CJCS responds to Rep. Gaetz

[Python]

Can I ask why some people think that when laws change everyone immediately thinks it’s a level playing field?

it’s not like anyone’s behavior changed just the legislation.

I don’t think anybody thinks that it’s the flip of a switch. The issue that many people take is that if you want to implement corrective policies, things become arbitrary.

Do you think things like affirmative action or reparations (not saying you said this), or other corrective policies should last forever? If not, how long? 10 years? 100 years? 1000 years? What about those POC that immigrated here from Nigeria and have zero connection to slavery or Jim Crow? Do they get these same advantages? What metric do you have to say “the legislation changed, many people’s attitudes changes, a number of POC are going to Harvard and are CEOs, we can now cease these policies and have pure equality?” Is your metric arbitrary? When does this end?

That IMO is the issue. No doubt the board has been tilted and previous racism echoes today, and solutions are not easy. But the questions above make me leery of considering race in admissions and other such policies.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

What is special treatment? Can you give some examples?

Can anyone explain what the issue is? The government enacted laws that took away significant opportunities from a lot of minorities. What is controversial about trying to help these minority groups achieve success? Some of the people I served with would lose their minds at any mention of diversity initiatives and it just never made sense to me.

Is it because it takes away opportunities from others? Is it a zero sum game?

Two wrongs don’t make a right. The government shouldn’t be in the business of “helping” any particular group based on skin tone.

 

[nodropinufaka]

Two wrongs don’t make a right. The government shouldn’t be in the business of “helping” any particular group based on skin tone.

Even if the government is responsible for a significant amount of their issues?

 

[SELRES_AMDO]

Two wrongs don’t make a right. The government shouldn’t be in the business of “helping” any particular group based on skin tone.

The government also shouldn't have been in the business of segregating certain groups based on skin tone. Or giving certain groups advantages because of their skin tone by oppressing other people of color. And yet here we are.

So it was fine for much of the U.S. when the government was "helping" their particular group but now that the gov't is "helping" the other groups it becomes a problem.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Even if the government is responsible for a significant amount of their issues?

The government is the representatives of the people and no one alive today was enslaved or owned slaves. Everyone has equal protection under the law.

 

[SELRES_AMDO]

The government is the representatives of the people and no one alive today was enslaved or owned slaves. Everyone has equal protection under the law.

Plenty of people were alive for Jim Crow laws though. And a lot of their children aren't even 40 yet.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

The government also shouldn't have been in the business of segregating certain groups based on skin tone. Or giving certain groups advantages because of their skin tone by oppressing other people of color. And yet here we are.

So it was fine for much of the U.S. when the government was "helping" their particular group but now that the gov't is "helping" the other groups it becomes a problem.

I’ve been pretty consistent saying that racist policies are bad. You’re the one arguing against that because now we need racist policies intended for fairness.

 

[nodropinufaka]

The government is the representatives of the people and no one alive today was enslaved or owned slaves. Everyone has equal protection under the law.

Are you refusing to recognize the generational impact of the policies?

The data and research is pretty clear on it that it had impacts.

 

[squorch2]

ITT:

 

[SELRES_AMDO]

I’ve been pretty consistent saying that racist policies are bad. You’re the one arguing against that because now we need racist policies intended for fairness.

But people who weren't minorities benefitted greatly from these policies even if they won't admit to it.

So are those that weren't given an equal chance just supposed to play catch up on their own now?

 

[Python]

So I guess nobody wants to address my previous post (736 on this page)?

 

[Treetop Flyer]

But people who weren't minorities benefitted greatly from these policies even if they won't admit to it.

So are those that weren't given an equal chance just supposed to play catch up on their own now?

So you’re saying it IS a zero sum game?

And yes. That is what I’m saying. Just like every other individual that has to overcome whatever obstacles they face.

 

[SELRES_AMDO]

So I guess nobody wants to address my previous post (736 on this page)?

Go off what the other posters say about the government being by the people and for the people. Affirmative action and similar policies will end when the government decides.

 

[SELRES_AMDO]

So you’re saying it IS a zero sum game?

And yes. That is what I’m saying. Just like every other individual that has to overcome whatever obstacles they face.

Where did I say it is a Zero Sum game?

The government helping others is not taking away anything from anyone else.

 

[taxi1]

Where did I say it is a Zero Sum game?

Indeed. It'd be stupid to think it was a zero sum game.