Is this what the left is really about?

B_theaussieone

Experimental Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2011
Posts
291
Media
0
Likes
7
Points
53
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I was watching foxy brown 1974 and a memorable quote from the movie i always seem to remember here it is.

Dawes: What do you really want?
Foxy Brown: Justice.
Dawes: For who, your brother?
Foxy Brown: And why not? It could be your brother too, or your sister, or your children. I want justice for all of them. And I want justice for all the people whose lives are bought and sold, so that a few big shots can climb up on their backs, and laugh at the law, and laugh at human decency.

Isn't this the real struggle by the left, to bring justice and speak the truth?
 

h0neymustard

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Posts
2,668
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
73
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Hahahaha...no. A nationwide actual grassroots protest in favor of the Second Amendment happened last Saturday. Nary a peep out of the media.

Is the left not depriving the people who worked and became successful of justice by taking more and more of their wealth?
Equality of opportunity(which is what the right stands for) != equality of outcome(which is what the left stands for).
 
Last edited:

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I think there's a comma you don't want after "sold" in Foxy Brown's second quote. It changes the meaning from what you, and she, probably meant.

And no, the quotes don't represent the essence of progressive politics. The context of the comments was a society in which the Civil Rights Act was only a decade old.
 

h0neymustard

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Posts
2,668
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
73
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Except the CRM was pushed by mainly Republicans, while being stone-walled by racist Democrats in the South. Except that slavery was abolished by a Republican president.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,850
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Except the CRM was pushed by mainly Republicans, while being stone-walled by racist Democrats in the South. Except that slavery was abolished by a Republican president.
And once again HM proves the UNCF saying correct, "A mind is a terrible thing to waste". Go back to school and study and you will see that the Republican party of Lincoln's time is not the same as the Republican party of the 60s. The racist Democrats of the south in the 60s fled the party after the CRA was passed and they all found refuge in the Republican party.

Southern strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Though the "Solid South" had been a longtime Democratic Party stronghold due to the Democratic Party's defense of slavery prior to the American Civil War and segregation for a century thereafter, many white Southern Democrats stopped supporting the party following the civil rights plank of the Democratic campaign in 1948 (triggering the Dixiecrats), the African-American Civil Rights Movement, the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Voting Rights Act of 1965, and desegregation.

This has been explained to you several times on here but for some unknown reason(trolling?) you choose to ignore facts and keep repeating the same tired garbage.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
171
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Except the CRM was pushed by mainly Republicans, while being stone-walled by racist Democrats in the South. Except that slavery was abolished by a Republican president.

Those same racist Democrats switched to the Republican Party. Anybody claiming that the Republican Party of today resembles the one in Lincoln's times or even the one in the 60s is simply deluding themselves. End of story.
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,850
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Those same racist Democrats switched to the Republican Party. Anybody claiming that the Republican Party of today resembles the one in Lincoln's times or even the one in the 60s is simply deluding themselves. End of story.
TC, h0ney is either delusional or trolling
 

StormfrontFL

Superior Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2008
Posts
8,903
Media
4
Likes
6,850
Points
358
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male

Simon9

Expert Member
Joined
May 19, 2004
Posts
532
Media
0
Likes
161
Points
263
Location
Princeton (New Jersey, United States)
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Guys, when are you gonna realize that both the Democratic party and the Republican party are a giant con job and are controlled by the same forces, push largely the same agenda and play by similar rules?

This "My team good/your team bad" stuff is so much partisan political jerking off. Republicans talk about the stupidity of the Democrats. The Democrats talk about what a bunch of jerks the Repubs are. Well....yeah.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
Do your handlers pay you to search and post youtube vids?

You are a one trick pony and the trick is old and tired

A trick only works the first time. HM seems to think he can use it over and over again and no one is the wiser. Trixs are for kids.
 

B_SeattleYo

Experimental Member
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Posts
500
Media
0
Likes
12
Points
53
Location
SeattleYo
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I was watching foxy brown 1974 and a memorable quote from the movie i always seem to remember here it is.

Dawes: What do you really want?
Foxy Brown: Justice.
Dawes: For who, your brother?
Foxy Brown: And why not? It could be your brother too, or your sister, or your children. I want justice for all of them. And I want justice for all the people whose lives are bought and sold, so that a few big shots can climb up on their backs, and laugh at the law, and laugh at human decency.

Isn't this the real struggle by the left, to bring justice and speak the truth?

It's what it should be about.

Mostly it is about slamming Republicans, while ignoring democrats, as they all do the exact same things.
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Let me try for a more serious answer. It's about perception and bias. Let me explain.

When solving a problem, the solution sought often depends on the desired outcome, in other words, the bias of the person designing it. So, I suppose, you should start by asking what each person means by justice.

Republicans (conservatives, actually) seek justice in the form of equality for all. Equality of opportunity, that is...how each person puts that opportunity to use is entirely personal, and ultimately unique, yielding different results.

Democrats (liberals, actually) seek justice in the form of equality for all. Equality of outcome, that is...each person's starting point must be considered, and help provided, so that the opportunity is less important than the result.

Each approach has its merits...but one relies more on personal responsibility, and is often framed as personal liberty. The other requires discrimination to help/hurt each person, as the government sees fit.

Yeah, I lean conservative.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
154
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
Oversimplification is one thing, distortion is another. I don't know any Democrats that work toward "equality of outcome", such as erasing all wealth inequalities. I am aware that idea is one of the blinders many conservatives have, causing them to dismiss progressive politics as unworkable and unfair to those who "work hard" to "get ahead".

More appropriately, I think Democrats (such as myself) have a multi-track philosophy of setting the bar at certain humane, successful policies and practices. The "free market" will not, cannot, do it all. The goal is to propel all of society forward, not by spreading the collective wealth out flat but by using taxation to define and implement certain minimum standards for safe and dignified living for all citizens - and even residents. Whether this means police services for all, or defined health care basic services at primarily broad-societal expense, it is fair to have a public discussion about these and work toward advancing services, not dismantling them.

I think it's fair to say that most liberals believe that a solid "floor" results in a more productive, prosperous society in the long run, while many conservatives believe that nearly any level of services detracts from the incentive to work hard and make people take ownership of their lives.

Personally, I don't think keeping government services at a bare minimum to "keep the wolf at the door" makes for a happier or more incentivized workforce or society.
 
Last edited:

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Let me try for a more serious answer. It's about perception and bias. Let me explain.

When solving a problem, the solution sought often depends on the desired outcome, in other words, the bias of the person designing it. So, I suppose, you should start by asking what each person means by justice.

Republicans (conservatives, actually) seek justice in the form of equality for all. Equality of opportunity, that is...how each person puts that opportunity to use is entirely personal, and ultimately unique, yielding different results.

Democrats (liberals, actually) seek justice in the form of equality for all. Equality of outcome, that is...each person's starting point must be considered, and help provided, so that the opportunity is less important than the result.

Each approach has its merits...but one relies more on personal responsibility, and is often framed as personal liberty. The other requires discrimination to help/hurt each person, as the government sees fit.

Yeah, I lean conservative.

I'll be curious to see how this is received. I expect a good deal of flaming.
 

Fuzzy_

Legendary Member
Joined
Nov 1, 2011
Posts
4,253
Media
0
Likes
1,105
Points
258
Location
Wuziland
Gender
Male
Let me try for a more serious answer. It's about perception and bias. Let me explain.

When solving a problem, the solution sought often depends on the desired outcome, in other words, the bias of the person designing it. So, I suppose, you should start by asking what each person means by justice.

Republicans (conservatives, actually) seek justice in the form of equality for all. Equality of opportunity, that is...how each person puts that opportunity to use is entirely personal, and ultimately unique, yielding different results.

Democrats (liberals, actually) seek justice in the form of equality for all. Equality of outcome, that is...each person's starting point must be considered, and help provided, so that the opportunity is less important than the result.

Each approach has its merits...but one relies more on personal responsibility, and is often framed as personal liberty. The other requires discrimination to help/hurt each person, as the government sees fit.

Yeah, I lean conservative.


Moral philosophers often wrangled with this issue of "equality of opportunity" regarding Affirmative Action (AA), so Fuzzy will use AA as an example to explain why Fuzzy believes that outcome shouldn't be ignored.

As you know, AA is an attempt to rectify perceived inequalities that come from policies that support institutionalized discrimination by systemically offering more privileges to those who are believed to be in under-represented social groups. AA strategies typically offer minority groups additional assistance or consideration on the basis of their group membership. There are two well-known, yet opposing stances on AA. The first is Louis P. Pojman's belief that AA is unjust and promotes mediocrity. The second stance comes from Luke Charles Harris and Uma Narayan (H & N), who believe that AA is useful because it allows for equal opportunities for all, without harming majority groups.

An argument for "equality of opportunity" came from Louis P. Pojman, a civil rights advocate who marched behind MLK. Despite being a civil rights activist, he believes that society should reward individuals based on their merits, not their group membership--even if the group is a minority. He also holds that AA is an unfair attempt to compensate for past injustices by society. He also believes that AA is too idealistic and that a merit system cannot exist while AA is enforced. Pojman asserts that the AA is a form of [reverse] discrimination that disempowers majority group members who are not personally responsible for the injustices of their ancestors, and that AA creates a sense of duty for majority groups to give privileges to minority groups based on past injustices. Pojman alleges that granting advantages to minorities is immoral, and that "two wrongs do not make a right."

Harris and Narayan (H & N) favor the "equality of outcome" argument, claiming that AA does not indicate that we are content with sufficiency rather than excellence, but that we are providing opportunities for those with merit to express it in fields where they have been traditionally denied these opportunities. They also reject the common belief that AA bestows "preferential treatment," because it is merely a means of social justice by equalizing opportunity for everyone -- which ostensibly benefits society. H & N argue that giving minority groups a helping hand does not take away from majority groups. They claim that AA simply levels the playing field and prevents systematic discrimination against groups that inherently lack "equality of opportunity." This contrasts greatly with Pojman's claim that it's white males who are really discriminated against because they are "innocent beneficiaries" of privilege.

Fuzzy sides more with H & N. Fuzzy believes that, since majority groups are intrinsically advantaged, offering proportionate advantages to minority groups is simply moral conduct--where "rights" correct the "wrongs." This is why Fuzzy finds libertarian or neoliberal sink-or-swim mindsets distasteful. Society can have a merit system while having an equal playing field.
 

h0neymustard

Experimental Member
Joined
Jun 26, 2012
Posts
2,668
Media
0
Likes
4
Points
73
Location
United States
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I've read about firefighting stations that hire based on AA and not on their merit, and that definitely gets the other guys riled up, because in a dangerous situation like that, would you like someone who was hired because of AA or would you like someone who was hired because he was good?

Same with medical/dental school admissions. Asians have to score higher on average than white people and others in order to be admitted, is that reverse AA?
 

redneckgymrat

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Posts
1,479
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
Texas
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
Moral philosophers often wrangled with this issue of "equality of opportunity" regarding Affirmative Action (AA), so Fuzzy will use AA as an example to explain why Fuzzy believes that outcome shouldn't be ignored.

Thank you, Fuzzy, for so neatly illustrating what I described as the liberal viewpoint, using the ends to justify the means.

Since it is not a belief I hold, your explanation is far better than mine. I appreciate the help.
 
Last edited: