Sowell falsely claimed "[d]iversity was Judge Sotomayor's rationale" in Ricci case
SUMMARY: Thomas Sowell falsely claimed that "[d]iversity was Judge [Sonia] Sotomayor's rationale for going along with the denial of equal rights for white firefighters in Connecticut." In fact, the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals opinion Sotomayor joined stated that precedent led it to rule as it did in Ricci v. DeStefano.
In his June 3 syndicated column, Thomas Sowell falsely claimed that "[d]iversity was [Supreme Court nominee] Judge [Sonia] Sotomayor's rationale for going along with the denial of equal rights for white firefighters in Connecticut." In fact, as Media Matters for America has noted, the decision in Ricci v. DeStefano was not based on diversity; the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said -- in an opinion written by one of Sotomayor's colleagues and joined by Sotomayor and three other judges -- that 2nd Circuit precedent interpreting Title VII's employment discrimination prohibitions led it to rule as it did in the case.
In the case, the city of New Haven, Connecticut, did not argue that it took its actions in order to increase diversity. Rather, in the words of SCOTUSblog contributor and H&R partner Kevin Russell, the city was "simply trying to avoid a violation of Title VII's disparate impact provision." Indeed, Supreme Court Justice David Souter -- whom Sotomayor would replace -- made comments during an April 22 oral argument of the case before the Supreme Court in which he identified what he said was a "damned if you do, damned if you don't situation" faced by the city of New Haven in its efforts to comply with Title VII's prohibitions on employment discrimination.
From Sowell's June 3 column:
The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, like the Constitution, proclaimed equal rights for all, not special rights for those for whom judges have "empathy."
When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being debated in Congress, its opponents claimed that it would lead to discrimination against white people. Its supporters declared that it meant no such thing and added new provisions to make sure that it meant no such thing. That was the law that was passed.
It was not the law, but the judges, who changed equal rights into special rights and thereby set the stage for the new mantra of "diversity" that trumps equal rights. Diversity was Judge Sotomayor's rationale for going along with the denial of equal rights for white firefighters in Connecticut.
I've heard him as a substitute host for Limbdog's Hatefest, and he's just another Republitoad Talking-Points zombie.
(1) He was one of the very first high-profile autism deniers - a very personal issue for me. He wasn't insulting about it, like Savage and Leary were, but his misinformation likely led to a LOT of perents putting off having their kids screened and diagnosed and those kids lost time in interventive therapy that they'll never get back.
(2) In B-School we read one of his column where he reasoned that charity's and non-profit's are inherently MORE greedy that private, for-profit corporations. Interesting academic discussion to be sure, but how warped do you have to be to really BELIEVE that?!
He's just the black George Will, nothing more. Lots of smart sounding words, but typically on a foundation of bad information and false assumptions. (And as far as I know he doesn't possess Will's one truly redeeming charectaristic of being a passionate, knowledgible fan of the game of baseball.)
Here is more of his column:
"Sonia Sotomayor has, in both her words and in her decision as a judge to dismiss out of hand the appeal of white firefighters who had been discriminated against, betrayed a racism that is no less racism because it is directed against different people than the old racism of the past.
The code word for the new racism is "diversity." The Constitution of the United States says nothing about diversity and the Constitution is what a judge is supposed to pay attention to, not the prevailing buzzwords of the times.
What the Constitution says is "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans-- and that is not taken out of context. People have put their lives on the line to make those words a reality. Now all of that is to be made to vanish into thin air by saying the magic word "diversity."
The landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, like the Constitution, proclaimed equal rights for all, not special rights for those for whom judges have "empathy."
When the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was being debated in Congress, its opponents claimed that it would lead to discrimination against white people. Its supporters declared that it meant no such thing and added new provisions to make sure that it meant no such thing. That was the law that was passed.
It was not the law, but the judges, who changed equal rights into special rights and thereby set the stage for the new mantra of "diversity" that trumps equal rights. Diversity was Judge Sotomayor's rationale for going along with the denial of equal rights for white firefighters in Connecticut."
Funny, the only place I have ever seen that term used derisively is by liberals posting at MMFA trying to take potshots at me.
So again you live down to my expectations with your ad honimem attacks.
What is apparent is that liberals here, who supposedly are against discrimination, are forced into the pretzel of defending a discriminatory act. The proof can be seen in simply switching the color of the skin of the plaintiffs. If 17 blacks had scored highest on the test and denied the promotions, would you or any other liberal here be defending the decision to toss out the test and start again?
I can see why New Haven, under pressure from militant blacks, knuckled under the pressure to dissalow the test. But what is so apparent here is that by trying to avoid being accused of racism, they committed reverse racism. Sotomayor and the 2nd Appeals Court upheld racially discriminatory actions because of exactly the reasons Sowell explained.
And now you say "militant blacks." We noticed that as well.
The reason I didn't come out without an explanation until after called on it, was that I did not realize there was a racial connotation. It is a simple as that.
Militant blacks is not a racist term in any way. I simply described that certain blacks using what may euhpamistically be called a "Saul Alinsky" methods put pressure on the city of New Haven in order to invalidate the test.
The following quote is from
http://www.arlingtoncardinal.com/2009/05/26/sonya-sotomayor-reverse-discrimination-ruling-against-firefighters/
"The city of New Haven discarded the test results to avoid an anticipated Civil Rights Act of 1964 Title VII disparate impact lawsuit brought by minority firefighters. The decision came after a rabble-rousing African-American minister, Rev. Boise Kimber, with close ties to the mayor, disrupted meetings, pressured the city civil service board, and warned of dire political consequences if the city promoted persons from the list generated by the exams."
The following is from National Journal Magazine
"One was the Rev. Boise Kimber, who disrupted meetings of the city's civil service board and warned its members of a "political ramification" if they certified the exam results. Kimber was a key vote-getter for Mayor DeStefano, who had made the minister chairman of New Haven's Board of Fire Commissioners despite his 1996 felony convictions (reported by the New Haven Register) for perjury and stealing money from an elderly woman's burial fund."
I also saw reference to Kimber in one of Bill Kristol's columns and one can easily find more on the web. Hence my reference to "black militants". In retrospect, I should have identified Kimber.
If you dislike my description of Rev. Kimber, then we simply disagree.
I did not realize there was a racial connotation. It is a simple as that.
Unless you tell us what you thought the "N" stood for, then you will continue to be a liar.
Militant blacks is not a racist term in any way.
Unless you can come up with an example of "militant whites" or "militant hispanics" in the public arena, you will still continue to be a liar.
This case was simple and the Court followed the LAW which is what you guys CLAIM to want until you get a decsion you dont like. The test WAS questioned as to any connection to the ability to do the job. The city didnt feel they could show it DID and thus THEY DECIDED to avoid any problems with the civil rights law to vacate the test till they came up with a better one. The court didnt DEMAND they do so they upheld their RIGHT to make THAT decision so not Sowell didnt explain anything other than HIS biased take on the matter. He cannot read Sotomayors mind. SHE didnt say diversity was the rationale rather the LAW AND PRECEDENT.
Apology accepted. No hard feelings.
It would be helpful to your argumentation if you would stop referring to mysterious past posts. I have noticed a few posters here accusing me of posting statements or making insinuations regarding my posts that are either inaccurate or blatantly untrue.
It is a very weak argumentation method to make broad accusations toward me without attribution. After all, you could be making it up? I think you'll agree with me that it is only fair to provide references so that the context of the quote within the context of the discussion can be determined.
I know that is hard for you to do, But if you can do so, it would make for better discussions rather than simply name calling rants.
One can argue about Sowell's description of Sotomayor's rationale. However when you put Sotomayor's ruling together with her statements regarding who makes better decisions, a pattern in her thinking begins to emerge. I think Sowell nailed that pattern pretty well.
"In those 50 cases, the panel accepted the claim of race discrimination only three times. In all three cases, the panel was unanimous; in all three, it included a Republican appointee...In the 50 cases, the panel was unanimous in every one. There was a Republican appointee in 38, and these panels were all obviously unanimous as well. Thus, in the roughly 45 panel opinions rejecting claims of discrimination, Judge Sotomayor never dissented."
And:
"Of the thousands of cases decided by Judge Sonia Sotomayor, the one that could have the most influence on her confirmation for the Supreme Court involves the defense of New York City Police Department employee who was fired for distributing bigoted and racist material."
If there's nothing to show that she lacks objectivity, and evidence that she maintains it even when dealing with a bigot, then what pattern has been established?
I think that would certainly raise a red flag that there was something askew, yes. It's possible such a clumping phenomenon could happen naturally, but it's not likely at all. I would expect that would be looked into and a new test would probably be issued.
AA, you racist SOB!!!
You try to plead ignorance about NOTUS and then turn around and call African Americans "militant blacks"?
WHO are the "militant blacks"? And what PROOF does your sorry butt have that "militant blacks" demanded anything? Any PROOF? NO, of course not!!!
Since you're sooo fond of "what if" scenarios..........What if White folks had been brought to this country, against their will, on boats, packed like sardines. Enslaved, beaten, raped and killed with total approval of the law. Denied an education or job simply because they're White. Imagine generations of White folks, falling further behind, simply because they're White.
So Whites decide that enough is enough! The only difference between them and Black folks is the color of their skin. White folks have brains and the ability to do ANYTHING they choose, if only those Black folks would stop closing doors in their faces. Just level the playing field so that future generations of White folks will have am opportunity, a chance.
So White folks took to the streets, fought and died for the right to be treated equally to Blacks.
But not all Black folks wanted change IF it meant that they couldn't keep on doing what they've been doing for years. They enjoyed being thought of as superior, simply because they were Black.
Black folks were saying, "I'm not responsible for what happened to White folks in the past". "I didn't own any White slaves, so why should I pay."
Let me give you the answer.
Injustices have been done to a race of AMERICANS and something has to be done to address it. It means that while Black folks were learning the latest technology, White folks weren't EVEN getting and education. It means that change, while necessary, will not be easy, but IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO! We can no longer continue to treat White folks as second class citizens. They fought and died for America just like Black folks!
It means that even thought we've passed laws to end segregation, it still exists in our neighborhood schools. White schools are less likely to get the best teachers, not allowing for advanced while Black schools always get the best of the best. So we'll open higher education, college, to White students who work hard and study. Colleges will no longer just have Black students. We will level the playing field for higher education.
Job opportunities should be available to White Folks, but in order to "level the playing field" we CANNOT use tests that don't give White folks an opportunity to advance. Nor can we continue to allow Black folks to hire other Black folks, even thought they aren't qualified.
When not a SINGLE White person passes a job test, we have a problem. It's either White folks are stupid and lazy, or we have a flawed test and we know for a fact, White folks are stupid or lazy. So we will no longer accept test result that are that flawed.
At some point and time, we hope to not have to have laws on the books that demand something which should be freely given, EQUALITY FOR ALL! But until that day comes, we will keep the laws on the books so that we will never sit by and allow another injustice to another AMERICAN, PERIOD!!
And I'm sure you'd have no problem with that!
AnotherBarney is so, so oblivious, you almost have to pity him.
You lost me right at the beginning with your name calling. At one time I would have expected more from you, but lately you have descended into such vitriolic expressions that I've come to expect it.
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the reference was to the intimidation tactics of Rev. Boise Kimber. Rather than repeate myself, if you'll check out the post above in reply to Mary you'll see what I meant.
Your name calling is uncalled for.
I am 100% for equal opportunity for people of all races. I abhor discrimination no matter who pratices it. My ancestors fought to free the slaves during the Civil War. (One was a Captain in General Grant's staff.) Some of my ancestors came over from Wales in the early 1600's to escape religious persectuion. Many of my religion both recently and in the past have been subject to martyrdom because of their religious faith. Some of my ancestors were discriminated against when they came here because they were Irish. We all have our own history.
We simply disagree that using discrimination in this case of Ricci v New Haven is Constitutional.
I don't believe you.
Example A: NOTUS
Example B: militant blacks (a plural term you used while referring to ONE PERSON. More CYA, AA?)
And I don't care what your ancestors did or didn't do. It doesn't change the fact the Pearlene was right on the money - you are a racist (SOB or not).
ONE African American becomes, in YOUR world, "militant blackS"?
AA, did you conveniently FORGET that Dr. Rev. Bosie Kimber is ALSO on the Board of Fire Commissioners, so maybe he had a legitimate reason to voice his objection? I guess that little detail wouldn't help your picture of a "rabble-rousing African American minster", sorta like Al Sharpton or Jessie Jackson", right?
I am a descendant of slaves and was born in 1934. I don't have to experience anything through anyone eyes but my own.
Then again, these student loans are breakin' a brotha, and rent is past due, so...uh...conscience, don't fail me now!
They hypocrisy of the left is amazing.
I noticed there is nothing of substance in Preston's post but an ad hominem and racist attack on Sowell.
Gotta love those open minded liberals!
I guess some things never change.....
There wasn't nothing racist in my attack. (It's kind of impossible for me to claim that Uncle Ruckus is genetically inferior to me when we're the same race, y'know.) Game recognize game, and I give props to Sowell for building such a huge following by deluding chumps like you to think that a black man in the United States of America would actually have convictions to believe that racism is a thing of the past, and those who are the most racist are minorities and libs! It's a brilliant strategy and career move! In fact, he should create a three step system and sell the product through infomercials for those looking for a quick buck and admiring fans!
By the way, AnotherBarney, I know what you're trying to imply here: I'm latently calling Uncle Ruckus an Uncle Tom. But you couldn't be more wrong! I wouldn't DARE compare Uncle Ruckus to Uncle Tom. Why? Because unlike that great Harriet Beecher Stowe character, Ruckus has no conscience or principles (well, ones that are admirable, at least.) It would be a direct insult to Uncle Tom by even putting him in the same sentence as Uncle Ruckus! Christ-like Uncle Tom doesn't deserve that! No, sirree!
'Taint a shame you can't pick up irony or satire, though. I suggest you start with Jonathan Swift and you work yourself up from there! Bye now!
I would like you to, if you have time, go back to our threaded discussion yesterday on judicial activism if you would. You don't need to comment, but I found where you mentioned about the frequency of the SC making rulings without precedent. Just wanted to make sure we were on the same page.
As for the Constitution not saying anything about diversity, why would it? Its authors were all white males and wrote a document which did not provide women the right to vote and thought that blacks were 3/5 of a human being. Why on earth would the Constitution mention diversity when, for power reasons, there was none?
While I was impressed by a couple of solon's posts today, don't hold your breath. The left almost neverrrrr calls out some one on the left for being racist, or making racist comments. Of course the things Preston said were racist, but that does not matter. He, as all members of the left, have immunity from racist thoughts and actions.
You are correct, the hypocrisy of the left is amazing. But we are making that up of course.
Cant wait to see how the left responds the the news week article on the free ride Obama is getting. It does a great job of showing the true liberal media at work.
Oh, and thanks for giving me that negative rating. Makes my heart melt to know that I've upset a wingnut enough to where he can give me a negative rating by dare criticizing their sacred Uncle Ruckus!
Just as POV almost neverrrrr posts anything worthwhile.
If you see any, you're free to point them out.
If right-wingers such as AnotherAmerican and Pointofview want to accuse folks of racism, the least they can do is understand that racism is not just an attitude of thinking you're genetically superior to another person because of race, it's institutional, meaning disparities can be created among of race, ultimately effecting a whole group of people due to bad policies from our government. Had AnotherAmerican and Pointofview took the time to study sociology, or hell, taken a Black Studies class in college, perhaps they would understand this a bit. But that's too much of a risk for these two. (After all, AnotherAmerican accused me of racism a few years back by dismissing Armstrong Williams as a "complete disgrace," comparing it to the N-word. This is how isolated, and sadly, uneducated AnotherAmerican is on this issue. I actually like the guy, but I can't help but to think that he obviously hasn't been around that many minorities to hold his type of thinking.)
I had forgotten that, but I remember that discussion now. That was an impressively ludicrous argument on his part.
I object to anyone using those terms, just as I object to how people throw the term racist and nazi around so freely here. In fact, snoopy went so far as to make a cute little disclaimer explaining why he felt the need to brand people who disagree with him as a nazi. That sort of dialogue does nothing to advance the issues at hand, and makes light of the true horrors the nazi regime caused.
I also object to your subtle statement that we:
"obviously hasn't been around that many minorities to hold his type of thinking"
This play on the old "i have black friends" line is another attempt to label those as racist who do not agree with you, be they black or white.
Good lord! This is why I avoid talking to wingnuts because it's like talking to someone from a completely different planet. And once again you prove -- just like AnotherAmerican's knee-jerk reaction -- that you don't know one damn thing about racism. Read again, pointofview, I didn't call Sowell or Thomas Uncle Toms. What I called him, however, was Uncle Ruckus, a reference to a famous character in the highly-rated, critically-acclaimed, satirical cartoon The Boondocks (that airs after midnight on Cartoon Network). I believe I said Sowell doesn't even deserve to be compared, let alone put in the same sentence, as the character Uncle Tom. Have you even read the book Uncle Tom's Cabin? While Uncle Tom was pretty much a two-dimensional character used as a literary device to convey how "spiritual" and Christ-like black folk were in that day as slaves -- lacking any psychological insights to a black person that would later come with Richard Wright, Zora Neale Hurston, James Baldwin, Ralph Ellison, Toni Morrison, etc. -- the character was admirable, heroic, someone who sacrificed his own life in order to save his people from slavery. Someone who would rather get whipped to death before rising a hand to his master and lead a revolt against slavery.
I based my assessment of Sowell and Thomas because of their actions, because of their politics, because of being complete hypocrites (decrying about "diversity" and "Affirmative Action" while reaping the benefits of the same things they rally against). You don't know anything about racism, and for you to use that charge against me shows intellectually deficiency of your argument.
Huh? Come again? Did you even read a damn thing that I've posted here? Are you even LOOKING at my picture next to my name?! How am I using the "I have black friends" line when, um, I'm black?! Jesus, dude, get a freakin' clue!
My opinion over AnotherAmerican's lack of awareness and knowledge regarding minorities is based on how oblivious he is to this issue and our past conversations. You, like AnotherAmerican, seem to live in your very own little bubble, with no contact or actual personal dealings with minorities, especially those who aren't wingnuttery like Sowell and Thomas. You, like AnotherAmerican, seem to get all of your opinions and thoughts about black people either directly from sensationalistic T.V. shows or black repugs such as Thomas, Sowell, [Juan and Armstrong] Williams, Elder, McWhorter, Connerly, etc. One of the reasons why because both sources legitimatizes, and overall comforts, your pre-conceived notions you already have of people of color in the first place. (e.g., they lazy, they crime prone, they deplore education and good manners, they depend on government and handouts, they lack good middle class values, etc.) But the aforementioned are special because they share your politics, and are so, so, victimized by their fellow person-of-color. *rolls eyes*
Anyway, if you were aware of the cartoon I referenced when comparing Sowell, you wouldn't have made a big deal about my post in the first place. You don't know racism or what it's about. The only racism that exist to you and AnotherAmerican is when it's targeted towards black conservatives or when whites are the victims due to "reverse-racism" (i.e. Affirmative Action). The other kind of racism is dead to you, or perhaps not dead, but not something that's effecting black people as before. Give me a break; you know nuthin'!
I am in no way equating the two groups (nor implying the strategy is ineffective). Just noting similarities in their behavior.
What's clearly going on here is that AA saw an opportunity to downplay the citation of his "NOTUS" embarrassment by creating a false equivalence.
"Perhaps Solon et. al. will comment on the racist language linked to by Preston here?"
Why is Solon specified? Surely it's because he's the one who brought up the "NOTUS" comment, and AA bristled at it (6 minutes previously). So here was his chance to say "hey, look, you guys do it too!" It reeks of desperation.
Maybe you already picked up on this, and are just being disingenuous while playing along. Or maybe you really don't know what racism is. Either way, you look like a bit of a fool.
Your post is laughable. Of course my reference to Solon exposes the double standard used by many of you on the left.
Preston uses the Uncle Ruckus cartoon simply as a device to accuse whites of racism. Supposedly it is somehow acceptable that a black man making those racist comments. Preston, through Rufus, uses the N word repeatedly but there is no comment except to defend Preston.
Well, it seems to me that either the use of the word is racist or it is not. It should not matter who uses it should it? If it does, isn't that a racist attitude?
Brab's argument that using racist language toward someone of his race is not racist is laughable. Obviously Brab doesn't understand the racist meaning of the word "cracker" or he wouldn't have used it in that context.
The same holds true to Preston. Simply because he is black like Sowell does not give him license to call Sowell a "token black". Preston's accusation that Sowell defends racism and is "a greedy, soulless, capitalistic, corporate-climbing who**" is completely unwarranted, yet typical of those who don't follow the racist orthodoxy on the left. Name calling seems to be what the left does best when someone does not agree with them.
As an aside to Preston, he has no idea of who I come into contact. His supposition that my only contact is through TV is another example of those on the left feeling they have extra sensory perception to "know" who I am and who I meet. It is laughable that Preston would go to such lenghths of making up such a scenario in order to justify his opinions.
Preston relies on racial stereotypes, using cartoons laced with derogatory racist language and racist thoughts to advance his obviously biased point of view about blacks and whites. Yet no one here is even aware of this reverse form of racism exists within those on the left.
"Brab's argument that using racist language toward someone of his race is not racist is laughable. Obviously Brab doesn't understand the racist meaning of the word "cracker" or he wouldn't have used it in that context."
What is the racist meaning of the word "cracker", exactly? My understanding is that it comes from "whipcracker", a reference to slave owners. Anything that is specific to behavior is not racist because it doesn't say anything about the superiority of a race in general.
"Simply because he is black like Sowell does not give him license to call Sowell a "token black". Preston's accusation that Sowell defends racism and is "a greedy, soulless, capitalistic, corporate-climbing who**" is completely unwarranted, yet typical of those who don't follow the racist orthodoxy on the left. Name calling seems to be what the left does best when someone does not agree with them."
I'm sorry, are you under the impression that any name-calling regarding a minority is automatically racist? That will be very difficult for you to defend. Again, whether you agree with Preston as to what is warranted is a different argument. It is not racist, whether warranted or not.
"Preston relies on racial stereotypes, using cartoons laced with derogatory racist language and racist thoughts to advance his obviously biased point of view about blacks and whites. Yet no one here is even aware of this reverse form of racism exists within those on the left."
Apparently that "bias" is that the races should be equal, and minorities should fight for that instead of profiting from their defense of the status quo. I'm really not sure what you find offensive about that, or how that suggests that any particular race is superior to another. Maybe if you just keep using the word over and over without any attempt to justify it, you can convince yourself that you know what the hell you're talking about. It's not going to work on me, though.
Your thought process is a mystery to me. If Preston is comparing Sowell to Ruckus in this cartoon, he is very much using the language and characterization Ruckus uses to make his point. Ruckus uses racist terminology and expresses racist thought. Preston by using Ruckus to make his argument is simply using the language and arguments of Ruckus. It is like ventriloquist using a dummy to express his own thoughts. It is that simple.
Your example of the term 'cracker' is a crack up. You say when you use it in reference to one person, (whom I doubt you are saying is actually a "slave owner"), you are not being racist. That is laughable. You really only cited one possible origin of it use. I think most agree that today it is a derogatory term for whites. It does not matter if you call one person a "cracker" or call a bunch of people the same. It is still derogatory.
Think of this way. What happens when you call someone the N word? After all, you are applying it to only one individual. Is it not racist? If you say no, then you'll be consistent but I doubt you'll find any in agreement.
I note again there is no repudiation by Preston of Ruckus's racist comments or use of the N word to describe blacks. In fact Preston defends it and thinks it is funny. That is the double standard used by the left. It seems to liberals that only conservatives can be called racists. However that is incorrect.
The lack of a single standard by you and others in claiming racist actions or thoughts is breathtaking.
As for you last paragraph, you are simply introducing a straw man argument. I never said the races should not be equal. In fact I have been arguing the reverse. You and your like minded friends here have been arguing for the double standard.
That is ridiculous. So if you compare a liberal poster to Marx, you're using Marx's ideas yourself? He's attributing the nature of the character of Ruckus to Sowell.
"Your example of the term 'cracker' is a crack up. You say when you use it in reference to one person, (whom I doubt you are saying is actually a "slave owner"), you are not being racist..."
Holy crap. "Derogatory" does not equal "racist" when you are talking about behavior. Obviously, if you're calling someone a racist that's not a compliment. It's derogatory because the behavior it's describing is unacceptable. I have no idea where you are coming up with anything to do with "one person" vs. "a bunch of people". I'm talking about criticism of behavior vs. criticism of one's race in general. Try reading it again.
"Think of this way. What happens when you call someone the N word? After all, you are applying it to only one individual..."
If the meaning is derogatory, as it usually is from a white person, then of course it's racist. It's not about behavior. It's about the race of the person, which would be insulting the entire race. Preston is not insulting his own race in general.
"I note again there is no repudiation by Preston of Ruckus's racist comments or use of the N word to describe blacks..."
He's attributing the use of the n-word to Sowell. If you disagree with it, fine, but don't try to claim that he's the one doing using the term as a ventriloquist or whatever other nonsense. I don't think the point is about ideology as it is about race. It's pretty tough to argue that a black man is biased against his own race because he's criticizing one specific black man for his behavior.
"As for you last paragraph, you are simply introducing a straw man argument. I never said the races should not be equal."
I didn't say you said the races shouldn't be equal. Your argument would be a "straw man".
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This statement is virtually insane. The very point of using that word is to say you are inferior BECAUSE YOU ARE BLACK, the very essence of racism. Talking about being a cracker cannot possibly be the same since no one takes any term as a serious insult that you are inferior because you are WHITE. Not in THIS societal context. You are frankly babbling and making virtually no sense whatsoever.
What you have shown here is you simply have no conception of what racism IS.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<
This statement is virtually insane. The very point of using that word is to say you are inferior BECAUSE YOU ARE BLACK, the very essence of racism. Talking about being a cracker cannot possibly be the same since no one takes any term as a serious insult that you are inferior because you are WHITE. Not in THIS societal context. You are frankly babbling and making virtually no sense whatsoever.
What you have shown here is you simply have no conception of what racism IS.
You are calling someone, anyone a hypocrite?
That's what is amazing. Look at your posts and look at yourself in the mirror.
However, the American flag on your posts fits with your posts. Wave the flag, demand that you be called a patriot.
Nice touch at the end however you can just call me AA.
You on the other hand are Straussion though and though.
The next time you try out your "liberals are racist" crap, stay away from Preston, cause he'll just spank you again and again.
On the other hand, maybe you enjoy getting spanked as much a I enjoy reading about it.
Your posts just make me sad. Both you and preston are great at playing the race card. You have to down so well.
Don't get angry with Pearl and I because we coloreds are actin' all uppity!
Preston and Pearlene, on the other hand, have first-hand experience of living in black skin... this is not a game to them. And if we all had any sense, we'd stop pretending that we're all on a level playing field now. Someday, maybe.
POV, rather than trying to understand where Preston and I are coming from, you choose the cowardly line of attack and accuse Preston and myself of "playing the race card".
It's a lazy, pathetic excuse, when all you had to say is you can't handle handle discussions on race because you don't have a clue!
I used it in reference to Obama as "Narcissist Of The U.S." and his repeated use of "not me" argument when apologizing for America.
Apparently some have seen it referenced with the N word although nobody to my knowledge has linked to anyone who has actually used it. I had never heard of it myself. I still have not seen it anywhere but people using it as a way of trying to label me as a racist.
Have you never heard of the "N" word? You're defense is laughable.
The decision probably isn't totally fair to those firefighters, and their frustration is understandable. However, it was decided that the white firefighters were not discriminated against by the city because the city discarded the test as not being a good test for deciding who would be hired.
My guess would be no. In extremely simple terms, you are in NO position to render an opinion on the court's decision.
Suppose YOU lived in a town that had heavy say Shriner influence. They gave a test which had NOTHING to do with the ability to do your job which you do for the city. YOU suspected it had a lot of questions Shriners would know. Would that be fair to YOU? This analogy is not suggesting that the test at New Haven was specifically meant to be advantageous to anyone it is rather the basis FOR the civil rights law and the later law which allowed cities to take action when their tests are challenged and they dont want to run afoul of that law.
It is important to remember that NO SYSTEM of justice can be maintained without some small measures of injustice. We dont live in a simple black and white world.
Institutional racism and its lingering effects still exist. Those who want to maintain the status quo certainly want to pretend this isnt so to maintain what privelege they can and PRETEND to the high moral ground. It is disengenuous. It is dishonest. That they can be taken seriously at all is a lingering shame on our collective character.