It is a common idea from the that conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Or that every person should pull their own weight within reason.
Most Liberals counter that is inherently racist because of minority welfare numbers or perceived numbers.
I would submit that it isn't racism but perhaps an unintended consequence.
Further, I believe it is truly racist to assume that these minorities in question will not be able to pull their own weight or are not smart enough to overcome circumstances.
This fits the mattbrott principle well because of the irony of the liberal ideas and unintended oppressive policies.
Affirmative action is another great example of this principle.
It is a common idea from the that conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Or that every person should pull their own weight within reason.
Most Liberals counter that is inherently racist because of minority welfare numbers or perceived numbers.
I would submit that it isn't racism but perhaps an unintended consequence.
Further, I believe it is truly racist to assume that these minorities in question will not be able to pull their own weight or are not smart enough to overcome circumstances.
This fits the mattbrott principle well because of the irony of the liberal ideas and unintended oppressive policies.
Affirmative action is another great example of this principle.
I was making the same argument when libs were saying having to provide an ID to vote was racist.
I think it is racist to think minorities aren't capable of getting an ID.
or, as you mentioned, minorities need their standards lowered because they aren't capable of achieving the same scores as others (college entrance exams, police or fire dept promotions, etc)
I was making the same argument when libs were saying having to provide an ID to vote was racist.
I think it is racist to think minorities aren't capable of getting an ID.
or, as you mentioned, minorities need their standards lowered because they aren't capable of achieving the same scores as others (college entrance exams, police or fire dept promotions, etc)
I was making the same argument when libs were saying having to provide an ID to vote was racist.
I think it is racist to think minorities aren't capable of getting an ID.
or, as you mentioned, minorities need their standards lowered because they aren't capable of achieving the same scores as others (college entrance exams, police or fire dept promotions, etc)
Great example.
Lets just lower the bar for some and let them think they are achieving at the same level. Thats not oppressive at all.
I was making the same argument when libs were saying having to provide an ID to vote was racist.
I think it is racist to think minorities aren't capable of getting an ID.
or, as you mentioned, minorities need their standards lowered because they aren't capable of achieving the same scores as others (college entrance exams, police or fire dept promotions, etc)
Great example.
Lets just lower the bar for some and let them think they are achieving at the same level. Thats not oppressive at all.
I was making the same argument when libs were saying having to provide an ID to vote was racist.
I think it is racist to think minorities aren't capable of getting an ID.
or, as you mentioned, minorities need their standards lowered because they aren't capable of achieving the same scores as others (college entrance exams, police or fire dept promotions, etc)
I thought this argument was a good one as well. I said I wondered how they could take the time to sign up for all the government giveaways but somehow couldn't figure out how to get an ID.
I was making the same argument when libs were saying having to provide an ID to vote was racist.
I think it is racist to think minorities aren't capable of getting an ID.
or, as you mentioned, minorities need their standards lowered because they aren't capable of achieving the same scores as others (college entrance exams, police or fire dept promotions, etc)
I thought this argument was a good one as well. I said I wondered how they could take the time to sign up for all the government giveaways but somehow couldn't figure out how to get an ID.
Affirmative action is a necessary evil (in the sense that as an indirect result members of majority who were not involved in discrimination will bear some of burden) in order to compensate for the injustices of the past. Just look at sports and the hiring of black gen mgrs etc White owners may not be affirmatively prejudiced but the bottom line is the owner is going to hire some1 they r comfortable w . If they only connect w white people then the chance of them hiring a minority is nil. Affirmative action type programs help level the playing field. Same is true w education. It is much easier for some1 to succeed in a rich white neighborhood than a minority poor neighborhood.
Also, I don't think the concern on ID cards is that they can't figure out hiw to get access. I think it relates to access.
Affirmative action is a necessary evil (in the sense that as an indirect result members of majority who were not involved in discrimination will bear some of burden) in order to compensate for the injustices of the past. Just look at sports and the hiring of black gen mgrs etc White owners may not be affirmatively prejudiced but the bottom line is the owner is going to hire some1 they r comfortable w . If they only connect w white people then the chance of them hiring a minority is nil. Affirmative action type programs help level the playing field. Same is true w education. It is much easier for some1 to succeed in a rich white neighborhood than a minority poor neighborhood.
Also, I don't think the concern on ID cards is that they can't figure out hiw to get access. I think it relates to access.
Affirmative action is a necessary evil (in the sense that as an indirect result members of majority who were not involved in discrimination will bear some of burden) in order to compensate for the injustices of the past. Just look at sports and the hiring of black gen mgrs etc White owners may not be affirmatively prejudiced but the bottom line is the owner is going to hire some1 they r comfortable w . If they only connect w white people then the chance of them hiring a minority is nil. Affirmative action type programs help level the playing field. Same is true w education. It is much easier for some1 to succeed in a rich white neighborhood than a minority poor neighborhood.
Also, I don't think the concern on ID cards is that they can't figure out hiw to get access. I think it relates to access.
Are all whites rich?
You don't empower people to be their best by lowering the bar to foster fake success.
You do more good by teaching and forcing all to overcome circumstances and leaving the bar equal for all.
Affirmative action is a necessary evil (in the sense that as an indirect result members of majority who were not involved in discrimination will bear some of burden) in order to compensate for the injustices of the past. Just look at sports and the hiring of black gen mgrs etc White owners may not be affirmatively prejudiced but the bottom line is the owner is going to hire some1 they r comfortable w . If they only connect w white people then the chance of them hiring a minority is nil. Affirmative action type programs help level the playing field. Same is true w education. It is much easier for some1 to succeed in a rich white neighborhood than a minority poor neighborhood.
Also, I don't think the concern on ID cards is that they can't figure out hiw to get access. I think it relates to access.
Are all whites rich?
You don't empower people to be their best by lowering the bar to foster fake success.
You do more good by teaching and forcing all to overcome circumstances and leaving the bar equal for all.
If analyzed in a vacuum that's fine. It negates, however, the effect of centuries of discrimination. No not all whites r rich but in the context of education be serious. Do u think that the kids in the minority neighborhoods have the same opportunity as the kids in the white neighborhoods. Again look at the example in sports. The Rooney rule is a form of affirmative action. Do you think the problem w a lack of minorities in mgt was because the owners sat around and said I'm not hiring a black coach, etc. Or perhaps due to their personal circumstance they had limited contact w potential minority candidates. Then there is Ferguson. U may claim that minority candidates can't compete w white candidates or that the bar has to be lowered, but the bottom line is that if the significant majority of your citizens are from a minority yet the police force is almost exclusively from the majority, then you are going to have problems. In my view, while it may be unfair to some from the majority, we have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that the police force is a more balanced representation of its base.
If analyzed in a vacuum that's fine. It negates, however, the effect of centuries of discrimination. No not all whites r rich but in the context of education be serious. Do u think that the kids in the minority neighborhoods have the same opportunity as the kids in the white neighborhoods. Again look at the example in sports. The Rooney rule is a form of affirmative action. Do you think the problem w a lack of minorities in mgt was because the owners sat around and said I'm not hiring a black coach, etc. Or perhaps due to their personal circumstance they had limited contact w potential minority candidates. Then there is Ferguson. U may claim that minority candidates can't compete w white candidates or that the bar has to be lowered, but the bottom line is that if the significant majority of your citizens are from a minority yet the police force is almost exclusively from the majority, then you are going to have problems. In my view, while it may be unfair to some from the majority, we have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that the police force is a more balanced representation of its base.
as much time as i've spent endorsing the mattbrot principle in all areas of human existence, i'll need mattbrot to issue a denial to these allegations. however, the fact that mattbrot is not a "family values" republican is fairly conclusive evidence that he's not, in fact, a sex offender.
as much time as i've spent endorsing the mattbrot principle in all areas of human existence, i'll need mattbrot to issue a denial to these allegations. however, the fact that mattbrot is not a "family values" republican is fairly conclusive evidence that he's not, in fact, a sex offender.
Well bowl - I will give a more in depth response tomorrow. But in short not exactly.
This is a serious response and not an attempt to be funny. You are commenting on policy that has some valid opinions on both sides. For the record I agree, to an extent, with your views on this topic. But it is not the same as other topics cited for the Mattbrot principle (something assigned to me by the way. Not one I named myself). Disagreeing on this policy is not pointing out an irony in the same way that pointing out the ironies of family values republic getting caught cheating, anti-happy repubs getting caught having sex with men, anti hand out repubs complaining while most of the states receiving the highest government dollars are red states etc...
That is the short answer. I am happy to continue more dialogue tomorrow if you want.
As always it will be from my stance as a non-partisan independent.
Well bowl - I will give a more in depth response tomorrow. But in short not exactly.
This is a serious response and not an attempt to be funny. You are commenting on policy that has some valid opinions on both sides. For the record I agree, to an extent, with your views on this topic. But it is not the same as other topics cited for the Mattbrot principle (something assigned to me by the way. Not one I named myself). Disagreeing on this policy is not pointing out an irony in the same way that pointing out the ironies of family values republic getting caught cheating, anti-happy repubs getting caught having sex with men, anti hand out repubs complaining while most of the states receiving the highest government dollars are red states etc...
That is the short answer. I am happy to continue more dialogue tomorrow if you want.
As always it will be from my stance as a non-partisan independent.
We would love to see some examples of you applying this principle to the left the same way you do to the right. That's what a non partisan independent would do.
We would love to see some examples of you applying this principle to the left the same way you do to the right. That's what a non partisan independent would do.
I was making the same argument when libs were saying having to provide an ID to vote was racist.
I think it is racist to think minorities aren't capable of getting an ID.
or, as you mentioned, minorities need their standards lowered because they aren't capable of achieving the same scores as others (college entrance exams, police or fire dept promotions, etc)
who said it was racist? or is this more straw man?
I was making the same argument when libs were saying having to provide an ID to vote was racist.
I think it is racist to think minorities aren't capable of getting an ID.
or, as you mentioned, minorities need their standards lowered because they aren't capable of achieving the same scores as others (college entrance exams, police or fire dept promotions, etc)
who said it was racist? or is this more straw man?
It is a common idea from the that conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Or that every person should pull their own weight within reason.
Most Liberals counter that is inherently racist because of minority welfare numbers or perceived numbers.
I would submit that it isn't racism but perhaps an unintended consequence.
Further, I believe it is truly racist to assume that these minorities in question will not be able to pull their own weight or are not smart enough to overcome circumstances.
This fits the mattbrott principle well because of the irony of the liberal ideas and unintended oppressive policies.
Affirmative action is another great example of this principle.
ok the mattbrot princple says that the people who promote a certain view are often the very ones that act in the exact opposite...
So the common idea of conservatives believe in personal responsibility would mean that they are the one's that exercise it the least in their own personal life...
and as documented many times, the people that promote pulling one's own weight are the very ones who have the most people who do not pull their own weight... I think that this has been proven numerous times in numerous threads/posts...
so when you say liberals are inherently racist, it means that they are actually the least racist, effected or concerned with race personally...
so when liberals say that minorities cant pull their own weight, the reality is that their base and themselves have the most minorities that pull their own weight while the opposing is full of minorities that do not pull their own weight... but this may not be because of race as the opposition as proven before has the most people that do not pull their own weight, so perhaps it is not about race....
affirmative action based on the mattbrot principle would say that those advocating for it are the one's that need it the least... while those that oppose affirmative actions and other unfair handouts are the people need and take the most handouts...
hope that clears it up for you...
I think it is hard for you to use your prescribed talking points and apply them post hoc in another one of your "cart before horse" arguments...
I think the lack of a solid foundation in reality is telling when you run it through the basic principles of the mattbrot principle...
It is a common idea from the that conservatives believe in personal responsibility. Or that every person should pull their own weight within reason.
Most Liberals counter that is inherently racist because of minority welfare numbers or perceived numbers.
I would submit that it isn't racism but perhaps an unintended consequence.
Further, I believe it is truly racist to assume that these minorities in question will not be able to pull their own weight or are not smart enough to overcome circumstances.
This fits the mattbrott principle well because of the irony of the liberal ideas and unintended oppressive policies.
Affirmative action is another great example of this principle.
ok the mattbrot princple says that the people who promote a certain view are often the very ones that act in the exact opposite...
So the common idea of conservatives believe in personal responsibility would mean that they are the one's that exercise it the least in their own personal life...
and as documented many times, the people that promote pulling one's own weight are the very ones who have the most people who do not pull their own weight... I think that this has been proven numerous times in numerous threads/posts...
so when you say liberals are inherently racist, it means that they are actually the least racist, effected or concerned with race personally...
so when liberals say that minorities cant pull their own weight, the reality is that their base and themselves have the most minorities that pull their own weight while the opposing is full of minorities that do not pull their own weight... but this may not be because of race as the opposition as proven before has the most people that do not pull their own weight, so perhaps it is not about race....
affirmative action based on the mattbrot principle would say that those advocating for it are the one's that need it the least... while those that oppose affirmative actions and other unfair handouts are the people need and take the most handouts...
hope that clears it up for you...
I think it is hard for you to use your prescribed talking points and apply them post hoc in another one of your "cart before horse" arguments...
I think the lack of a solid foundation in reality is telling when you run it through the basic principles of the mattbrot principle...
ok the mattbrot princple says that the people who promote a certain view are often the very ones that act in the exact opposite...
So the common idea of conservatives believe in personal responsibility would mean that they are the one's that exercise it the least in their own personal life...
and as documented many times, the people that promote pulling one's own weight are the very ones who have the most people who do not pull their own weight... I think that this has been proven numerous times in numerous threads/posts...
so when you say liberals are inherently racist, it means that they are actually the least racist, effected or concerned with race personally...
so when liberals say that minorities cant pull their own weight, the reality is that their base and themselves have the most minorities that pull their own weight while the opposing is full of minorities that do not pull their own weight... but this may not be because of race as the opposition as proven before has the most people that do not pull their own weight, so perhaps it is not about race....
affirmative action based on the mattbrot principle would say that those advocating for it are the one's that need it the least... while those that oppose affirmative actions and other unfair handouts are the people need and take the most handouts...
hope that clears it up for you...
I think it is hard for you to use your prescribed talking points and apply them post hoc in another one of your "cart before horse" arguments...
I think the lack of a solid foundation in reality is telling when you run it through the basic principles of the mattbrot principle...
Wow I thought you understood the mattbrott principle.
Liberals never 'say' that minorities don't pull their own weight with their vocal cords... they say it with their solutions or policies.
It's really hard for you to bash liberals isn't it.
So many flaws with this post by you. I'll let you save face by rethinking the principle and reapplying accordingly.
ok the mattbrot princple says that the people who promote a certain view are often the very ones that act in the exact opposite...
So the common idea of conservatives believe in personal responsibility would mean that they are the one's that exercise it the least in their own personal life...
and as documented many times, the people that promote pulling one's own weight are the very ones who have the most people who do not pull their own weight... I think that this has been proven numerous times in numerous threads/posts...
so when you say liberals are inherently racist, it means that they are actually the least racist, effected or concerned with race personally...
so when liberals say that minorities cant pull their own weight, the reality is that their base and themselves have the most minorities that pull their own weight while the opposing is full of minorities that do not pull their own weight... but this may not be because of race as the opposition as proven before has the most people that do not pull their own weight, so perhaps it is not about race....
affirmative action based on the mattbrot principle would say that those advocating for it are the one's that need it the least... while those that oppose affirmative actions and other unfair handouts are the people need and take the most handouts...
hope that clears it up for you...
I think it is hard for you to use your prescribed talking points and apply them post hoc in another one of your "cart before horse" arguments...
I think the lack of a solid foundation in reality is telling when you run it through the basic principles of the mattbrot principle...
Wow I thought you understood the mattbrott principle.
Liberals never 'say' that minorities don't pull their own weight with their vocal cords... they say it with their solutions or policies.
It's really hard for you to bash liberals isn't it.
So many flaws with this post by you. I'll let you save face by rethinking the principle and reapplying accordingly.
Well bowl - I will give a more in depth response tomorrow. But in short not exactly.
This is a serious response and not an attempt to be funny. You are commenting on policy that has some valid opinions on both sides. For the record I agree, to an extent, with your views on this topic. But it is not the same as other topics cited for the Mattbrot principle (something assigned to me by the way. Not one I named myself). Disagreeing on this policy is not pointing out an irony in the same way that pointing out the ironies of family values republic getting caught cheating, anti-happy repubs getting caught having sex with men, anti hand out repubs complaining while most of the states receiving the highest government dollars are red states etc...
That is the short answer. I am happy to continue more dialogue tomorrow if you want.
As always it will be from my stance as a non-partisan independent.
Actually, you're generalizing a great deal does the whole group of conservatives get caught being hypocritical or a FEW members of that group?
Isn't that just human nature?
I think you had 5 cases give or take that you use for your claim.
Well bowl - I will give a more in depth response tomorrow. But in short not exactly.
This is a serious response and not an attempt to be funny. You are commenting on policy that has some valid opinions on both sides. For the record I agree, to an extent, with your views on this topic. But it is not the same as other topics cited for the Mattbrot principle (something assigned to me by the way. Not one I named myself). Disagreeing on this policy is not pointing out an irony in the same way that pointing out the ironies of family values republic getting caught cheating, anti-happy repubs getting caught having sex with men, anti hand out repubs complaining while most of the states receiving the highest government dollars are red states etc...
That is the short answer. I am happy to continue more dialogue tomorrow if you want.
As always it will be from my stance as a non-partisan independent.
Actually, you're generalizing a great deal does the whole group of conservatives get caught being hypocritical or a FEW members of that group?
Isn't that just human nature?
I think you had 5 cases give or take that you use for your claim.
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so. It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly. Covers does not provide any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in your relevant locality. Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it. As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.