It will, that's what the first amendment is all about. Society is plenty capable on its own of ostracizing people who are total dickweeds twenty-four seven.
Here’s for hoping.
Descendants of slaves, duh. We can do this song and dance all day, but we both know that the past doesn't stay in the past, and it wasn't as long ago as everybody would like to pretend it was, certainly here in America if not elsewhere.
Right, right - logically consistent (if discriminatory) so far. But you know me - all I care about is money. In order to maintain logical consistency, you must necessarily introduce some limitations here. This is supposed to be restitution for slavery paid out of the supposed generational wealth of former slave owners, yes? As such, affirmative action shouldn’t negatively affect people whose families migrated to America after 1895 and can only positively benefit people whose families arrived prior to that date - the year the emancipation proclamation went into effect. Moreover, it can only benefit people who have slave ancestors and can only negatively affect those who do not. Makes sense so far? Of course you have your own plan, which is to play Robin Hood, but these are just *some* of the ways affirmative action harms people who had nothing to do with the plight of slaves.
RACISM?! C'MON MAN, I know you're not playing the "corporations are people" card on me. Jesus Henry Christ. This stuff happened, it's not racist to acknowledge the facts or attempt to make amends.
You’re judging people by the colour of their skin, so it’s racism. You’re judging people by their sex, so it’s sexism. I don’t know what’s so outrageous.
Or a black person killing someone solely because they're white, but we all know that's considerably rarer
Do we know that? How so? Because there’s less convictions that leverage hate crime legislature against minorities, or because the incidence is lower? Is this where we start talking about statistics, the thread gets real heated and subsequently locked? Let’s not.
which is why you immediately chose the opposite example. Yes I'd put such an act on the same level as premeditated murder at least, being that the hatred and biases are preexisting. It makes sense logically, and it's a universal rule, not preferential treatment.
It doesn’t make any logical sense if both murders are premeditated. There was a correct answer, and you didn’t come up with it. The reason why the racist should have a (slightly) longer sentence is because in that circumstance the likelyhood of reoffending on the same basis is higher - there’s a lot of black people out there, so if this isn’t the guy’s first rodeo in the justice system, odds are it will happen again. In the latter case there’s a very obvious difference of circumstance - the likelyhood of reoffending is low because the deed is already done. It’s those considerations that should determine the length of the sentence, not “hate crime laws”.
I thought we had discussed my beliefs and policy platforms at length enough that I didn't need to get back into again. Give me a New New Deal, sure. Declare housing, food, medicine, clean air, and clean water human rights. UNIVERSAL human rights.
I only have so many buckets.
You wanna keep capitalism, then just run it like an RPG. Start at level 1 with a basic bitch apartment and the worst cosmetics, the more you work to earn, the more luxuries and entertainment you can buy, eventually buying a car and upgrading to a house, etc. As long as that level 1 safety net is there for people who would've just sat around on the streets all day anyway, everyone is happier, safer, healthier, we don't destroy the planet, AND corporations still rake in trillions.
I want to run the world like one of those YouTube ads for Mafia City, actually.
Of course I acknowledge that this is most likely just the bargaining phase of loss, capitalism has never given a rat's nutsack about any nation's people, and the cards have been stacked against my generation and younger generations from the get-go. Do I think I could run this shit better than Trump and Biden? Absolutely, but that's a fairly low bar, and at the end of the day I still believe in democracy as a democratic Socialist. Not to suggest I consider a two-party system democratic enough.
I totally believe that you could run the country better than Biden because I am not convinced the lights are on up there. I don’t know about any other president, I think this is one of those “it looks easier than it actually is” kinds of jobs.
Stimulating conversation, to be fair, but we’re straying far from drag shows and transgender therapy now, well into other civil rights movement issues. I think we’ve reached a point where the conversation is getting circular. To summarise, I reject discrimination by the state because I don’t think two wrongs can ever make a right - I let people “discriminate” however they please in their private life because I believe in freedom of association. You make concessions for discrimination by the state because you hold the belief that minority populations are “owed” some degree of preferential treatment to make up for the abhorrent treatment they’ve experienced in the past. Sounds accurate?
From where I’m sitting, it’s been well over a century since slavery was abolished (1863) and near enough a century of affirmative action (Lyndon B. Johnson, 1965) to make up for the slack. I hope there’s a scheduled end date for this experiment, because the excuse will only get more flimsy over time.
