+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 7 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7
Results 61 to 63 of 63
  1. #61
    Moderator
    Join Date
    August 8th, 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    4,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Aristotle View Post
    White privilege is real and it is significant. It doesn't mean we should pass laws to try and counter it. That will never work.
    THANK YOU. So many people (particularly those who have the power to actually pass said laws) seem to think that any time there's a problem, the solution is legislation. No. No, it is not. More often than not, legislation is just going to move the problem around. Yes, there are cases where it can help, but even there, the wrong new law is only going to make things worse. "White privilege is a problem! Let's fix that by forcing people to " is almost certainly the wrong move.
    The man who gets angry at the right things and with the right people, and in the right way and at the right time and for the right length of time, is commended. - Aristotle (but not the Aristotle you're thinking of)

    The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. - Albert Einstein
    Mainly to keep a lid on the world's cat population. - Anon

    I pressed the Ctrl key, but I'm still not in control!

  2. #62
    Bullfrog
    Join Date
    May 21st, 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    642
    Quote Originally Posted by Rosuav View Post
    THANK YOU. So many people (particularly those who have the power to actually pass said laws) seem to think that any time there's a problem, the solution is legislation. No. No, it is not. More often than not, legislation is just going to move the problem around. Yes, there are cases where it can help, but even there, the wrong new law is only going to make things worse. "White privilege is a problem! Let's fix that by forcing people to " is almost certainly the wrong move.
    I disagree, and illustrate these legislations as evidence: 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 15th Amendment, Brown vs Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the list goes on on pivotal legislation that has moved the boulder of obstruction forward.

    Federal Legislation whips states into line, most recently same sex marriage, also would not be possible with legislation.

    Why?

    Because there has been an economic system predicated on racial and gender divide since the inception of America, but again if you aren't a minority -or women. It hinders the ability to see it for what it is, and it experiences. It doesn't mean one can't be empathetic, but empathy isn't the same walking in a mile in someones shoes.

    As far as righting the ship, most reasonable minorities want nothing more is a chair in the 'Merica' that the majority enjoy, be seen as individuals based on their own merits, and a fair chance at upward mobility without some crony politician/xenphobic patriot/overly right wing religious zealot inciting the Bubba's of the land in the Neanderthal political dreams of old.
    You're not supposed to be so blind with patriotism that you can't face reality. Wrong is wrong, no matter who says it.
    -Malcolm X

  3. #63
    Moderator
    Join Date
    August 8th, 2003
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    4,210
    Quote Originally Posted by Kailen View Post
    I disagree, and illustrate these legislations as evidence: 13th Amendment, 14th Amendment, 15th Amendment, Brown vs Board of Education, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the list goes on on pivotal legislation that has moved the boulder of obstruction forward.

    Federal Legislation whips states into line, most recently same sex marriage, also would not be possible with legislation.
    You'll notice that I didn't say that legislation is *never* a good thing, but that "[m]ore often than not, legislation is just going to move the problem around". For every example where legislation has fixed something, there are multiple examples where a new law either made the problem worse, or simply pushed it to a different place. Problem: Some people can't afford to buy vital food items. Solution: Exempt food from GST. New problem: Rich people buy their luxury foods without paying tax, thus creating jealousy. Solution: Food is exempted from GST if, and only if, it is not deemed "ready to eat". Resultant problem: Your docket at the supermarket is more complicated than it needs to be, and there are still some stupid anomalies (near-identical items doing near-identical jobs, one attracting tax and one not, or luxury foods not getting taxed (some forms of chocolate are counted as "not ready to eat") or staples getting taxed (some forms of lunch meat, I think, count as "ready to eat")). Is the end result better than the original problem? MAYBE. Has the problem been eliminated? Definitely not. And there are a lot more cases like this than there are cases where a simple law perfectly solves a problem.

    (Also, wouldn't "Brown vs Board of Education" be a judicial ruling, rather than legislation per se?)

    I'm not advocating total anarchy, but I do think that less government is generally better than more government.
    The man who gets angry at the right things and with the right people, and in the right way and at the right time and for the right length of time, is commended. - Aristotle (but not the Aristotle you're thinking of)

    The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing. - Albert Einstein
    Mainly to keep a lid on the world's cat population. - Anon

    I pressed the Ctrl key, but I'm still not in control!

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts