Supreme Court strikes down affirmative action

[earendel]

Diversity is important, but it is below excellence in importance. And what this country needs now, more than ever, is more excellence. If we truly want to 'END RACISM', the only way to do that is for us to strive for a color-blind society. If we are truly color-blind, diversity will take care of itself. And, IMO, I thought we were well on the way to that until we elected our first black president, who could have used his election to champion the cause of color-blindedness, but chose instead to fuel divisiveness.

Why do you think diversity is important?

That said, I think that you interpret diversity differently than I do. For me, it means expanding the pool of potential "candidates" (employees, call them what you will), rather than looking only at a select group. It does not mean that someone from a minority group automatically gets chosen, but it does mean that they have a shot.

[silverscreenselect]

Ludicrous. I can't seem to recall many of those countries (1-64) electing a black leader, unless one counts Justin "Black-face" Trudeau. Not surprising you give the survey credence as some who believes our current "leader" is anywhere near competent.

It's not that I give credence to these rankings. They are very widely cited in a variety of contexts. They don't just measure racial equality; that's just one of a dozen or so rankings. In 2022, the US ranked #4 overall as the Best Country to live in. Having a black president doesn't mean that there are a lot of other aspects of this country where racism is widespread. And white people in Montana are isolated from many of those instances that are common in other parts of the country. But apparently your definition of whether a study is "ludicrous" is whether it agrees with your preconceived notions.

Electing Obama did not end racism in this country, any more than ending slavery or Brown v. Board of Education.

[tlynn78]

Ludicrous. I can't seem to recall many of those countries (1-64) electing a black leader, unless one counts Justin "Black-face" Trudeau. Not surprising you give the survey credence as some who believes our current "leader" is anywhere near competent.

It's not that I give credence to these rankings. They are very widely cited in a variety of contexts. They don't just measure racial equality; that's just one of a dozen or so rankings. In 2022, the US ranked #4 overall as the Best Country to live in. Having a black president doesn't mean that there are a lot of other aspects of this country where racism is widespread. And white people in Montana are isolated from many of those instances that are common in other parts of the country. But apparently your definition of whether a study is "ludicrous" is whether it agrees with your preconceived notions.

Electing Obama did not end racism in this country, any more than ending slavery or Brown v. Board of Education.

SSS: "
Well, the "actual fact" is that the US lags behind many other civilized countries in terms of how racist our society is."

Your "actual fact" is complete horse&#*t. And no one is claiming racism in America is dead. I mean, just put him in a jail cell with a black cellmate and let 'nature take it's course' - amirite?

[flockofseagulls104]

Diversity is important, but it is below excellence in importance. And what this country needs now, more than ever, is more excellence. If we truly want to 'END RACISM', the only way to do that is for us to strive for a color-blind society. If we are truly color-blind, diversity will take care of itself. And, IMO, I thought we were well on the way to that until we elected our first black president, who could have used his election to champion the cause of color-blindedness, but chose instead to fuel divisiveness.

Why do you think diversity is important?

That said, I think that you interpret diversity differently than I do. For me, it means expanding the pool of potential "candidates" (employees, call them what you will), rather than looking only at a select group. It does not mean that someone from a minority group automatically gets chosen, but it does mean that they have a shot.

You interpret diversity differently than the people who are promoting it. For them it is diversity of outcome. The colleges in question had quotas, regardless of the names and fancy language they used to hide it. You are talking about diversity of opportunity. Fortunately, that is not a problem in this day and age. But no one but you defines diversity that way in practice.

[silverscreenselect]

Your "actual fact" is complete horse&#*t.

Do you have anything to support that statement other than yours and Flock's beliefs? I produced a widely respected and referenced comprehensive study to support my statement.

[flockofseagulls104]

https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/11/amer ... r-carlson/

My experience, being outside and rejecting the leftist bubble trollboy is in, is that there is very little racism in this country. So little, in fact, that the leftists have to manufacture incidents to keep up their narrative. Jussie Smolett, anyone?

[earendel]

Diversity is important, but it is below excellence in importance. And what this country needs now, more than ever, is more excellence. If we truly want to 'END RACISM', the only way to do that is for us to strive for a color-blind society. If we are truly color-blind, diversity will take care of itself. And, IMO, I thought we were well on the way to that until we elected our first black president, who could have used his election to champion the cause of color-blindedness, but chose instead to fuel divisiveness.

Why do you think diversity is important?

That said, I think that you interpret diversity differently than I do. For me, it means expanding the pool of potential "candidates" (employees, call them what you will), rather than looking only at a select group. It does not mean that someone from a minority group automatically gets chosen, but it does mean that they have a shot.

You interpret diversity differently than the people who are promoting it. For them it is diversity of outcome. The colleges in question had quotas, regardless of the names and fancy language they used to hide it. You are talking about diversity of opportunity. Fortunately, that is not a problem in this day and age. But no one but you defines diversity that way in practice.

I disagree that "diversity of opportunity" isn't a problem - on the contrary, I believe it is. Does a Black child from an inner-city school have the same opportunity as a rich White child attending a private school? Legacy appointments to Harvard et. al. are still a thing - if my daddy makes a big donation to Harvard, I'm going to get in.

[flockofseagulls104]

So what's your solution, ear? Equal outcomes? Who gets to determine what the 'equal outcome' is? The state? Sorry to break this to you, ear, but that is called Communism. It's been tried before. And it's responsible for millions of people dying.

Our country was built on the idea that everyone has the opportunity to succeed. That's why millions of people from throughout the world want to come here.

Sure, Clarence Thomas benefitted from affirmative action. But by a combination of hard work, intellect and perseverance, he is one of the
shining lights of this country.
He faced and still faces a lot of disgusting opposition. Not because of his skin color, but because of his conservative values. And it was led at the time of his SC nomination and currently by the man who is now President and defacto leader of the democrat party.

Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated predominantly and declaratively due to her sex and skin color. I am not saying she is without her own qualifications, but she was not chosen by her merit. Were there more qualified candidates? Maybe, maybe not. But there will always be that question because of the fact that the same man that performed a high-tech lynching against Clarence Thomas decided that the next SC justice had to be a woman of color.

Is that what this country is about, ear? When will racism end? When the democrat party decides it's over? In that case it will be here forever,
because they benefit from it.

You don't think legacy appointments are fair? Well, get on it. Protest it. Get that unfair program removed. One group believed affirmative action was unfair to them. They protested all the way to the Supreme Court. And they won. Two people on that Supreme Court had experience with affirmative action and its overall results. Look at the stories of each. It's not about race, it's about politics. Think about it.

[Bob Juch]

So what's your solution, ear? Equal outcomes? Who gets to determine what the 'equal outcome' is? The state? Sorry to break this to you, ear, but that is called Communism.
It's been tried before. And it's responsible for millions of people dying.

Our country was built on the idea that everyone has the opportunity to succeed. That's why millions of people from throughout the world want to come here.
Sure, Clarence Thomas benefitted from affirmative action. But by a combination of hard work, intellect and perseverance, he is one of the shining lights of this country.
He faced and still faces a lot of disgusting opposition. Not because of his skin color, but because of his conservative values. And it was led at the time of his
SC nomination and currently by the man who is now President and defacto leader of the democrat party.

Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated predominantly and declaratively due to her sex and skin color. I am not saying she is without her own qualifications,
but she was not chosen by her merit. Were there more qualified candidates? Maybe, maybe not. But there will always be that question because of the fact t
hat the same man that performed a high-tech lynching against Clarence Thomas decided that the next SC justice had to be a woman of color.

Is that what this country is about, ear? When will racism end? When the democrat party decides it's over? In that case it will be here forever,
because they benefit from it.

You don't think legacy appointments are fair? Well, get on it. Protest it. Get that unfair program removed. One group believed affirmative action
was unfair to them. They protested all the way to the Supreme Court. And they won. Two people on that Supreme Court had experience with affirmative
action and its overall results. Look at the stories of each. It's not about race, it's about politics. Think about it.

It says a lot about you that you call corrupt and immoral Clarence Thomas a shining light of this country.

[flockofseagulls104]

So what's your solution, ear? Equal outcomes? Who gets to determine what the 'equal outcome' is? The state? Sorry to break this to you, ear, but that is called Communism.
It's been tried before. And it's responsible for millions of people dying.

Our country was built on the idea that everyone has the opportunity to succeed. That's why millions of people from throughout the world want to come here.
Sure, Clarence Thomas benefitted from affirmative action. But by a combination of hard work, intellect and perseverance, he is one of the shining lights of this country.
He faced and still faces a lot of disgusting opposition. Not because of his skin color, but because of his conservative values. And it was led at the time of his
SC nomination and currently by the man who is now President and defacto leader of the democrat party.

Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated predominantly and declaratively due to her sex and skin color. I am not saying she is without her own qualifications,
but she was not chosen by her merit. Were there more qualified candidates? Maybe, maybe not. But there will always be that question because of the fact t
hat the same man that performed a high-tech lynching against Clarence Thomas decided that the next SC justice had to be a woman of color.

Is that what this country is about, ear? When will racism end? When the democrat party decides it's over? In that case it will be here forever,
because they benefit from it.

You don't think legacy appointments are fair? Well, get on it. Protest it. Get that unfair program removed. One group believed affirmative action
was unfair to them. They protested all the way to the Supreme Court. And they won. Two people on that Supreme Court had experience with affirmative
action and its overall results. Look at the stories of each. It's not about race, it's about politics. Think about it.

It says a lot about you that you call corrupt and immoral Clarence Thomas a shining light of this country.

Only in your leftist bubble.

This isn't addressed to you, you are beyond redemption.
But if I am the white supremacist racist the usual suspects think I am, then how could I believe a black man like Clarence Thomas is a shining light of our country? Wouldn't I hate him because he's black?

No, I hold him in high regard because he agrees with and champions the values that I believe are right and true for this country. I don't give one hoot about what color his skin is.

On the opposite side, his skin color is their main focus, and they have vilified him non-stop BECAUSE OF HIS SKIN COLOR and the fact that he is not part of their narrative. And they do the same thing to any black person who dares to challenge their values. They don't champion the success and use as role models black people who have achieved success. Only those that follow their narrative.

Oh, you might say. You do the same thing with people like Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, etc... Yes, I don't like them at all. Because I think they are achieving their success on perpetuating the idea of victimhood and amplifying the idea that minorities cannot achieve success on their own without 'their help'. And they are joined by a chorus of people who perpetuate 'white guilt' for an institution that was over 150 years ago and use that as the basis for their own political power.

Racism isn't the problem. It's political power.

[silverscreenselect]

https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/11/amer ... r-carlson/

My experience, being outside and rejecting the leftist bubble trollboy is in, is that there is very little racism in this country. So little, in fact, that the leftists have to manufacture incidents to keep up their narrative. Jussie Smolett, anyone?

Kathleen Brush is one of the few business people who have realized that there is a big market out there for those who cater to right-wing ideas. Her website highlights her books more than any of her qualifications as a management consultant. I have more connections on LinkedIn than she does and I haven't been active on that site for seven years. She tries to have it both ways. She appeals to women on her web page to support her because sexism is still a major factor in corporate America but she can tell women how to get ahead, but she says racism in the US is gone, apparently because we don't have mass lynchings like the Tulsa massacre. Tell that to George Floyd.

She became an "anti-racist" huckster when she realized her management consulting business was going nowhere. And she's succeeded in getting on Tucker Carlson.

[flockofseagulls104]

https://dailycaller.com/2020/12/11/amer ... r-carlson/

My experience, being outside and rejecting the leftist bubble trollboy is in, is that there is very little racism in this country. So little, in fact, that the leftists have to manufacture incidents to keep up their narrative. Jussie Smolett, anyone?

Kathleen Brush is one of the few business people who have realized that there is a big market out there for those who cater to right-wing ideas. Her website highlights her books more than any of her qualifications as a management consultant. I have more connections on LinkedIn than she does and I haven't been active on that site for seven years. She tries to have it both ways. She appeals to women on her web page to support her because sexism is still a major factor in corporate America but she can tell women how to get ahead, but she says racism in the US is gone, apparently because we don't have mass lynchings like the Tulsa massacre. Tell that to George Floyd.

She became an "anti-racist" huckster when she realized her management consulting business was going nowhere. And she's succeeded in getting on Tucker Carlson.

Oops. saw this one. Very funny. So anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a huckster. Very convenient. Makes it so easy to deal with your own hypocrisy.

[Bob Juch]

So what's your solution, ear? Equal outcomes? Who gets to determine what the 'equal outcome' is? The state? Sorry to break this to you, ear, but that is called Communism.
It's been tried before. And it's responsible for millions of people dying.

Our country was built on the idea that everyone has the opportunity to succeed. That's why millions of people from throughout the world want to come here.
Sure, Clarence Thomas benefitted from affirmative action. But by a combination of hard work, intellect and perseverance, he is one of the shining lights of this country.
He faced and still faces a lot of disgusting opposition. Not because of his skin color, but because of his conservative values. And it was led at the time of his
SC nomination and currently by the man who is now President and defacto leader of the democrat party.

Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated predominantly and declaratively due to her sex and skin color. I am not saying she is without her own qualifications,
but she was not chosen by her merit. Were there more qualified candidates? Maybe, maybe not. But there will always be that question because of the fact t
hat the same man that performed a high-tech lynching against Clarence Thomas decided that the next SC justice had to be a woman of color.

Is that what this country is about, ear? When will racism end? When the democrat party decides it's over? In that case it will be here forever,
because they benefit from it.

You don't think legacy appointments are fair? Well, get on it. Protest it. Get that unfair program removed. One group believed affirmative action
was unfair to them. They protested all the way to the Supreme Court. And they won. Two people on that Supreme Court had experience with affirmative
action and its overall results. Look at the stories of each. It's not about race, it's about politics. Think about it.

It says a lot about you that you call corrupt and immoral Clarence Thomas a shining light of this country.

Only in your leftist bubble.

This isn't addressed to you, you are beyond redemption.
But if I am the white supremacist racist the usual suspects think I am, then how could I believe a black man like Clarence Thomas is a shining light of our country? Wouldn't I hate him because he's black?

No, I hold him in high regard because he agrees with and champions the values that I believe are right and true for this country. I don't give one hoot about what color his skin is.

On the opposite side, his skin color is their main focus, and they have vilified him non-stop BECAUSE OF HIS SKIN COLOR and the fact that he is not part of their narrative. And they do the same thing to any black person who dares to challenge their values. They don't champion the success and use as role models black people who have achieved success. Only those that follow their narrative.

Oh, you might say. You do the same thing with people like Maxine Waters, Al Sharpton, etc... Yes, I don't like them at all. Because I think they are achieving their success on perpetuating the idea of victimhood and amplifying the idea that minorities cannot achieve success on their own without 'their help'. And they are joined by a chorus of people who perpetuate 'white guilt' for an institution that was over 150 years ago and use that as the basis for their own political power.

Racism isn't the problem. It's political power.

I believe rapists belong on the sex offender registry, not the Supreme Court.

[BackInTex]

I believe rapists belong on the sex offender registry, not the Supreme Court.

But you do approve of them being president, and approve of the women enabling them to be president. You're such a contradiction.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Slavery is not evil because it is racist, slavery is bad because it is slavery. Slavery is also ancient. It provided the renewable sustainable biodegradable energy for the elites for millennia. Interracial slavery did not become commonplace until a leap in transportation technology in the 16th Century allowed slaves sold by Africans to be transported to the Americas to provide sustainable renewable energy for the elites. Technological improvements in energy production later made it possible to eliminate slavery in the West. Within approximately 100 years of the Watt-Wilkinson collaboration that produced an efficient fossil fueled steam engine, slavery was abolished in the West. Slavery reappeared in Germany during the fossil fuel shortage of the first half of the 1940s. (Audrey Hepburn’s half-brother along with many other Belgians, Dutch, French and other Europeans were enslaved to ameliorate the fossil fuel shortage

[Bob Juch]

I believe rapists belong on the sex offender registry, not the Supreme Court.

But you do approve of them being president, and approve of the women enabling them to be president. You're such a contradiction.

Of course not! Trump should still be in prison for that.

[tlynn78]

I believe rapists belong on the sex offender registry, not the Supreme Court.

But you do approve of them being president, and approve of the women enabling them to be president. You're such a contradiction.

Of course not! Trump should still be in prison for that.

Just going to ignore Clinton's gals, are we?

[earendel]

So what's your solution, ear? Equal outcomes? Who gets to determine what the 'equal outcome' is? The state? Sorry to break this to you, ear, but that is called Communism. It's been tried before. And it's responsible for millions of people dying.

If you recall, I said that diversity of opportunity was what should be the case. Doing away with affirmative action deprives some of that opportunity. As I also said, legacy admissions still exist, meaning that it's money, not ability, that provides opportunity for some.

Sure, Clarence Thomas benefitted from affirmative action. But by a combination of hard work, intellect and perseverance, he is one of the shining lights of this country. He faced and still faces a lot of disgusting opposition. Not because of his skin color, but because of his conservative values. And it was led at the time of his SC nomination and currently by the man who is now President and de facto leader of the democrat party.

Thomas's "problem" with AA was based on his experience - he believed that people thought he got his opportunity only because he was Black. His perception is the problem. As for his being "a shining light", well...

Ketanji Brown Jackson was nominated predominantly and declaratively due to her sex and skin color. I am not saying she is without her own qualifications, but she was not chosen by her merit. Were there more qualified candidates? Maybe, maybe not. But there will always be that question because of the fact that the same man that performed a high-tech lynching against Clarence Thomas decided that the next SC justice had to be a woman of color.

Thomas was also chosen because of the color of his skin - he was nominated to fill the "Thurgood Marshall" seat on the USSC.

Is that what this country is about, ear? When will racism end? When the democrat party decides it's over? In that case it will be here forever, because they benefit from it.

Racism will end when people recognize its existence instead of denying it, then working to eliminate it. It's as simple as that.

You don't think legacy appointments are fair? Well, get on it. Protest it. Get that unfair program removed. One group believed affirmative action was unfair to them. They protested all the way to the Supreme Court. And they won. Two people on that Supreme Court had experience with affirmative action and its overall results. Look at the stories of each. It's not about race, it's about politics. Think about it.

No, I don't think they're fair, and it is about politics.

[flockofseagulls104]

Racism will end when people recognize its existence instead of denying it, then working to eliminate it. It's as simple as that.

There's no one I know who denies racism exists. The argument is how much REALLY exists, and how much is exaggerated by those who make their living by enflaming it and manufacturing more supposed victims of it.

Do you know anyone who is an active 'white supremacist'? I don't, though many on this bored have already labeled me as such and think about me in that way. That's how I KNOW it's bullshit.

Oh, maybe I engage in "microaggressions"?

My answer to that is: If you THINK what I just said offends and demeans you, you are wrong. You will KNOW when what I say offends and demeans you.

Just the word 'microaggression' is a microaggression towards me. But the thing is, I can't be a victim of microaggressions because of my lack of melanin. How does that work? (Hint: It don't for any thinking person. But there are a lot of non-thinking people out there.) If that offends you, consider it a macroaggression.

[earendel]

Racism will end when people recognize its existence instead of denying it, then working to eliminate it. It's as simple as that.

There's no one I know who denies racism exists. The argument is how much REALLY exists, and how much is exaggerated by those who make their living by enflaming it and manufacturing more supposed victims of it.

Do you know anyone who is an active 'white supremacist'? I don't, though many on this bored have already labeled me as such and think about me in that way. That's how I KNOW it's bullshit.

Oh, maybe I engage in "microaggressions"?

I don't think you engage in microaggressions. But there's a far cry from "white supremacy" to "microaggressions". The fact that you aren't at either end of the spectrum isn't the issue. I have no doubt that you are not a racist. However, your seeming unwillingness to recognize that racism is still prevalent in our society - not the KKK type, but rather the systemic type (redlining in housing, locating waste dumps and hazardous chemical plants in low-income neighborhoods, the experiences of those accused of "driving while Black", to name just a few) is where I have issue with you.

[earendel]

]You don't think legacy appointments are fair? Well, get on it. Protest it. Get that unfair program removed. One group believed affirmative action was unfair to them. They protested all the way to the Supreme Court. And they won. Two people on that Supreme Court had experience with affirmative action and its overall results. Look at the stories of each. It's not about race, it's about politics. Think about it.

I don't have to - others are already doing it. Several activist groups have filed a lawsuit against Harvard, claiming that legacy appointments are discriminatory.