Hodad

Of course. What more can be said about a man who make his money rationalizing the mistreatment of Black Americans. He's done quite well for himself, built a lucrative career of making white people feel better about being shitty to Black people. And if he had to shit on Black people to do it, hey, it's just business. He makes shallow, specious arguments that are prime for the internet era. They don't have to be compelling enough to withstand the intellectual rigor of the academic world. Just superficially academic enough to embolden the dogmatic conservatives looking for any flimsy reason to cast whites as the heroes and blacks the villains in the story of American racial disparity.

Sure, just like how you tried to get fired so you could collect unemployment. And how you stopped making your mortgage payment to get subsided housing. And how you didn't feed your kids because they could get meals at school. Wait, none of that happened? Well no shit. That's because nobody chooses a shittier life to score baseline benefits. You wouldn't, so why would you assume Black people do? Do you believe they are somehow less than you? The social safety net is there to catch people who fall. It doesn't knock them down.

Nothing to apologize for. And I'm not sure it's the only reason. There are lots of people who feel conflicted, as you do. And the fact is that non-discrimination IS a trade-off. Freedoms are often in conflict with one another. We just decided a half century ago that the right of minority people to exist and function was more important than the right to mistreat and exclude them from places of public accommodation. The law was clear: if you choose to operate a business that serves the general public, you can't exclude protected classes from service. No one was forced to work for others, but if they wanted to operate a public service business, that was a condition of doing so. As it's now done many times, this compromised court has discarded both precedent and decency to reach tortured conclusions that unravel decades of maturation to drag us back to an uglier time.

Well, your two hands are headed for a fist fight.??

Black men are disproportionally denied property, jobs, wealth respect and liberty, and now you'll complain that they struggling or absent? And it is and always had been bullshit to claim that "welfare" is breaking up families. You're as eligible as the next guy. Has it ever tempted you to divorce? Ever even give it a thought? -- That's simply not how safety nets work.

It's not an attack. That's just reality. There's no mystery. The country has already lived through it. That's simply what life was like before protected classes were protected.

Nah, his nephews and nieces are right about him.

Sure, why should a restaurant have to serve Blacks? Or gays, or Jews? Why should a hospital? Why should an apartment owner like Trump's father? Why shouldn't a little Black girl pee herself outside of a gas station because the proprietor "disagrees" with the fundamental humanity of Blacks and chooses not to "work" for them. Sorry, but we've HAD the country you're advocating for, and it was a miserable place full of heartache and abuse for anyone not white, straight and Christian. You can keep your apartheid. No thanks.

No, you can refuse service to an individual. If someone is an arsehole, don't serve them. But you, or anyone else, shouldn't be able to refuse service to an entire protected class. This isn't the 1950s. At least it wasn't until this backward-ass court decided that was "society goalz!"

Nah, I didn't assume that you were defending the decision. My point was that once you break it down, the argument doesn't hold. And worse, the decision does set a precedent that could affect any target for any reason. One vendor might serve that's under some circumstances, others might serve none, and others still might not serve blacks or Jews or whomever else--and it's all equally protected.

I know that the person in the article says that they would serve gays, but it's a segregated service. If you will make a cake for one class of customer, and then refuse to make the exact same cake for another class of customer you are not discriminating based on the nature of the work, but upon the nature of client. That's the point of the rainbow cake example. To put it in another context, imagine that a client shows up and orders 3-tier wedding cake with "Pat & Chris Forever" stenciled on the top. If a man and a woman show up to pick up that cake, great. But if two men show up to pick up that cake the baker throws it in the trash? See, the work is the work. It doesn't affect the baker in any way, shape or form how the cake is used afterward. They aren't discriminating against different types of work. They are discriminating against types of clients. For all we know, hetero Pat and Chris are buying a sheet cake because it's their turn to bring snacks to the swingers orgy. There's no such thing as a gay wedding cake. There are just cakes people eat at weddings. And it doesn't affect the baker one way or another.

Consider that the baker would make a rainbow cake for a straight person, but won't bake a rainbow cake for a gay person. That is indeed discriminating against gays. If they said that rainbow cakes were outside the scope of their service, that's another matter. But that isn't the case. These "religiously oppressed" plaintiffs don't have any problem making the deliverables. They simply don't want to serve gay people. Which extends to any other class of people. It really does rewind our society to the legally segregated lunch counter. Might not be a burden on someone with the options available in NYC, but try being gay in small town America and it starts to look pretty grim.

This is a really weird question. Do you not know what it means? It's not a newly invented term or anything and it's not hard to find a definition. Nor is it hard to find examples. Blacks are not the only demographic affected by systemic racism, but they are the most affected. Generation after generation, Black people were denied full and fair participation in this society--much of that time legally. It's a stain that permeates every facet of American life. And though there are still plenty of hardcore racists today, the more pernicious form of racism is that which remains structurally. There is massive history around poverty, the war on drugs, and Black incarceration and the effect it has had on Black families and communities. But to cite just one micro example, consider the differences in mandatory minimum sentencing for crack cocaine vs powdered cocaine. Powdered cocaine is more expensive, and was consumed by movie stars, stock brokers and car salesmen. Crack cocaine was cheaper and consumed by depressed poor people and distributed in poor urban neighborhoods. They are functionally the same, but if a person got caught smoking crack the state would imprison them FAR longer than someone snorting cocaine. Why? And regardless of why, what effect do you think this disparity caused? Honestly, there are books and books filled with these scenarios. You don't need me to or anyone else on this board to lay out a comprehensive history. That work is done. Just go read it. If you're actually curious or interested, that is.

Are you like this IRL? Wandering about, muttering obscure musings indecipherable to those outside your head?

Orientals? Jeebus. The backpack is filled with the various burdens of systemic racism. For a very basic example adjacent to admissions, consider the intensive tutoring, test prep and essay assistance that middle and upper class kids are afforded. Scoring an extra 50 points on the SAT with all that help does not make them more meritorious than someone who scored 50 fewer without help. It doesn't make them a better prospective student either. You can quibble over the details, but the point remains that "merit-based" admissions as you'd define them don't exist. Let schools figure out what makes the best students and the best environments. They are, after all, the ones who know both best.

The person who climbs 30 flights is stairs is not more meritorious than the person who climbs 29 flights with a 40 pound backpack. The person second to cross the line is not less meritorious than the first across if the "winner" had a 10% head start. And more importantly, diverse environments are better for institutions and everyone in them. It's worth taking deliberate steps to create them.

Also his M.O. for sexual assault.?‍♀️

^This is nearly unintelligible and, doesn't even track the preceding conversation. You are such a useless troll. At this point even the lame insults are re-runs. I've seen enough to know you don't have anything of value to contribute here. I don't need to see your posts anymore. Best of luck finding a new job to occupy your time. Even trolls need to eat. But I'm no longer feeding you.

You replied to a post specifically mentioning Biden, in a US politics forum, about a hypothetical carbon tax, but can't managed to follow that conversation? Jeebus. That carbon taxes only affect price in affected supply chains is farking tautologically true. (Look it up.) And no, the "current ones in the world" work exactly as described. You should just ask your mom to finish the abortion and put you out of your misery. Methods have improved considerably since she poked you in the brain with an untwisted coat hanger all those years ago.

Hey, jackass, if your mother hadn't spent all nine months of your gestation blackout drunk, you might have noticed that you're posting in a section that's very clearly identified as "U.S. Federal Politics," and in a conversation quite obviously about Joe Biden and inflation.?‍♂️ Hence, why I posted universal truths about a hypothetical tax rather than incorrectly posting about a specific law that doesn't exist in this country. ^^ Can you read this, or does the clouding in your uncannily wide-set eyes make this post as challenging to focus on as the goddamn forum labels? Go get a job through whatever special program you qualify for and stop shitting all over this from like an incontinent weasel.

You're just talking out of your ass.? I'd ask you to show proof of your claim by citing the particular carbon-based tax code that "suddenly and simply" increases prices at the pump, but there is no US carbon tax. (AFAIK there is no state in the US with a carbon tax.) And there is no GST in the US either. So you're spinning pure fiction. And if you don't believe that taxes drive decision makers toward untaxed alternatives then you have even less economic sense that it seemed. That's one of the core tenets of taxation in a market economy: if you want less of something, tax it. Any time you increase price on something (taxed or otherwise) you increase the incentive for conservation and alternative seeking. Carbon taxes have proved effective in countries that have them. And that should be obvious. Taxes, fines and other penalties are, again, one of the most basic and successful tools for correcting externalities of all sorts, carbon included. Again, a carbon tax, like any tax, can (and typically do) target specific sectors and thereby influence specific supply chains. One COULD craft a carbon tax that shows up directly at the gas pump, but it's certainly not necessarily the case and is, in fact, pretty unlikely. A simple gas tax is a much easier solution than trying to measure tailpipe emissions.

Your Gish Gallops don't simply don't merit retort. They are consistently long lists of misleading facts, half-truths and outright lies. Even here you have 7 damn points, none of which you will every admit is false or does not support your thesis. For example, no, Fauci didn't fund GoF research. The NIH funded a grant for Ecohealth (not for GoF research) which contracts with many labs, including the lab in Wuhan, where one experiment produced an "unexpected result" that was problematic and the experiment was never repeated. Obviously, it's wildly, wildly dishonest to claim that Fauci funded GoF research, as if he wrote a check to make coronaviruses more transmissible. But you will never admit that. Hell, you're the kind of guy who can't admit when it's raining if that fact is politically inconvenient. So why would any sane person indulge you once, let alone 7 times per post? Nah, smarter by far to simply mark it as a shitty post and move on to other things.

You were invited to make an intelligent argument. You are either incapable or unwilling and now, whichever the case, you're simply a troll mouthing off.

Hence why I referred to specific chains. ? So a carbon tax, unlike a direct gas tax, doesn't suddenly and simply increase the price of gas at the pump. In fact, carbon taxes in other sectors of the economy effectively decrease the demand for fossil fuels, including oil, leaving a looser supply for petroleum and providing downward pressure on the price at the pump.

Can you describe any mechanism by which Joe Biden or his energy policy reduced automotive production? Or how any of this relates to gas prices? That was the original claim and context, right? What you're doing is sort of like, "Ow, I stubbed my toe! See, Biden sucks!". There's just no relationship between the thoughts.