Re: BLM and Rittenhouse

On 4/3/2024 5:25 PM, BTR1701 wrote:

moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:

On 4/3/2024 5:36 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:

On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 22:17:03 -0400, moviePig <never@nothere.com> wrote:
>

If a society inherits a racist component, as ours has, what measures can
address it that can't be (mis)labeled 'racist' by those so inclined?

>
Your question rests on a false premise with your use of the word
'mislabeled'.

>
Your best response is to cavil at my parenthetical editorializing?
>

If despite the racial progress made both legally and in every other
way is STILL considered racist (and the BLM people DO demonize MLK for
advocating equality of opportunity rather than equality of results)
then why persist with legal equality?
>
Obviously that's a rhetorical question but my point is that the BLM +
company definition of "justice" and "equality" (which is the same as
the DEI definition which is 'equality of results" not opportunity) is
positively obscene.
>
Go back and re-read the ENTIRE "I have a dream" speech and don't just
pay attention to the last minute of it (which is all most of us
remember). If you pay attention to the first half of the speech you'll
see King rips several states quite hard for racism before he gets to
the part about his children that we all remember.
>
https://www.npr.org/2010/01/18/122701268/i-have-a-dream-speech-in-its-entirety
>
For my money the first half is at least as important as his inspiring
finale.

>
The rub occurs when "racist" measures are needed to hasten the advent of
equal opportunity.  E.g., for blacks to be accepted as doctors, a few
have to be coerced into (also coerced) medical schools.

 "It's okay when we're racist because our hearts are with the angels!"

Still waiting for something besides your dodge of the question up top...