redress that without disadvantaging them somehow until equality is achieved.
What definition of equality are you using?
Topic's author
#180
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@Fruit_Inspector
What definition of equality are you using?
Well let's start with not being disproportionally harmed or favored either explicitly or implicitly and if I find that isn't all I mean or isn't quite what I mean I will adjust the definition accordingly