"A Nation Divided, Sports United" ~ The Equality & Other Issues Thread

[jfs1000d]

Weinstein? What the heck is anyone, ever bringing up Weinstein, and somehow making this about hillary? This is the most insane connection ever. I am not sure what the point is.

[Andrew McCeltic]

What in the **** are you even talking about? Republicans have no inclination to do anything for poor people of color. That’s a completely false take in every way.

“allowing them to pull themselves out of poverty”?

Yeah, you know, just stop being so lazy. That'll totally grant you the American Dream.

It’s worth articulating, though, exactly why, in addition to the “Democratic mayors!!” thing being a simplistic talking point, simply telling poor people of color to “pull themselves out of poverty” overlooks exactly how and why some communities slide into cycles of poverty and dysfunction, and how individual agency gets limited by lack of access to a number of things.

The other conservative solution, “Let the police do their jobs!”, isn’t going to work, either.

[Curmudgeon]

The police are doing their jobs. It's the job that needs to be redefined.

[Ed Pinkney]

The police are doing their jobs. It's the job that needs to be redefined.

Where does the militarisation of the police and overall policy and control originate from? Is there national oversight/direction or does it come down to individual states/counties/cities?

As an outsider, you get the impression that preparation for the use of excessive and/or deadly force is a major component to how they are run.

[ermocrate]

Since when was discrimination barred by the U.S. Constitution? As originally drafted, the Constitution counted Black slaves as 3/5ths of a person. And the constitution did not forbid Jim Crow laws relegating Blacks to second class status. The first such law was passed in 1876 and the last one persisted well into the 1960s.

It was the 1964 civil rights act that eliminated de jure discrimination in the U.S., not the constitution, although the equal protection clause (passed right after the civil war) definitely helped.

Blacks have never been treated equally in the U.S.and every Black knows it, along with people of every race that don't have their heads buried in the sand.

And that counts as a modify to the constitution so the constitution NOW says all citizens have equal right and includes minorities

[Curmudgeon]

No, the Civil Rights Act did not modify the constitution.

[claycarver]

Since when was discrimination barred by the U.S. Constitution? As originally drafted, the Constitution counted Black slaves as 3/5ths of a person. And the constitution did not forbid Jim Crow laws relegating Blacks to second class status. The first such law was passed in 1876 and the last one persisted well into the 1960s.

It was the 1964 civil rights act that eliminated de jure discrimination in the U.S., not the constitution, although the equal protection clause (passed right after the civil war) definitely helped.

Blacks have never been treated equally in the U.S.and every Black knows it, along with people of every race that don't have their heads buried in the sand.

And that counts as a modify to the constitution so the constitution NOW says all citizens have equal right and includes minorities

The 3/5th compromise gets used so strangely in these conversations. If southerns had their way, all blacks would have been counted as persons just like white people. Southern states were pushing for slaves to be counted as persons and it was the northern Anti-slave states that wanted to deny the personhood of slaves. The compromise had nothing to do with the worth of blacks...unless you think the slave states valued blacks more than the free states. Like most things, it was just about the distribution of power.

[ermocrate]

No, the Civil Rights Act did not modify the constitution.

So Blacks are still 3/5th of a person? That was for vote counting only and was about “slaves”... is there any slave in the USA Today?

[ermocrate]

Since when was discrimination barred by the U.S. Constitution? As originally drafted, the Constitution counted Black slaves as 3/5ths of a person. And the constitution did not forbid Jim Crow laws relegating Blacks to second class status. The first such law was passed in 1876 and the last one persisted well into the 1960s.

It was the 1964 civil rights act that eliminated de jure discrimination in the U.S., not the constitution, although the equal protection clause (passed right after the civil war) definitely helped.

Blacks have never been treated equally in the U.S.and every Black knows it, along with people of every race that don't have their heads buried in the sand.

And that counts as a modify to the constitution so the constitution NOW says all citizens have equal right and includes minorities

The 3/5th compromise gets used so strangely in these conversations. If southerns had their way, all blacks would have been counted as persons just like white people. Southern states were pushing for slaves to be counted as persons and it was the northern Anti-slave states that wanted to deny the personhood of slaves. The compromise had nothing to do with the worth of blacks...unless you think the slave states valued blacks more than the free states. Like most things, it was just about the distribution of power.

Yeah, now I’ve read about that, not really related to people but to power distribution.

[Curmudgeon]

Sure, the southern states wanted the slaves to be counted so that would have greater representation in the house, where the number of representatives is based on population. There was nothing unconstitutional about slavery, or about denying women the right to vote, which they did not obtain until 1920. And until the mid 1950's, men may have been created equal but "separate but equal" was perfectly ok. It was not until Brown vs Board of Ed and other Supreme Court decisions in the 1950s and 1960s that the 'separate but equal" doctrine was changed.

[ermocrate]

Sure, the southern states wanted the slaves to be counted so that would have greater representation in the house, where the number of representatives is based on population. There was nothing unconstitutional about slavery, or about denying women the right to vote, which they did not obtain until 1920. And until the mid 1950's, men may have been created equal but "separate but equal" was perfectly ok. It was not until Brown vs Board of Ed and other Supreme Court decisions in the 1950s and 1960s that the 'separate but equal" doctrine was changed.

That was beacause Black people where not considered "people", once they got the recognition there's nothing you can do about that, they have to be considered equal even if they tried all they can to not apply that.

[claycarver]

Sure, the southern states wanted the slaves to be counted so that would have greater representation in the house, where the number of representatives is based on population. There was nothing unconstitutional about slavery, or about denying women the right to vote, which they did not obtain until 1920. And until the mid 1950's, men may have been created equal but "separate but equal" was perfectly ok. It was not until Brown vs Board of Ed and other Supreme Court decisions in the 1950s and 1960s that the 'separate but equal" doctrine was changed.

That was beacause Black people where not considered "people", once they got the recognition there's nothing you can do about that, they have to be considered equal even if they tried all they can to not apply that.

That’s not quite true either. Free blacks were always counted as people, only slaves weren’t counted as whole people (for counting purposes to allot representatives from the states).

Being considered people, in this context, wouldn’t have given slaves any more rights than being considered 3/5ths a person or no persons at all. And I think it’s important that “black” and “slave” were never synonymous.

[Big Baby]

I take the view that if I get killed in an event like that...so be it. People around me know it to and that would be made clear if anything happened to me. It’s part of wanting to be free and knowing I wouldn’t want someone to be denied what I want for myself.

So it’s not an ego trip. It’s serious business. I know that if the worst happens, I’ll be at least bringing down some of the motherf*ckers and you will either submit or be executed. Will the worst ever happen? I sure as hell hope not. I’m not naive enough to think it will never happen, for me or future generations.

If the government wanted to murder the populace with military force, no one could stop them.

I get the argument for individual protection (a handgun would suffice for this though imo), but do you honestly believe that even a heavily armed populace can do anything against tanks, drones and military grade weaponry/body armor?

It's a dated notion, man. The populace cannot defend itself in that manner anymore.

That’s a defeatist attitude. If they want to come with tanks etc...go for it. There are ways to fight against such stuff. Also, who’s to say there won’t be that stuff on both sides? There is so much firepower on the civilian side that most don’t even know about. All legally owned mind you.

Sorry for butting in but I just wanted to add:

Truth,
if tanks show up on my block to get rid of me and take away my guns some day, you’re right. There’s not a lot that I can do. I’ll most likely get killed if I even blink. But (someone may have already pointed this out to you. I don’t know because I stopped reading after your remark above) here’s the thing. Government is made up of people, too. Supposedly. So if my leftist congressman is complicit in waging that kind of violent war against the people, what do you think might happen to him and his family one day? Do you think these rotten and corrupt sociopaths in DC never think about that as they sell their soul to the Devil?

[GuyClinch]

We don't need this in NBA. NBA players employees and paid to act a certain way - just like you wouldn't want your subway to where a hammer and sickle t-shirt and spout off about the glory of communist Russia. He might do that on his own time - but on subway time he is paid to make sandwiches.

You might think the NFL and NBA are above that but they are paid employees still even if they are paid a great amount of money. So this is not a freedom of speech issue. The NBA and NFL can absolutely demand that the players stand if they want.

Might as well take out the anthem if both leagues are committed to being against it. Why perform if the leagues feel that way about the US. As Goodell found out - you can' t have it both ways - sell your sport as a all-american family event and guys that are seen as disrespecting the flag.

It's also bad optics for the leagues. Sure you can claim they are protesting this or that..when they kneel. But they are some of the most privileged people on the planet getting paid massive dollars to perform a game that some of us here play for free. They would be far better off picking an explicit cause - and doing the hard work of raising the funds or awareness to do something about.

Veterans and police military guys see it as spitting on their graves as they worked or have worked to uphold the laws that are behind that flag..

And i know lots of guys hate Trump here - so let me say its actually good optics for him. He has drawn a line and said hey these athletes these movie stars they hate america - and they hate you. Stop listening to them. Smart. Will pay off next election..for him.
People don't like spoiled know nothings lecturing them.. If you can't even articulate what you are protesting against - that just looks bad.

You can bet the DNC didn't sign off on this. Something like BLM - lots of people don't like it but its bad optics to say you are 'against 'black lives'. So smart naming.... But this - its just dumb. People are are racist in the US - the flag is not. The flag represents ideals that are NOT racist..

[ermocrate]

Sure, the southern states wanted the slaves to be counted so that would have greater representation in the house, where the number of representatives is based on population. There was nothing unconstitutional about slavery, or about denying women the right to vote, which they did not obtain until 1920. And until the mid 1950's, men may have been created equal but "separate but equal" was perfectly ok. It was not until Brown vs Board of Ed and other Supreme Court decisions in the 1950s and 1960s that the 'separate but equal" doctrine was changed.

That was beacause Black people where not considered "people", once they got the recognition there's nothing you can do about that, they have to be considered equal even if they tried all they can to not apply that.

That’s not quite true either. Free blacks were always counted as people, only slaves weren’t counted as whole people (for counting purposes to allot representatives from the states).

Being considered people, in this context, wouldn’t have given slaves any more rights than being considered 3/5ths a person or no persons at all. And I think it’s important that “black” and “slave” were never synonymous.

Counted and Considered are not synonimous, some of the US society RIGHT NOW doesn't consider Blacks like full people. Even the Catholic church stated that Black people had no souls and that was the reason they were deported from africa, because they were considered animals and could work like animals in the plantations. Not evangelized Indios from South America where slaughtered all over the continent also.

[Fidel Sarcasmo]

If the government wanted to murder the populace with military force, no one could stop them.

I get the argument for individual protection (a handgun would suffice for this though imo), but do you honestly believe that even a heavily armed populace can do anything against tanks, drones and military grade weaponry/body armor?

It's a dated notion, man. The populace cannot defend itself in that manner anymore.

That’s a defeatist attitude. If they want to come with tanks etc...go for it. There are ways to fight against such stuff. Also, who’s to say there won’t be that stuff on both sides? There is so much firepower on the civilian side that most don’t even know about. All legally owned mind you.

Sorry for butting in but I just wanted to add:

Truth,
if tanks show up on my block to get rid of me and take away my guns some day, you’re right. There’s not a lot that I can do. I’ll most likely get killed if I even blink. But (someone may have already pointed this out to you. I don’t know because I stopped reading after your remark above) here’s the thing. Government is made up of people, too. Supposedly. So if my leftist congressman is complicit in waging that kind of violent war against the people, what do you think might happen to him and his family one day? Do you think these rotten and corrupt sociopaths in DC never think about that as they sell their soul to the Devil?

Jumping in and I'm responding out of context but to make a point about civilians inability to defend against the military. That's technically true, however it doesn't take into account the human element of why the Military would do so. The human component would play out in a scenario where the military leadership would be divided in the pentagon. Pentagon power struggle for control of a faction of the military and acting out is the text book definition of a Military Coup D' etat. It would fracture the military leadership and create factions where one general pits their will, power, ideals, and troop loyalty against another with their own troop loyalists resulting in a power struggle. The military leader who sides with the people would end up gaining the help of the people who would end up becoming militias and a civil war would ensue where the civilians are essentially using gorilla warfare tactics against the faction of the military who wants to kill and oppress opponents of military authoritarianism. It would be ugly and likely somehow I could envision the 'Bible Belt, holy roller, alt-right, Trumpeteering, We're not racist. Yeah sure your not, tell me another joke" group siding with the Military Authoritarian faction and the moderate, socially liberal minded crowd siding with the general that doesn't want to kill the people. Then even after all that, you'll have a group of disenchanted people who never cared, Armageddon preaching, just wanna survive through it type of crowd who will loot rob and steal from both sides cause no phuks given about society. It'd be a **** show. In the end, whoever has air superiority wins.

K, done rambling. Bye.

[LarryBirdsFingr]

No, the Civil Rights Act did not modify the constitution.

So Blacks are still 3/5th of a person? That was for vote counting only and was about “slaves”... is there any slave in the USA Today?

Yeah they're called minimum wage workers. Minimum wage would be fine if we all had free healthcare and reasonable access to housing, but that's not the case.

[claycarver]

That was beacause Black people where not considered "people", once they got the recognition there's nothing you can do about that, they have to be considered equal even if they tried all they can to not apply that.

That’s not quite true either. Free blacks were always counted as people, only slaves weren’t counted as whole people (for counting purposes to allot representatives from the states).

Being considered people, in this context, wouldn’t have given slaves any more rights than being considered 3/5ths a person or no persons at all. And I think it’s important that “black” and “slave” were never synonymous.

Counted and Considered are not synonimous, some of the US society RIGHT NOW doesn't consider Blacks like full people. Even the Catholic church stated that Black people had no souls and that was the reason they were deported from africa, because they were considered animals and could work like animals in the plantations. Not evangelized Indios from South America where slaughtered all over the continent also.

I THINK you're referring to the slave traders claims that Native Americans had no souls. Here's a quote from Pope Paul III in the 1500's in response to the slaver's rational as it related to Native Americans first:

[Satan,] the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking in the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals.

Therefore, We…noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men…by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples—even though they are outside the faith…should not be deprived of their liberty or their other possessions…and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void.

Paul went on to impose a bull of excommunication on anyone, regardless of their "dignity, state, condition, or grade…who in any way may presume to reduce said Indians to slavery or despoil them of their goods." Pope Urban VIII reaffirmed Paul III's papal bull in the 1600's as the African slave trade to the Americans got going.

Don't confuse Catholic weakness for Catholic indifference. The Catholic church was not the power people imagine it to be in economic affairs. When Jesuit priests read Urban's bull to the locals, they were attacked or driven out. And in most of North America, the Catholic church had no influence anyway. The British and Dutch weren't Catholic.

And just to be clear, I'm not Catholic either so I don't have a dog in this hunt. But the idea that various peoples had no soul was a construct invented by slave traders to justify their income stream. It wasn't supported by the Catholic church as a spiritual matter. Like most acts of dehumanization, it was driven by economic opportunity.

edit: I guess this matters to me because we always seem to construct some other villain to pin the crime to. The villain isn't the Catholic Church, its human greed and objectification. Look around for that right now and you'll find the modern incarnations of slavery.

[ermocrate]

No, the Civil Rights Act did not modify the constitution.

So Blacks are still 3/5th of a person? That was for vote counting only and was about “slaves”... is there any slave in the USA Today?

Yeah they're called minimum wage workers. Minimum wage would be fine if we all had free healthcare and reasonable access to housing, but that's not the case.

And medicare, yes I agree with you.

[ermocrate]

That’s not quite true either. Free blacks were always counted as people, only slaves weren’t counted as whole people (for counting purposes to allot representatives from the states).

Being considered people, in this context, wouldn’t have given slaves any more rights than being considered 3/5ths a person or no persons at all. And I think it’s important that “black” and “slave” were never synonymous.

Counted and Considered are not synonimous, some of the US society RIGHT NOW doesn't consider Blacks like full people. Even the Catholic church stated that Black people had no souls and that was the reason they were deported from africa, because they were considered animals and could work like animals in the plantations. Not evangelized Indios from South America where slaughtered all over the continent also.

I THINK you're referring to the slave traders claims that Native Americans had no souls. Here's a quote from Pope Paul III in the 1500's in response to the slaver's rational as it related to Native Americans first:

[Satan,] the enemy of the human race, who always opposes all good men so that the race may perish, has thought up a way, unheard of before now, by which he might impede the saving word of God from being preached to the nations. He has stirred up some of his allies who, desiring to satisfy their own avarice, are presuming to assert far and wide that the Indians of the West and the South who have come to our notice in these times be reduced to our service like brute animals, under the pretext that they are lacking in the Catholic faith. And they reduce them to slavery, treating them with afflictions they would scarcely use with brute animals.

Therefore, We…noting that the Indians themselves indeed are true men…by our Apostolic Authority decree and declare by these present letters that the same Indians and all other peoples—even though they are outside the faith…should not be deprived of their liberty or their other possessions…and are not to be reduced to slavery, and that whatever happens to the contrary is to be considered null and void.

Paul went on to impose a bull of excommunication on anyone, regardless of their "dignity, state, condition, or grade…who in any way may presume to reduce said Indians to slavery or despoil them of their goods." Pope Urban VIII reaffirmed Paul III's papal bull in the 1600's as the African slave trade to the Americans got going.

Don't confuse Catholic weakness for Catholic indifference. The Catholic church was not the power people imagine it to be in economic affairs. When Jesuit priests read Urban's bull to the locals, they were attacked or driven out. And in most of North America, the Catholic church had no influence anyway. The British and Dutch weren't Catholic.

And just to be clear, I'm not Catholic either so I don't have a dog in this hunt. But the idea that various peoples had no soul was a construct invented by slave traders to justify their income stream. It wasn't supported by the Catholic church as a spiritual matter. Like most acts of dehumanization, it was driven by economic opportunity.

edit: I guess this matters to me because we always seem to construct some other villain to pin the crime to. The villain isn't the Catholic Church, its human greed and objectification. Look around for that right now and you'll find the modern incarnations of slavery.

Sure Catholic Church wasn't the vilain, the only villain that exist in our society is the green one and the people that made all they can to stockpile it. Slave traders also prevented the evangelization of africa to use men and women as slaves. Not that the church hasn't killed millions of people is his history tho.