Vitimization

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Ummm... How on earth are you going to try and tell ME what I MEANT in my own post? I explained what my post meant if you don't accept that then it's your problem. I tried explaining to you what I meant. I have read both posts again, and again you are reading WAY TOO MUCH into it. The whole purpose of the thread was to discuss a victimization mindset, not to debate whether or not racism exists in the workforce. There are instances were it does happen, and instances when it does not.

For the second time:
I DO NOT AGREE that people do not get CEO positions just because of thier skin color. Got it?

What you say you meant and what is in your post are two completely different things. Lebuick said:

Originally Posted by LeBuick
I guess it depends on what free means? Free to ride in the bac of the bus or to go to the backdoor to be served? Free to be the janitor and not the CEO? Free to not get the job or promotion because of the color of you skin? If you can that free, then I agree... Stop belly aching.

You said : I agree.

There is no other way to interpret that

 

[tragic_pizza]

Affirmative Action and other equalizing laws are necessary, and will be until the mindset of corporate America becomes truly color-blind.

Sure, African-Americans get hired now. But take away the requirements, and I can tell you, from experience, that hirings would go down. There are simply too many white folk who still consider African Americans inferior, especially in the American South.

 

[carpro]

Affirmative Action and other equalizing laws are necessary, and will be until the mindset of corporate America becomes truly color-blind.

Sure, African-Americans get hired now. But take away the requirements, and I can tell you, from experience, that hirings would go down. There are simply too many white folk who still consider African Americans inferior, especially in the American South.

Why am I not surprised that you are in favor of racial discrimination as well?

 

[tragic_pizza]

Probably ebcause you, once again, choose to define terms in new and unusual ways, Carpo. I can send you a dictionary, it may help.

 

[carpro]

Probably ebcause you, once again, choose to define terms in new and unusual ways, Carpo. I can send you a dictionary, it may help.

Why don't you define racial discrimination for us? You seem to know and believe I don't....

Please.

 

[tragic_pizza]

Why don't you define racial discrimination for us? You seem to know and believe I don't....

Please.

racial discrimination
noundiscriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racism]

 

[carpro]

racial discrimination
noundiscriminatory or abusive behavior towards members of another race [syn: racism]

You've just described affirmative action.

 

[tragic_pizza]

In your eyes, yes.

In point of fact AA exists to remedy a century-plus tradition of racial discrimination.

Now, go ahead and reply with one of your usual insults, and you can say you won the argument, OK?

 

[carpro]

In your eyes, yes.

In point of fact AA exists to remedy a century-plus tradition of racial discrimination.

Yes, in my eyes and in fact.

Racial discrimination cannot be eliminated by creating more of it and making it legal.

 

[DeeJay]

Affirmative Action and other equalizing laws are necessary, and will be until the mindset of corporate America becomes truly color-blind.

How can corporate America ever become color-blind when we require them by law to not be color-blind.

I see a huge problem with useing racism to fight racism. AA if used at all should have been a very very temproary solution. Its continuence only fules the fire for people who want to have a reason to not accept people of other colors. It also is a daily reminder that color is an issue and two people of different colors can not (by law) be treated equally. After all is that not the fight of the civil rights movement to treat a person equally regardless of color. To judge a person by the content of their charicter not the color of skin. Civil rights activists should be fighting hardist against AA.

 

[Filmproducer]

No mam I do not want to be contrary but what you are saying is not lining up with your post. go back and look at post number #5. Read what you quoted lebuick:



This is what you quoted him on and nothing else. There is nothing in this statement, which is the only statement you quoted, with in the context of "stop complaining".

The context for this quote is a lack of freedom still exists for blacks because they do not get hired for positions like CEO. You agreed with him on this.

This was the basis for my post # 25 when I asked for a real example of this.

In post #30 you asked who is really claiming this? Well in answer to your question and based on the fact that you quoted Lebuick in the context of black people not getting CEO positions and you agreed with it, the answer is you and Lebuick are claiming this. Go back and reread post # 5. It is your words.

So, seeing that you agree with such a statement I am interested in names of these individuals who do not get positions as CEO's because of the color of their skin.

Since you seem to know what I MEANT and what I THINK. Why don't you go ahead and answer your own question.

I have explained what I meant by my post. You have chosen to disregard it. BTW, I didn't just say, "I agree". There was a lot more to my post. Context my friend. You should try using it sometime.

 

[Filmproducer]

Of course you do.

That's because you believe racial discrimination is OK as long as you approve.

I believe it is never OK.

So are you saying that there was no racial discrimination taking place at the time AA was enacted? What exactly do you suggest should have been done to combat the VERY REAL problem? Laws had been on the books for almost a hundred years, but without any real federal police power to enforce them they were useless.

 

[carpro]

What exactly do you suggest should have been done to combat the VERY REAL problem? Laws had been on the books for almost a hundred years, but without any real federal police power to enforce them they were useless.

You believe legalizing and creating more racial discrimination is better than enforcement of laws making it illegal?

You actually believe that by authorizing racial discrimination you can eliminate it?:tonofbricks:

Pretty cock eyed thinking. And that's being kind.


It appears that the bottom line is that liberals are in favor of racial discrimination, but only if they get to make the rules.

 

[2 Timothy2:1-4]

Since you seem to know what I MEANT and what I THINK. Why don't you go ahead and answer your own question.

I have explained what I meant by my post. You have chosen to disregard it. BTW, I didn't just say, "I agree". There was a lot more to my post. Context my friend. You should try using it sometime.

Well. Lets take a look at the entire post.

Originally Posted by LeBuick
I guess it depends on what free means? Free to ride in the bac of the bus or to go to the backdoor to be served? Free to be the janitor and not the CEO? Free to not get the job or promotion because of the color of you skin? If you can that free, then I agree... Stop belly aching.


Okay, I agree. However, do you believe that the majority of black people live in this kind of victim mindset? Do you really feel as if the majority of black people "belly ache" and complain about being victims in most aspect of their lives? Say for example, a black person is discriminated against, (something that can be proven). Now if this person says something about their treatment are they living in this victimization mindset? Do they not have a right to air their grievances? I think anyone is hard pressed to prove that the majority of black people throw daily "pity parties" for themselves.


What is said after "I agree" clearly does not put it in the "context" that you assert. "I agree" cn only be in the context of what Lebuick said and nothing more. what is said after "I agree" is a redirected context. You cannot post that something is blue and later claim that what you meant was orange. The post in question is right here look at it.

 

[Filmproducer]

Well. Lets take a look at the entire post.

Originally Posted by LeBuick
I guess it depends on what free means? Free to ride in the bac of the bus or to go to the backdoor to be served? Free to be the janitor and not the CEO? Free to not get the job or promotion because of the color of you skin? If you can that free, then I agree... Stop belly aching.


Okay, I agree. However, do you believe that the majority of black people live in this kind of victim mindset? Do you really feel as if the majority of black people "belly ache" and complain about being victims in most aspect of their lives? Say for example, a black person is discriminated against, (something that can be proven). Now if this person says something about their treatment are they living in this victimization mindset? Do they not have a right to air their grievances? I think anyone is hard pressed to prove that the majority of black people throw daily "pity parties" for themselves.


What is said after "I agree" clearly does not put it in the "context" that you assert. "I agree" cn only be in the context of what Lebuick said and nothing more. what is said after "I agree" is a redirected context. You cannot post that something is blue and later claim that what you meant was orange. The post in question is right here look at it.

What is so impossibly hard to understand about my post? (Especially after I have explained it to you multiple times already)

It is clear you misunderstood what I meant. Instead of trying to argue with me about the meaning of my own post and what I think, why not just admit it was was a misunderstanding and move on?

For the LAST TIME: (I'll be sure to break it down for you)

" Okay, I agree"
- I agree inequality is not freedom. If there is reason to complain by all means do so, if not stop complaining

"However, do you believe that the majority of black people live in this kind of victim mindset? Do you really feel as if the majority of black people "belly ache" and complain about being victims in most aspect of their lives? Say for example, a black person is discriminated against, (something that can be proven). Now if this person says something about their treatment are they living in this victimization mindset? Do they not have a right to air their grievances? I think anyone is hard pressed to prove that the majority of black people throw daily "pity parties" for themselves."
- The thread dealt with whether or not the majority of black Americans live in a victimized mindset. So I posed the question whether 1.) most black Americans do have a victim mindset and 2.) whether it can even be considered a "victim mindset" if they actually are victims. When does it cross from airing real grievences to living as a victim?

Do you understand now? If not, oh well. I am not going to argue with you over what I meant in my own post.