Pat BuKKKhanan wants to end all civil rights bills

[Julius Skrrvin]

muffukahs nevah luh uh!!!!

What a strange, vaguely racist parody of your own people

 

[CouldntBeMeTho]

I'm all for freedom of speech, but if something was to happen to pat bukkkhanan... I'd understand

 

[Dusty Bake Activate]

I personally dont want to be served by racist anyway, but thats just me.

Is that how they feel about you?

 

[DEAD7]

Is that how they feel about you?

Who cares how they feel....

 

[The Real]

The arrogance that liberals posses never ceases to amaze.
Some one else's labor is in no shape or form something you or I should have a right to...

What if it's not an issue about labor rights? You want to bring economic rights into a discussion about social ethics, because I suppose for you economic rights are precisely coextensive with social ethics and healthy norms, but that's not how liberals or left-leaning people tend to approach this question (or conservatives either, really.)

Even in the face evidence to the contrary, where the market on its own has ruined people for so much as off color comments, you niqqas still think this way.

Spoiler

Man I'm sure Jerry Brown & mark Cuban cant wait to ban blacks from their teams, that will just rack up the championships

The market "on its own" hasn't done anything. People make decisions about how to operate in the market, and these decisions are often the result of moral deliberation. Morality is inculcated socially, not simply individually. Every society tends to promote its own values in different ways in order to ensure social reproduction. In a culture where discrimination was held to be unethical, then people's economic decisions would reflect that. Allowing people to discriminate more in public would further a public culture in which discrimination was acceptable, and so people's economic decisions would begin to reflect that.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

Who cares how they feel....

Why dont you stick with this line of thought when it comes to a white racist business owner, and stop with these corny childish arguments that suggest business owners should have the ability to discriminate against people if they so choose. Individuals have a right to their personal property, but it isnt a right to own personal property w/o reservation: its a privilege to own property in a society in which people have died for your freedoms, and one advanced enough that protects your property (intellectual and physical), and provides you with resources to be successful. You have a responsibility to our collective social existence.

You want to make an argument that a black solider who gets his arms blown off in a war protecting this country, can come back and not get served in a restaurant because of some "right" of a business owner not to serve him. Exactly who the fukk does some crazy sht like that serve? Rational, sane, moral people do not want to live in a country like that, and society has spoken that a man's freedom to move freely trumps some business owners "freedom" to injure the public, so fukk off with your idea that "freedom" only pertains to someone who has a business.

Grow the fukk up and make adult arguments breh. Enough. This is embarrassing as fukk.

 

[DEAD7]

The market "on its own" hasn't done anything. People make decisions about how to operate in the market, and these decisions are often the result of moral deliberation. Morality is inculcated socially, not simply individually. Every society tends to promote its own values in different ways in order to ensure social reproduction. In a culture where discrimination was held to be unethical, then people's economic decisions would reflect that. Allowing people to discriminate more in public would further a public culture in which discrimination was acceptable, and so people's economic decisions would begin to reflect that.

So the argument is if the state doesnt force integration(which from what I gathered is at risk here), people's economic decisions will begin to reflect that, and lead us back to a Jim Crow situation?

Is that about right? or did I completely miss it? real question, no trolling.

 

[DEAD7]

Why dont you stick with this line of thought when it comes to a white racist business owner, and stop with these corny childish arguments that suggest business owners should have the ability to discriminate against people if they so choose. Individuals have a right to their personal property, but it isnt a right to own personal property: its a privilege to own property in a society in which people have died for your freedoms, and one advanced enough that protects your property (intellectual and physical), and provides you with resources to be successful. You have a responsibility to our collective social existence.

You want to make an argument that a black solider who gets his arms blown off in a war protecting this country, can come back and not get served in a restaurant because of some "right" of a business owner not to serve him. Exactly who the fukk does some crazy sht like that serve? Rational, sane, moral people do not want to live in a country like that, and society has spoken that a man's freedom to move freely trumps some business owners "freedom" to injure the public, so fukk off with your idea that "freedom" only pertains to someone who has a business.

Grow the fukk up and make adult arguments breh. Enough. This is embarrassing as fukk.

Taking the scenario you presented, I wouldnt expect that establishment not to be in business for longer after refusing the vet service, and I think society would be better for it. Forcing them to wear a mask, does more harm imho.

edit: I'm no bullshyt a fan of how elitist your post come across.

 

[MostReal]

There it is...

You niqqas think allowing people to refuse service will lead to chains and a plantation...

Welp, that kind of fear cannot be argued with. I'll just fall back and let you guys keep fighting the good fight against cotton picking.

kinda logic is this? So you want black people to be refused services again...might as well go back to slavery too

 

[The Real]

So the argument is if the state doesnt force integration(which from what I gathered is at risk here), people's economic decisions will begin to reflect that, and lead us back to a Jim Crow situation?

Is that about right? or did I completely miss it? real question, no trolling.

The state can't force integration in any substantive sense. All it can do is try and prevent people from openly discriminating based on these particular identity issues, which really is more of a surface-level maneuver. Even now, I guarantee that if you, as a Black man, go to some small redneck town with a racist presence, you wouldn't be freely sitting around in their bars or diners- informal tensions would force you to leave, or you could even be physically attacked with no one to help you. So let's not use terms like "forced integration" to describe these particular anti-discrimination measures, because it needlessly exaggerates the reality and conflates something like this with some far more direct and authoritarian possible measures.

I don't think it would necessarily lead back to Jim Crow. I think decades of anti-discrimination has allowed many Americans to not want to consciously discriminate, which is a good thing (and your so-called "forced integration" was essential to getting us to the point where "the market" punishes racism,) but we also have to remember that de facto segregation continues to exist, and is pretty severe in many areas. Jim Crow itself was a segregation of public institutions, with most private institutions following the lead of the public ones by choosing to segregate openly/officially or by using more subtle measures. The latter is still done today. I think we'd end up with something like the opposite- private discrimination would be rampant and many more parts of the country would become more unlivable for many more different kinds of people than is the case now. And that would allow cultures of segregation to become even stronger, and social cohesion to disintegrate further.

 

[Crakface]

Who would black people work for if all civil rights bills were abolished.

I give, the fear of segregation is still thick, and as such, white people must be forced to serve blacks like it or not by the state.

I personally dont want to be served by racist anyway, but thats just me. I wont argue the point.

Dont know if you realize it but we're vastly out numbered and outgunned here. I think you need to slow down before you talk that independence shyt. We gotta get there first.

 

[No_bammer_weed]

Taking the scenario you presented, I wouldnt expect that establishment not to be in business for longer after refusing the vet service, and I think society would be better for it. Forcing them to wear a mask, does more harm imho.

edit: I'm no bullshyt a fan of how elitist your post come across.

Dog, you just want attention with these pointless, obscene arguments. There is zero benefit to perverting the idea of every man is created equal, by encouraging business owners to suppress life and liberty, and restricting citizens freedom to patronize businesses that are open to the public. If you think that businesses not being allowed to put up signs saying "nikkers not welcomed" is some sort of affront to freedom, then you have serious psychological issues, and a mature, decent society certainly shouldnt be in the business of accommodating crazy immature fukks who want to injure people.

 

[DEAD7]

Dog, you just want attention with these pointless, obscene arguments. There is zero benefit to perverting the idea of every man is created equal, by encouraging business owners to suppress life and liberty, and restricting citizens freedom to patronize businesses that are open to the public. If you think that businesses not being allowed to put up signs saying "nikkers not welcomed" is some sort of affront to freedom, then you have serious psychological issues, and a mature, decent society certainly shouldnt be in the business of accommodating crazy immature fukks who want to injure people.

"encouraging business owners to suppress life"... By not forcing them to labor against their will? "accommodating crazy immature fukks who want to injure people" ... we wouldnt, we would be identifying the problems and removing them.

I don't believe establishments with "we hate niqqers" signs in the window will survive yet along be profitable... which seems to be the difference here. I think todays market will weed those business's out and society will be better for it. There is too much money in minorities IMHO, and if we are going to accept the greedy capitalist narrative, we have to accept that they will behave in whichever way produces the most profit, and I dont believe racism is it. In fact racist have proven that profit comes first time and time again.


Moreover I think being forced to rely on group economics will help the black community in the long run, and isnt such a bad thing should it play out as some of you suggest. which it wont.

 

[DEAD7]

I don't think it would necessarily lead back to Jim Crow. I think decades of anti-discrimination has allowed many Americans to not want to consciously discriminate, which is a good thing (and your so-called "forced integration" was essential to getting us to the point where "the market" punishes racism,) but we also have to remember that de facto segregation continues to exist, and is pretty severe in many areas. Jim Crow itself was a segregation of public institutions, with most private institutions following the lead of the public ones by choosing to segregate openly/officially or by using more subtle measures. The latter is still done today. I think we'd end up with something like the opposite- private discrimination would be rampant and many more parts of the country would become more unlivable for many more different kinds of people than is the case now. And that would allow cultures of segregation to become even stronger, and social cohesion to disintegrate further.

rampant? wow.

Sounds like i'm giving the American people far too much credit.

 

[MostReal]

So the argument is if the state doesnt force integration(which from what I gathered is at risk here), people's economic decisions will begin to reflect that, and lead us back to a Jim Crow situation?

Is that about right? or did I completely miss it? real question, no trolling.

of course it will in certain areas in this country. Cacs would love to do that. This yall's best poster?
clearly he's naïve