Race, Racism – Bigots and Ignorants

Race

First, so to be clear:

the belief that races have distinctive cultural characteristics determined by hereditary factors and that this endows some races with an intrinsic superiority over others

a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

The difference between racism and bigotry.

Now, to this oopion:

The civil rights lawyer who argued unsuccessfully before the Supreme Court to end Michigan’s affirmative action ban repeated Sunday that the high court’s decision was “racist.”

“This is a racist decision that takes us back to an era of state’s rights,” civil rights attorney Shanta Driver told “Fox News Sunday.” “This decision cannot stand.”

This is truly remarkable.  A decision that makes it illegal to  give preferential treatment to an individual based on race is called racist.  Forget the lack of understanding of the word – the lack of understanding of where we wanna get to is remarkable.

The future we aspire to is one where we judge an individual on merit of character, on basis of achievement – an equal footing not based on race.

An argument can be made for reparations, to be sure.  But that is an argument based on past wrongs.  Affirmative Action isn’t about that – Affirmative Action is about preferential treatment based on race.

The best way to test for appropriateness?  Ask yourself, if it’s okay to admit a student with lower scores because they are black – is it okay to admit a student with lower scores because they are white?

6 responses to “Race, Racism – Bigots and Ignorants

  1. I was hoping this post would be about the Clippers and Sterling. Usually you claim that it is intolerant for liberals to boycott/disassociate from other people because of political beliefs, so what’s your stand on the corporate sponsors dumping the Clippers right now? Is that another example of intolerance?

    • Usually you claim that it is intolerant for liberals to boycott/disassociate from other people because of political beliefs,

      Some examples are musicians refusing crying when a republican uses their song during a campaign. Perfect example. It’s NOT okay to discriminate on thought when thought = race, sexual orientation but it IS okay to discriminate on thought when thought = politics.

      The other is a store owner refusing to serve someone who is gay. I don’t agree with that reasoning and think it is extraordinary poor taste; but it should be legal.

      Boycotting is fine. Entering, or not, into contract can be done for any reason. Shit – I once threw out a Braves fan from the bar I was working in for the sole reason of cheering during the World Series.

      what’s your stand on the corporate sponsors dumping the Clippers right now

      If ACME Soda decides that sponsoring the Clippers reflects poorly on them, they should bail. Where I object to such actions is when ACME coffee decides to *continue* its relationship with the Clippers and the liberal left pickets the CEO’s home.

      Back to intolerance and such. Consider homosexuality and Christians. Now consider pre-marital sex.

      Do you think that Christians support pre-marital from dogma point of view? I don’t think they/me do. But all kinds of Christians know and love pre-marital sex practitioners. Can it be okay that a Christian has an issue with homosexuality? Can they not be a hater?

  2. If ACME Soda decides that sponsoring the Clippers reflects poorly on them, they should bail. Where I object to such actions is when ACME coffee decides to *continue* its relationship with the Clippers and the liberal left pickets the CEO’s home.

    So, if a company objects to another company’s management, they should cut off their support. But if a group of people object to a company’s management, such as ACME’s support of the Clippers, they should not cut off support of ACME. How does this make any sense? And how do you square it with your statement above that boycotting is fine?

    • So, if a company objects to another company’s management, they should cut off their support. But if a group of people object to a company’s management, such as ACME’s support of the Clippers, they should not cut off support of ACME.

      That’s not what I said.

      I said that if a company continues to sponsor the Clippers – people should not picket the CEO’s house. Don’t buy ACME coffee, but don’t chant outside his door.

      But there is a derivative here:

      The Clippers say something horrible.

      Company A rejects the Clippers and pulls sponsorship.
      Company B does NOT reject the Clippers.

      Is Company B not free to hold their own thoughts? Should Company B be “punished” for not agreeing with your take on the Clippers? Keep in mind, Company B didn’t say those ugly things, they just came to a different conclusion.

      There is a degree of intolerance there.

      • Why is it okay for Company A to punish the Clippers for being douchebags, but it’s not okay for consumers to punish Company B for sticking by the Clippers? That’s a totally bizarre line for me.

  3. Pingback: Losing lawyer calls Supreme Court racist » Musings of the Angry Webmaster

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *