Has the Alt-Right been co-opted?

[satimy]

As i read somewhere "when you're accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppresion"
Thats whats happening with the american white population at lsrge

Affirmative action is racial discrimination, you can't dance around that

[Slybak]

Affirmative action is racial discrimination, you can't dance around that

Requiring institutions to broaden their recruiting pool beyond conventional ideas of "suitable candidates" (i.e. white men) when looking for qualified applicants is not discriminatory, but its opposite. Unless you're one of those people who thinks any random black person can just walk into the admissions office of, say, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and shout "MAKE ME A DOCTOR!" at the person running the front desk and they are compelled to hand them an MD on the spot, presumably with a white coat and a stethoscope to go with it.

Clarence Thomas was recruited as a nominee to the Supreme Court through an informal affirmative action policy; the George H. W. Bush administration didn't like the optics of replacing Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court Justice, with another white guy from the Federalist Society. Was that discriminatory? No. Has Clarence Thomas not expanded the range and scope of conservative jurisprudence because of his unique experiences? He most certainly has. Is that a bad thing? From the standpoint of conservative legal theorists, and liberal legal theorists who like to face new challenges, it certainly is not.

[satimy]

Requiring institutions to broaden their recruiting pool beyond conventional ideas of "suitable candidates" (i.e. white men) when looking for qualified applicants is not discriminatory, but its opposite. Unless you're one of those people who thinks any random black person can just walk into the admissions office of, say, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine and shout "MAKE ME A DOCTOR!" at the person running the front desk and they are compelled to hand them an MD on the spot, presumably with a white coat and a stethoscope to go with it.

Clarence Thomas was recruited as a nominee to the Supreme Court through an informal affirmative action policy; the George H. W. Bush administration didn't like the optics of replacing Thurgood Marshall, the first black Supreme Court Justice, with another white guy from the Federalist Society. Was that discriminatory? No. Has Clarence Thomas not expanded the range and scope of conservative jurisprudence because of his unique experiences? He most certainly has. Is that a bad thing? From the standpoint of conservative legal theorists, and liberal legal theorists who like to face new challenges, it certainly is not.

Wait so white people just walk into Johns Hopkins and demand to be a doctor, do you actually believe this?


Clarence Thomas also took borks seat and is rabidly anti AA. The very thought that you "need" a black judge to be fair on civil rights is also racist. So if that's what you believe then yes you are racist

[Slybak]

Wait so white people just walk into Johns Hopkins and demand to be a doctor, do you actually believe this?

No, don't be obtuse.

Clarence Thomas also took borks seat and is rabidly anti AA.

Irrelevant, and right-wingers who want to abolish an equitable social arrangement after which they've personally benefited from it is eminently common to the point of banality.

The very thought that you "need" a black judge to be fair on civil rights is also racist.

Not what I said. I said Thomas's jurisprudence is unique. For instance, his approach to incorporation is rooted in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, and not the Equal Protection Clause of the same. And, for the record, I certainly don't think this jurisprudence or Thomas in general is "fair" on civil rights.

[satimy]

No, don't be obtuse.


Irrelevant, and right-wingers
who want to abolish an equitable social arrangement after which they've personally benefited from it is eminently common to the point of banality.


Not what I said. I said Thomas's jurisprudence is unique. For instance, his approach to incorporation is rooted in the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment, and not the Equal Protection Clause of the same. And, for the record, I certainly don't think this jurisprudence or Thomas in general is "fair" on civil rights.

1. That's what you implied
2. Thomas was against AA before he was ever a judge in all likelihood
3. You literally implied Bush hired him because he's black and a white boy wouldn't be able to handle replacing thurgood Marshall

Here's a question what white people are represented exactly. All the white justices are either Jews or Catholics. Shouldn't 60% of the court be Anglo Saxon Protestants?

[Edge-]

3. You literally implied Bush hired him because he's black and a white boy wouldn't be able to handle replacing thurgood Marshall

The optics of, not the ability to.

Reading is difficult sometimes.

[Felya]

Here's a question what white people are represented exactly. All the white justices are either Jews or Catholics. Shouldn't 60% of the court be Anglo Saxon Protestants?

White =\= WASP

[satimy]

The optics of, not the ability to.

Reading is difficult sometimes.

Reading can be very difficult, especially if the writer is extremely obtuse.

- - - Updated - - -

White =\= WASP

Shouldn't 30% of the judges be German Protestants? Shouldn't there be an Asian judge?

[Slybak]

1. That's what you implied

No, it wasn't. That's what you imagined, because the first thing you think of when you hear the words "affirmative action" is "someone getting something they don't deserve."

2. Thomas was against AA before he was ever a judge in all likelihood

Doesn't matter. He benefited from it both informally during his nomination and formally during his legal education.

3. You literally implied Bush hired him because he's black and a white boy wouldn't be able to handle replacing thurgood Marshall

I explicitly said that Bush nominated him because his administration didn't like the optics of replacing Thurgood Marshall with a white jurist hostile to civil rights, like Bork. Whatever implication you derived from that statement is, again, of your own imagining.

Here's a question what white people are represented exactly. All the white justices are either Jews or Catholics. Shouldn't 60% of the court be Anglo Saxon Protestants?

Diversity is more than different flavors of white people.

[Resurgo]

I can't believe people still believe Affirmitive Action isn't racist...

Instead of denying someone a position because of their race, you force them to be hired because of their race.

The italics is the problem... whether it's for good or bad, it still comes down to because of their race, so guess what? It's racist!

[satimy]

No, it wasn't. That's what you imagined, because the first thing you think of when you hear the words "affirmative action" is "someone getting something they don't deserve."


Doesn't matter. He benefited from it both informally during his nomination and formally during his legal education.


I explicitly said that Bush nominated him because his administration didn't like the optics of replacing Thurgood Marshall with a white jurist hostile to civil rights, like Bork. Whatever implication you derived from that statement is, again, of your own imagining.


Diversity is more than different flavors of white people.

1. No you said black people werent able to walk in to Johns Hopkins and demand an MD while implying thats what white people do.
2. So you don't think Clarence Thomas is qualified to be a judge?
3. Can white people represent civil rights or not? Can a court function without a black judge or not?
4. So all white people are the same and diversity is just skin color?

[Slybak]

1. No you said black people werent able to walk in to Johns Hopkins and demand an MD while implying thats what white people do.

I implied no such thing. Being willfully obtuse isn't particularly endearing.

2. So you don't think Clarence Thomas is qualified to be a judge?

Again, you think people who benefit from affirmative action are inherently unqualified. Not me. For the record, I think Thomas was qualified in both his education and experience for the nomination.

3. Can white people represent civil rights or not? Can a court function without a black judge or not?

Many white judges have had excellent records on civil rights. What's your point?

4. So all white people are the same and diversity is just skin color?

Does this act usually work? Because it's really bad.

- - - Updated - - -

Instead of denying someone a position because of their race, you force them to be hired because of their race.

This isn't what affirmative action is.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Guys, Satimy is infamous for taking what you say and then making it sound like you said something completely different. He makes it something he can easily argue against, i.e. a strawman. It's apparently the only way he knows how to debate too, as I have yet to see him produce anything that seems remotely knowledgeable or honest on any subject. So you can continue to waste your time with him if you want, but fair warning given.

[Felya]

Shouldn't 30% of the judges be German Protestants? Shouldn't there be an Asian judge?

Why not? Are you starting a cause?

- - - Updated - - -

So all white people are the same and diversity is just skin color?

Yes, when it comes to hiring and other opportunities afforded by affirmative action, it aims to stop discrimination that is only skin deep. Because I have yet to have a resume or interview, where my whiteness was noteworthy in any way other than what I look like.

- - - Updated - - -

Guys, Satimy is infamous for taking what you say and then making it sound like you said something completely different. He makes it something he can easily argue against, i.e. a strawman. It's apparently the only way he knows how to debate too, as I have yet to see him produce anything that seems remotely knowledgeable or honest on any subject. So you can continue to waste your time with him if you want, but fair warning given.

If we ignored everyone talking shit on this forum, there wouldn't be a forum.

[Mormolyce]

The alt right has always existed.

Yes, we used to call them neo-Nazis, skinheads, the KKK, etc.

[satimy]

Yes, we used to call them neo-Nazis, skinheads, the KKK, etc.

Those were called democrats

[Moralgy]

I thought the "alt-right" was like just a movement that wanted to trigger liburals from day one. Conservatives got co-opted by the alt-right if anything.

- - - Updated - - -

Those were called democrats

Now they infest the republican party. Times change it seems.

[Xeones]

Those were called democrats

Not after the Southern Strategy.

[Deleted]

Diversity is more than different flavors of white people.

Which actually exposes your cryptoracism. A normal decent person sees that for instance an italian and polish person have vastly different cultures and thus
knows that Europe is very diverse.

A brainwashed liberal looks at europe and screeches "omg, too many white people. We need to import more brown ones for DIVURRRSITY"
and thus reduces people to their skin colour which is extremely ignorant and racist.


[Infracted]

[Slybak]

Which actually exposes your cryptoracism. A normal decent person sees that for instance an italian and polish person have vastly different cultures and thus
knows that Europe is very diverse.

A brainwashed liberal looks at europe and screeches "omg, too many white people. We need to import more brown ones for DIVURRRSITY"

I'm not "looking at europe," I'm looking at the United States where various European ethnicities have been homogenized into a more common culture which goes by the name White. Just as various African ethnicities, which number in larger amount than those of Europe, were homogenized into Black, only forcibly so through the various practices associated with chattel slavery.

Apparently they don't provide much in the way of a history education in the schools of "Kekistan." You just learn how to draw shitty memes, worship con artists, and act surprised when people want to punch you.