American Politics Discussion Thread

[Mjmd]

People wanted rights to live as people. The story of a lot of liberal activism over the last 120 years. Women have the right to vote? ABSURD! Black people have the right to vote and eat in white restaurants!!! Its folk wisdom, common sense, and science that black people are inferior!!! (you can literally find this back then too). For a long time our government was part of those suppression efforts. Doesn't mean they were right to do so. As a parent I don't know what my children will be. But I know I don't want people to treat them like shit if they don't like something about them and I really don't want the government to help people to treat them like shit if they make them feel uncomfortable. If black people make you feel uncomfortable should we ban them from places too? We did for a while.

Did you read the full quote even? The suit was literally about a lack of appeal procedure in their hiring policy. That is part of the normal HR legal process. Its not even a high bar or as onerous as other HR laws. Some appeal procedure rarely used that people probably won't know they have access to, and companies will probably have filled the position by the time they go through it most of the time. Your making the lowest of bars sound absurd, when they are pretty useless. Again, I find this argument kind of silly as I think the current laws are pretty toothless. My guess is the suit will be dropped when the company puts into place said appeal process. Please make your argument on why hiring candidates can't make the case they aren't auto disqualified for a job. If I'm convicted for not paying parking tickets does that mean I can't work at a convenience store? Maybe, something for the appeals procedure. Its not like the appeals process has to always say yes, it just has to exist. Maybe that is disqualifying, but at least the company has to have some kind of justification. Again certain types of crimes are very much more persecuted among minority communities. There is long standing known racial profiling in prosecuting and sentencing. Is an appeals process existing to determine if that conviction is relevant to job duties over the line? I'm an accountant. Conviction of fraud, absolutely relevant. Small amount of weed 10 years ago. Probably not relevant; way more relevant how well you can operate a computer. BTW Guess which of those convictions probably carried more jail time.

They used the current law to say discrimination of any kind was bad. Is that not the point of the law? I know the liberal justices dissented, but to me this ruling has merit even if I understand the intent of what they were trying to do. If we got rid of the law, they could discriminate if they wanted to though, but so could others in much worse ways. Again, just do blind admissions. Have whomever is viewing the applications not know the race or name. Seems better to me /shrug. Again, I don't think the answer is to do nothing. Pretending there isn't a problem is just being blind. In general I think this is a problems liberals have. There is A problem. Conservatives only have to say "no there isn't / do nothing". Its one of the things that really turned me off. They aren't even willing to try conservative solutions unless it involved a tax cut or they can fear monger off of it. Liberals have to actually do something to fix it. Sometimes they are wrong or it doesn't work and then conservatives get to say "see its wrong or it doesn't work, tear it down and no we won't be replacing it with something else". I don't always agree on the democrat / liberal solution. Again, this court case I agree with the conservative justices (which rarely happens now a days), but it doesn't mean its not a problem that needs something.

[BING_XI_LAO]

My 3/8ths black cousin just quit living in Malawi because of the constant robberies of powerlines, home invasion attempts, having to pay bribes every 30km while driving down the road at police checkpoints. Well those were the reasons he gave, but maybe he just feels uncomfortable around blacks, due to being a racist. Also when my South African relatives moved out of their suburb in Cape Town in favour of a 95% white coastal village, this was because all the blacks moving in nearby made them uncomfortable, due to their racism. It wasn't because said blacks had set up a shanty town slum next door made of corrugated metal sheets while launching a campaign of home invasions into the adjoining middle-class residences.

And in the US, people avoid black schools, neighbourhoods and public transport because of racism. No other reason. Yes, admittedly every black country operates at a very low level, and every black city and municipality in any racially mixed country is dysfunctional compared to the national standard, but that doesn't matter.

What matters is that in Plato's World of the Forms, in the higher reality of logical essence which precedes our mundane world, every race has exactly the same cognition, despite having had tens of thousands of years to evolve differences in social interaction and intellect, which is the newest and most unstable part of hominid-human evolved capabilities, with the most novel selection pressures as tool use and language use rapidly expand. It's not necessary to explain this miracle, even if you have to punish one of the discoverers of DNA for blaspheming against it. It's true for a higher moral reason: Equality. Yes, we were created by evolution, which is all about inequality, variation, competition and selection (discrimination), but specifically for the homo sapiens subraces equality was imposed from above, miraculously.

So as you can see, while people across the US are still self-segregating to avoid blacks 60 years after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, true equality will inevitably be achieved, probably in just another century or two.

[Japper007]

So first I'm crazy for calling it Satanic and then a few posts later you're tracing it back to Loki, that perverse traitor who will side with our great enemy the Giants at Ragnarok - and Dionisiac cults. How was I wrong?

Oh I do not believe Loki is any more real than Jesus or whatever cult you uphold. Apparently one that believes in demonology (despite even the Catholic Church fully acknowledging that possesion/demonology is a scam at best, mistreatment of the metally ill at worst). But I am using it to illustrate that people believed these concepts to be real. They believed their gods and heroes were real and also sometimes that they were trans so they believed in the concept. 

My other examples were merely showing that the concept of people transgressing (ha!) the supposedly rigid gender binary has always been a thing, will always be a thing. And that what even qualifies as these two binary poles is a changing, evolving concept.

[greenline]

People wanted rights to live as people. The story of a lot of liberal activism over the last 120 years. Women have the right to vote? ABSURD! Black people have the right to vote and eat in white restaurants!!! Its folk wisdom, common sense, and science that black people are inferior!!! (you can literally find this back then too). For a long time our government was part of those suppression efforts. Doesn't mean they were right to do so. As a parent I don't know what my children will be. But I know I don't want people to treat them like shit if they don't like something about them and I really don't want the government to help people to treat them like shit if they make them feel uncomfortable. If black people make you feel uncomfortable should we ban them from places too? We did for a while.

You're talking like everything progressives do in the name of expanding rights and progress is always good. If you believe everything that progressives do, there are still things that have quietly been admitted as mistakes. The progressive's role in the eugenics movement is now quietly not talked about, as is the role of prominent feminist and civil rights philosophers with organizations like NAMBLA, and the attempt to remove the age of consent laws in France. If you don't believe everything that progressives say, then there are many more potential mistakes to look into. The end of Apartheid was supposed to bring a new era of growth, stability, and peace to South Africa. Instead, South Africa has steadily become a completely dysfunctional mess of a country, less capable of maintaining electricity in many areas than Mexico. Feminists of the future (or whatever else female advocates choose to call themselves) will likely look back on the 21st century decision to hook millions of women on hormonal birth control as a bizarre and ugly thing. There is a good chance that the transgender movement of the last 20 years will be seen as a mistake and written off, around the time the first generation of men on HRT start balding. There are already some European doctors breaking ranks and raising alarm bells that no, distributing hormone blockers, artificial hormones, and surgeries to young people feeling insecure is not a good idea.
And if it is a mistake, it is a mistake that came about because of a educated, elite minority pushing unpopular ideas.

Did you read the full quote even? The suit was literally about a lack of appeal procedure in their hiring policy. That is part of the normal HR legal process. Its not even a high bar or as onerous as other HR laws. Some appeal procedure rarely used that people probably won't know they have access to, and companies will probably have filled the position by the time they go through it most of the time.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/dis...313264/37/

The case lists complaints about Sheetz enabling discriminatory hiring practices in addition to not providing the appeal process. The requirement for an appeals process is already absurd - there's no good reason why a company should need to go through that extra work to justify not hiring someone with a record. But it is not as absurd as the claim that using criminal background checks are a discriminatory practice. That's in the case.

They used the current law to say discrimination of any kind was bad. Is that not the point of the law? I know the liberal justices dissented, but to me this ruling has merit even if I understand the intent of what they were trying to do. If we got rid of the law, they could discriminate if they wanted to though, but so could others in much worse ways. Again, just do blind admissions. Have whomever is viewing the applications not know the race or name. Seems better to me /shrug. Again, I don't think the answer is to do nothing. Pretending there isn't a problem is just being blind. In general I think this is a problems liberals have. There is A problem. Conservatives only have to say "no there isn't / do nothing". Its one of the things that really turned me off. They aren't even willing to try conservative solutions unless it involved a tax cut or they can fear monger off of it. Liberals have to actually do something to fix it. Sometimes they are wrong or it doesn't work and then conservatives get to say "see its wrong or it doesn't work, tear it down and no we won't be replacing it with something else". I don't always agree on the democrat / liberal solution. Again, this court case I agree with the conservative justices (which rarely happens now a days), but it doesn't mean its not a problem that needs something.

The post-conservative position slowly emerging is not to do nothing, but to replace as much of the current system as possible with a system that encourages self affiliation and self determination. Progressives feel this is much more threatening than doing nothing.

[Mjmd]

I'm not saying its always good, but I can't remember eugenics being a big progressive issue. Again, progressives can make mistakes. So can conservatives. People used your EXACT arguments against others in the past. Again, my main argument is why should the government be involved in blocking? In general my philosophy on government regulations is "how much harm does this cause"? I know you didn't like the government interfering when hundreds of thousands of people were dying, why should it here? Is it hurting you? Please answer this hypocritical position. Yes at some point the government should step in if enough harm is being caused, but there simple isn't enough evidence this is the case here. As people commit suicide when they can't transition or are discriminated against allowing seems like less harm than some people feeling uncomfortable.

Its considered discriminatory NOT to have the appeals process. Precisely because racial minorities are targeted more often and have increased sentences. A crime that gets a white person a slap on the wrist often gets a minority prison time

You literally said people should be allowed to discriminate. Again, is my solution not self determination? I think my solution is a nice conservative option that I wish liberals would adopt, but neither have conservatives. I have seen no actual substitute in conservative action. Just a desire to tear down. Please inform me of a bill or executive action that tries to solve discrimination in a productive conservative way. And again it can't be just ignore the problem and tear down existing.

[greenline]

I'm not saying its always good, but I can't remember eugenics being a big progressive issue. Again, progressives can make mistakes. So can conservatives. People used your EXACT arguments against others in the past. Again, my main argument is why should the government be involved in blocking? In general my philosophy on government regulations is "how much harm does this cause"? I know you didn't like the government interfering when hundreds of thousands of people were dying, why should it here? Is it hurting you? Please answer this hypocritical position. Yes at some point the government should step in if enough harm is being caused, but there simple isn't enough evidence this is the case here. As people commit suicide when they can't transition or are discriminated against allowing seems like less harm than some people feeling uncomfortable.

You don't remember it because it happened before you were born.

Your logic is again, backwards. 20 years ago, no conservatives were lobbying government to regulate sex segregation. It was progressive trans lobbyists who pushed for regulation for their causes. It's very slimy to claim that resistance to new regulations is "asking for more government regulations".

Btw, the government interfering when hundreds of thousands of people died also caused thousands of businesses to close, people to lose their jobs, and resulted in some of the worse inflation the country has seen for years. The economic effects were so bad that urban centers like NYC were bleeding people for a long time despite record immigration surges. This is what people typically refer to as a "trade off". 

Its considered discriminatory NOT to have the appeals process. Precisely because racial minorities are targeted more often and have increased sentences. A crime that gets a white person a slap on the wrist often gets a minority prison time

Per the case background:

"EEOC alleges that from at least August 10, 2015, and continuing to the present, Defendants have implemented a policy of screening job applicants based on their criminal history."

The lack of an appeals process is listed as a further complaint in addition to the complaint that Skeetz was using criminal background checks to discriminate candidates. This was something the EEOC took issue with. I do not know how to make this any more clear to you. 

You literally said people should be allowed to discriminate. Again, is my solution not self determination? I think my solution is a nice conservative option that I wish liberals would adopt, but neither have conservatives. I have seen no actual substitute in conservative action. Just a desire to tear down. Please inform me of a bill or executive action that tries to solve discrimination in a productive conservative way. And again it can't be just ignore the problem and tear down existing.

The complaint: everywhere there exists a standard for discrimination.

The solution: a national standard for no discrimination.

The actual result of the solution: a new, different standard for discrimination.

The new proposed solution: no national standards for discrimination, infinite potential standards for discrimination at the sub-national level.

This proposal has not and will not generate any executive actions because executive actions obviously have no authority to supersede the civil rights act. So it must remain as a proposition before a way can be found to turn it into law.

[Mjmd]

Was it on the national ticket? I'll remind you you are on the side of actual Nazis so saying some fringe group wanted something isn't a good game to play. But my point stands humans can be wrong. Again, what harm are trans people causing you. Why should the government regulate them? As far as I'm aware the liberal side is just that they should have rights. If you don't agree they should have rights, you have to make a case for why the government should deny rights to people. Social norms change. Again, I can list tons of things I'm uncomfortable with or don't like. But I don't think the government should be interfering.

How bad is hundreds of thousands dying, not worth money! Certainly future economic potential shouldn't factor into situations! If we prevented a million deaths think about the impact of those people on the economy long term. I know because god emperor Trump lied from the beginning about how bad it would be (and we know he lied) that now you all have to believe it wasn't bad, but even if you take out moral issue of letting more people die (for some odd reason), you can still justify trying to save life just based on how much human capital is worth to a nation over time vs just a short period for disruption. We still have an incredible good economy right now and really low unemployment. What add on effects are there if another 500K people are out of labor market not just for the couple years since, but for the next x years?

Will do more legal reading. Most of that memorandum is about location. I would like to actually read the underlying laws standards ect. They reference some things I'm assuming are those laws and / or standards but quick googling isn't finding and I have supper to make. However, should people be allowed a 2nd chance? Should people be allowed to pull themselves up by their bootstraps? If people want to work and improve their lives should we give them that opportunity? If a black person who commits the same crime as a white person gets convicted, but the white person doesn't should the black person not even have the opportunity of an appeals process while the white person just gets the job even though they did the same thing? But it does help all ethnicities with second chances. Let people have a chance to work. Otherwise the only option is to do more crime.

The new proposed solution: no national standards for discrimination, infinite potential standards for discrimination at the sub-national level.

WTF. HELL NO. We have most of history for example of why that is a horrifically bad idea and Jim Crow isn't even the worst of it. You can't really believe this; I know you know history to some extent. Are you just ignoring because that is what you have been told to believe? The complaint is that there IS discrimination btw.

[greenline]

Was it on the national ticket? I'll remind you you are on the side of actual Nazis

Here's a newsflash for you. Richard Spencer, the open Nazi man who led the Charlottseville rally in 2017 that had everyone on edge? He endorsed both Biden and Harris in their respective elections. Unless you have any significant differences with Harris and the Democrats, then you're the one who has the actual Nazis on their side. So why don't you apologize for throwing that word around like it means nothing? I am really trying to polite and level headed here, but you are really testing my patience.

[Mjmd]

Just like we 100% believe Putin wanted Harris to win from his statement. There very fine people on both sides after all...... Were there Nazis AT multiple democrat rallies? How many waving Harris flags vs Trump flags? I bet you can find more on one side vs the other. My point is that you shouldn't treat a side as a monolith. So sure you can find people who support Democrats that have some out there ideas, but its far from a Democrat only problem.

Was doing more research into the case, then I realized we've both been idiots on this. You know what is missing (as far as I'm aware). The evidence for the charges. Judging a lawsuit validity without knowing what evidence is behind it is pointless. Is there evidence they discriminated? We don't know yet. I can't find at any rate. Like I doubt its as simple as "heh the man had gold bars this isn't rocket science", but looking at the evidence of a case should probably be a prereq to judging a cases validity.

[greenline]

Harris flags? Trump flags? These single digit clowns that the media complains about would be flying, you know, Nazi flags?

Perhaps I am lacking wisdom. There is a good chance I have been baited into anger by posts that were written by an AI. Not even ChatGPT, ChatGPT isn't that braindead. But one of Google's AIs, sure.

America has too much negativity these days. It would benefit from positive visions. Here is a new proposal I have. Whenever some prissy wannabe hall monitor liberal or some closeted pinko starts crying and pissing their pants because they're afraid of Nazis in their closet at night, we have a bunch of ex-football guys in letterman jackets, all with names like Bill, Brad, or Biff, come up, steal their homework, and deface that person's locker with spray paint while calling them a nerd and a loser.

I believe we can make America normal again. Get RFK Jr on this, I'm sure he has connections.