I hate my Ethics Class

[harv069]

I would think, however, that if kids were raised in a nice, middle class home by a single mom who had enough money to pay those bills, if said kids were going to a good school and not living in a poor neighborhood rife with gang violence, that the kids would be at less at a disadvantage, single mom or not. And the race of that single mom wouldn't matter at all.

Absolutely. You were right on when you said it was wealth vrs poverty, not black vrs white.

White or black, or green, or purple, poverty brings disaster to the door every time, with very few exceptions when the individual has the will to rise above the envirinment they find themselves in. Rare, indeed, when the whole country is shouting 'racist bigotry' is the cause. If you hear the lie enough, it becomes 'truth'. There are just people who will not let 'racism' die. A pity.

 

[rgraham666]

This can all be summed up in two words; "Political correctness".
It's just code for Anti-White.
If you take a stand against it then be prepared to be labeled a Nazi, just like myself and many others.
If you are strong you will take this stand, if you are weak then you will sit there and say nothing.

The people who bitch most about political correctness are just bitching that it's not their form of political correctness.

 

[Retrieval]

The people who bitch most about political correctness are just bitching that it's not their form of political correctness.

That's a load of shit.

 

[rgraham666]

That's a load of shit.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Retrieval]

Thanks for proving my point.

Disagreeing with what you say isn't proving anything.
Try again.

 

[Misty_Morning]

I don't think any of the influences left behind from all the aspects of slavery (not just the ones concerning Blacks) in America are a good thing. It seems to get pushed aside and forgotten that the first slaves in America were not Black, nor were they Native American. The first slaves in America were white. Of course, they got a fancier name- indentured servants- but they were slaves. Slavery in any aspect is a disgrace to humanity, but for the time period in which these events took place, they were a necessary evil. Southern plantations could not have been run effectively in any other fashion at that time. Northern factories had it much easier- they were located in large populations, and cheap immigrant labor was readily available- and more often than not, as far as physical care and basic necessities of life, the true slaves in the South came out ahead.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, but I have to comment here.

Some of my ancestors came to the new world in 1630 as indentured servants. Their descendents (male) later became members of the house of burgesses. Indentured servants had contracts for servitude...they were not slaves.

Now...there were in fact white slaves in the colonies to be sure. But we do not hear about them too much. They were Scottish Jacobites. They were sold into slavery in Maryland, Virginia, and Carolina. There were no contracts. They were slaves as was their children they had. I also had ancestors who fall into this category. I have copies of documenents proving this not only for my family but also my ex-husband.

Just a little fact I had to point out.

(Ever read Roots?...When Kunta Kinte was sold at auction....pay attention to who the person was that was auctioned off just before him....a Scottish Jacobite)

 

[3113]

Disagreeing with what you say isn't proving anything.
Try again.

You proved his point not by disagreeing, but in HOW you disagreed. You said, "Bullshit" rather than explaining why you disagreed with this assessment. This means that you don't merely disagree, you completely disregard it. I.E., you implied that anything said in favor of political correctness was to be ignored or rejected.

And this proves his point. If you discuss and explain why you don't find his point of view accurate, THEN you merely disagree, and you do not prove his point.

So it's up to you to "try again."

 

[cloudy]

You proved his point not by disagreeing, but in HOW you disagreed. You said, "Bullshit" rather than explaining why you disagreed with this assessment. This means that you don't merely disagree, you completely disregard it. I.E., you implied that anything said in favor of political correctness was to be ignored or rejected.

And this proves his point. If you discuss and explain why you don't find his point of view accurate, THEN you merely disagree, and you do not prove his point.

So it's up to you to "try again."

I you.

(I've given up arguing with jerks....it's like trying to teach a pig to sing)

 

[rgraham666]

I you.

(I've given up arguing with jerks....it's like trying to teach a pig to sing)

You get dirty and it annoys the pig.

 

[Retrieval]

You proved his point not by disagreeing, but in HOW you disagreed. You said, "Bullshit" rather than explaining why you disagreed with this assessment. This means that you don't merely disagree, you completely disregard it. I.E., you implied that anything said in favor of political correctness was to be ignored or rejected.

And this proves his point. If you discuss and explain why you don't find his point of view accurate, THEN you merely disagree, and you do not prove his point.

So it's up to you to "try again."

That's wrong. I disregarded his statement. That does not imply that "anything said in favor of political correctness was to be ignored or rejected".

 

[Retrieval]

I you.

(I've given up arguing with jerks....it's like trying to teach a pig to sing)

Just as long as you know your place, then everything is right with the world.

 

[3113]

That's wrong. I disregarded his statement. That does not imply that "anything said in favor of political correctness was to be ignored or rejected".

Like I said, the way you said it implied it. Everything you've said from the beginning has implied it--like asserting that "Political Correctness" means "Anti-White" which is, I'm sorry, completely wrong. It means no such thing. PC was, originally, simply about language and it's purpose was to: "bring peoples' unconscious biases into awareness, allowing them to make more informed choices about their language and making them aware of things different people might find offensive."

Now, there undoubtedly have been people who interpet PCism as a license to be bigoted against Caucasians--or to get others to back down from a position by accusing them of offering offence. This, alas, happens on both sides of the fence. It's a very common tactic for everyone to accuse the other side of "offending" them in some way--and that goes as much for whites as for minorites. But that doesn't mean that the movement as a whole was intended that way.

At this point, however, what Political Correctness really means has been twisted into a pajoritive label by angry folk (usually white) who want to offend with impunity...but, ironically, don't want others to offend them. It is also a convenient scapegoat: the white guy doesn't get the job, but the minority woman does. It's not because she's qualified, the white guy insists, it's because of Political Correctness! This lets him off the hook (he's not underqualified), and gives him an enemy to fight. A devil.

Your comments, from the start, seem to be following this easy, scapegoating of an essentially dead movement. Re-read your posts. You've been devisive and dismissive toward anyone who doesn't believe your assertion that political correctness is some great, anti-white satanic evil--you react towards us as if you need to start shooting us down, rather than actually talk to us. But we didn't start this by calling you a Nazi or a bigot. You were the one who started this by saying that anyone who is Politcially Correct is anti-white and "weak." Given this, it's not unreasonable to assume that you reject or ignore any position labled "Politically Correct" no matter how reasonable.

You haven't given us any reason to think you want to have a reasonable discussion on the subject. All you seem to want to do is prostilitize your viewpoint and shoot down those who disagree. Which would seem to hypocritcal given your repeated argument that you should be allowed to "disagee."

If that's what you believe, than shouldn't someone be allowed to disagree with you without be accused of spouting "Bullshit"?

 

[cloudy]

Just as long as you know your place, then everything is right with the world.

You tempt me to put you in your place, boy, but.....




nah, you're just not worth the effort. Sorry.

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

• Post your response to this question: Consider racial imbalances in education, the economy, family life, housing, criminal justice, health care, and politics. Of these societal challenges facing modern African Americans, which do you think are most difficult to overcome, and why?

My response would have to be:

The most difficult imbalance to overcome is the one you overlooked. That is the need to prove myself superior to the whites. When you force me to judge myself by my race you force others to judge me by the same criteria. That is a self defeating proposition. But if you ignore my race, my color, my beliefs and judge me solely by who I am; what I have accomplished, what I can offer, and what I can be, then and only then can there be a balance. Only then will ther be equality. Only then will there be nothing left to overcome.

This holds true for everyone.Blacks hate whites as much as whites hate blacks. If you force me to judge you by your standards how will you fare?

 

[cloudy]

The most difficult imbalance to overcome is the one you overlooked. That is the need to prove myself superior to the whites. When you force me to judge myself by my race you force others to judge me by the same criteria. That is a self defeating proposition. But if you ignore my race, my color, my beliefs and judge me solely by who I am; what I have accomplished, what I can offer, and what I can be, then and only then can there be a balance. Only then will ther be equality. Only then will there be nothing left to overcome.

Hear, hear.

This holds true for everyone.Blacks hate whites as much as whites hate blacks. If you force me to judge you by your standards how will you fare?

You lost me here. In what world do a majority of people hate others because of skin color? Let me know - I don't want to live there.

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

Hear, hear.



You lost me here. In what world do a majority of people hate others because of skin color? Let me know - I don't want to live there.

Where did I say it was a majority? I said blacks hate whites as much as whites hate blacks. Where I live there is as much racism amongst my people as there is in the white community. Maybe more. I have white friends and I can't invite them to dinner for fear of starting a race riot in my front yard.

This is not a lesson for whites. Or blacks. Or hispanics. Or orientals. This is the way it has to be for everyone. Until everyone can get past the color of eachother's skin there will be conflict. Until everyone can get past the differences in their sexes there will be conflict. Until everyone can get past the differences in their beliefs, religious and otherwise, there will be conflicts.

If you want peace, I'm afraid you have a long fight ahead of you to get it.

 

[cloudy]

Where did I say it was a majority? I said blacks hate whites as much as whites hate blacks. Where I live there is as much racism amongst my people as there is in the white community. Maybe more. I have white friends and I can't invite them to dinner for fear of starting a race riot in my front yard.

This is not a lesson for whites. Or blacks. Or hispanics. Or orientals. This is the way it has to be for everyone. Until everyone can get past the color of eachother's skin there will be conflict. Until everyone can get past the differences in their sexes there will be conflict. Until everyone can get past the differences in their beliefs, religious and otherwise, there will be conflicts.

If you want peace, I'm afraid you have a long fight ahead of you to get it.

Oh, I agree that skin color is something that we're better off being blind to, no doubt. I've raised three virtually color-blind kids - it's something I'm very happy to see. (It's a good thing, too, since we're walking advertisments for cultural diversity )

 

[Jubal_Harshaw]

Oh, I agree that skin color is something that we're better off being blind to, no doubt. I've raised three virtually color-blind kids - it's something I'm very happy to see. (It's a good thing, too, since we're walking advertisments for cultural diversity )

I applaud you for your bravery in this world. If only you could raise all our children.

 

[cumallday]

Speaking from personal experience...

I'm a relatively successful, above average looking, blond haired, blue eyed male with a nice Christian name. In my thirty-odd years of life I can honestly say I have never felt the sting of reverse racism and doubt I ever will.

 

[StormRising]

Jubal, can I quote you on that first comment? I actually liked it immensely.

And if you want to hear this really cool story about color-blind kids, I think PapaSki9p was the one who told me about the two kids in Germany. They were outside playing, and when the one little boy came in, his mother asked him if he had been outside playing with the black boy.

"I don't know," the boy replied. "I didn't look to see."

 

[Liar]

Your reasoning is correct, however, I have to disagree that institutional discrimination is marginal. Maybe it is where you are, but it's alive and well in the states, as well as in Canada. It's just gone underground/become more subtle, but I promise you, it's still very much a factor in much of life.

Nonono, (and this goes for 3113 too) I didn't say that institutional discrimination is marginal. I said that compared to cemtented culture of power and containment of wealth, the effect of any discrimination policy (whether that is segregation or affirmative action, or any other policy) is much smaller.

The biggest segregator is not policies but the almighty dollar. Silver spoon in mouth from the beginning is the sure way to have one. I mean, out of millions upon millions of people, and an open democracy, you have father-and-son presidents. It doesn't get more illustrative than that.

 

[sophia jane]

So, here's today's Discussion Question. I would absolutely love to see what the Litizens make of it.

• Post your response to this question: Consider racial imbalances in education, the economy, family life, housing, criminal justice, health care, and politics. Of these societal challenges facing modern African Americans, which do you think are most difficult to overcome, and why?

I'm going to have to say education. A good education is the key to a better economy which is key to fixing all of the other social problems. There is such a difference in the educational system for the poor and for the rich (note: I'm not talking just about race but about socio-economic status), and this difference paves the way for differences in income levels for future generations.

I have pointed out repeatedly that it isn't just race thats a factor, and that it's NOT as prevalent as the teacher is claiming, and pointing out all the programs in place to stop it and help equalize society as far sa advantages go, and literally, getting slapped down. It is extremely frustrating, and at this point in time, my fuse is short, and I have no more patience with it.

It drives me crazy to be in a class that rather than educating, is being used as a platform for a personal agenda.

I'm not really clear on what your saying. It sounds like you're saying that racism and discrimination are not big problems in the US. It also sounds like you're saying that there are programs out there that end racism and discrimination. If that's what you're saying, I think you're being really naive. While there are programs like Affirmative Action and protections under the law against blatant discrimination, there is a HUGE difference between the races in the US. Not just between white and black, but between white and anyone of a different shade of skin. Look at the income averages between the races, look at the racial makeup of those who live in poverty, look at the racial makeup of violent crime, look at the racial makeup of those in prison, look at the racial makeup in the "bad" neighborhoods vs. the good neighborhoods. How can you say that there isn't discrimination built-in to society?
Sure your prof ought to be looking at the cultural differences of more than two groups of people. Hispanics have it pretty shitty here, too. As does anyone from an Arab nation since 9-11. I understand what you're saying about white men having it rough because some of the programs instituted to help end discrimination have gone the other way. But I'm sorry, if you take a real look at the statistics, the overall picture for the minorities is MUCH worse than that of whites.
Does that mean minorities need "special" treatment? No. They need equal treatment, which means equal access to jobs and to safe housing, but most of all to good education.

(btw, if I misunderstood your position, I apologize.)

 

[oggbashan]

What is your goal?

If your goal is to get a pass and a qualification then you have to study those who will be marking your work.

Whatever the subject is, producing work that agrees with the assessors will get good marks. Disagreeing with them will get a fail. That's the way academic systems work.

My father started his correspondence degree with the UK's Open University in his 70s. He was failing on his Social Science modules because his politics (in his later years) were to the right of Mrs Thatcher and his tutors were believers in Marxist theories. He decided to write his essays supporting the Marxist viewpoint and his grades changed from Fs to As and Bs. Once he had passed those modules he forgot them.

Pragmatism rules - IF you want to pass.

Og

PS. In his 20s, my father stood for City Hall as a Labour candidate in a strongly Conservative area. He was horrified when his opponent was exposed as a serial seducer of other men's wives just before the election. The election went to two recounts before my father was defeated. IF he had been elected he would have had to resign his Government job and be unemployed. His politics changed as he got older.

 

[rgraham666]

If your goal is to get a pass and a qualification then you have to study those who will be marking your work.

Whatever the subject is, producing work that agrees with the assessors will get good marks. Disagreeing with them will get a fail. That's the way academic systems work.

My father started his correspondence degree with the UK's Open University in his 70s. He was failing on his Social Science modules because his politics (in his later years) were to the right of Mrs Thatcher and his tutors were believers in Marxist theories. He decided to write his essays supporting the Marxist viewpoint and his grades changed from Fs to As and Bs. Once he had passed those modules he forgot them.

Pragmatism rules - IF you want to pass.

Og

This is why I don't bother with 'higher education'. Or the modern working world for that matter.

I can't compromise on my principles. I tried, it made me sick. Damn near killed me.

Never again.

 

[only_more_so]

I'm reading the book "Blink" about making snap decisions. So far it is all about how the subconscious mind works to influence those decisions. One of the studies it points to is the Implicit Association Test. I remember taking one while I was in college. The most widely known one is about race, but there are others as well:

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/selectatest.jsp

It kind of rankles me as a traditionalist to see political correctness running amok. But as someone who understands on a very fundamental level the importance of associative connotations, I can't argue as strongly as I would otherwise.

For instance, to me, that correct term for the people who serves drinks and such on an airplane are "steward" and "stewardess". Over the years, the word stewardess has become associated with brainless bimbos and sex objects. Using a new word, you break those unconscious associations. The problem is that as long as there are brainless bimbos and sex objects serving drinks on airplanes, whatever word you use to call them, will become associated with those behaviors, appearances, etc. So changing the word is only a short term fix, and you need to address the reason the associations are formed in the first place.

Another example that is especially pertinent to me is the word "fraternity" as opposed to "frat". Many people in fraternities are taught the phrase, "You wouldn't call your country a cunt, so don't call your fraternity a frat." They take away the concept that shortening the word is where the insult lies. In fact the insult is from the association of "frat" with Animal House behavior, hazing, and all the other negative stereotypes. Meanwhile the term "fraternity" doesn't have all of those negatives associated with it. Maybe stuffy, white, conservative, but not drunk, hazing and womanizing.

Of course, I had the benefit of growing up in a home with parents who had large vocabularies and who knew the important differences between seemingly synonymous words. I also had a few good English teachers who furthered my understanding of the language. It can be subtle and powerful when used correctly.

I purposely didn't actually address race, because I consciously know that subconsciously I have prejudices. And those prejudices are very complex.