CJCS responds to Rep. Gaetz

[squorch2]

Recent?

….hahahhahahahhaha

North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP v. McCrory - Harvard Law Review

The Voting Rights Act of 1965 (VRA) — a major triumph of the Civil Rights Movement — was enacted to protect black Americans and...

harvardlawreview.org

Yeah. Recent.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Voting Laws Roundup: May 2021

States have already enacted more than 20 laws this year that will make it harder for Americans to vote — and many legislatures are still in session.

www.brennancenter.org

It doesn’t seem like the media and white liberals have done a good enough job explaining how I.D. Is racist.

Public Supports Both Early Voting And Requiring Photo ID to Vote | Monmouth University Polling Institute

One-third remain convinced of 2020 election fraud

www.monmouth.edu

 

[Python]

But these two things have just been conflated several times in this thread. The Right uses CRT as a punchline to scare people. The Left does it too with things like climate change hyperbole, but let's see CRT for what it is. Some of you seem content to hang CRT on any race related issue as prima facie refutation in lieu of engaging on the actual argument. When I bring up ideas and practices one can use to enhance empathy and inclusion in one's life, and people chime in with, "Yeah, but CRT... Kendi this, Coates that," it's clear to me that some people aren't ready to talk about race in this country in a constructive manner.

I don’t know how you get that conclusion from all this. Numerous times, i and others have both put forth that there’s work yet to be done in this country. Like Mirage, I find your ways to move forward that you are personally doing, a good start.

Regarding your later post, we’ve finally reached agreement. The extent to which it is being pushed to kids is the issue. I’ve been trying to say that most of the time, but I’m glad to see that you see that is the crux of the matter. As far as I can tell, the dozens of flare ups of parents vs school boards across this country speaks for itself (particularly when you read transcripts or watch videos of these events). I think the friction with debating you is the fact you just dismiss the notion that this is happening on a large scale, or with the extreme rhetoric, that we’re saying is happening. I’d implore you to not just hand wave that we’re a bunch of fools, but see for yourself with some independent research.

I think you take it as a personal attack or as a straw man when people point out you don’t have kids. If so, it really is worth mentioning that it’s really to illustrate that those with kids are much more in tune with developments like this and have a much larger emotional investment in it. Maybe it won’t radicalize kids (maybe it will for a few of them), but it will perpetuate toxic notions about race, and it is being taught to kids in this manner: “race is the most important thing about you” “All POC are oppressed and all non-POC are oppressors” “America is racist and is beyond salvation.” These ideas should not be taught to young children. At least I don’t want them taught to mine. I also believe in the aggregate if enough kids are taught this in this country, In a generation our society will be more divided and dysfunctional than it already is (and that’s saying a lot). If you spend some time actually looking into it, rather than declaring it wrong, you may be shocked at what you find.

 

[picklesuit]

Honest question: how in the world can we reconcile the above? Through reparations? Through equity? One big worldwide anti-racism stand down?
Should we start taxing every caucasian over the age of 18 until death or some yet to be determined financial goal is reached? How much pain and punishment do you think we should inflict on this country to make amends for what happened during the civil war and, according to the statement above, 244 years prior?

Honest question . . . . .

I reconcile by giving all of my Sailors and Officers the same OPPORTUNITY to succeed. What they do with it is on them. I don’t give anyone more of a chance based on their race/sex/creed/preference. The result? My leadership and EP’s reflected the membership of my squadron. I had LPO’s that were white/black/brown/yellow/male/female/straight/gay/Muslim/Catholic, my JO leadership was selected based on ability, not the color of their skin or their jibbly bits between their legs.

That’s what equality looks like.

Given all of my redneck tendencies and white privilege, I never had to face an EO complaint, despite being a V2 Divo, MO, multiple branches and departments, and multiple crews with very diverse members.

Amazing how looking at qualifications and value to the squadron/ship as a discriminator works. I think that is all that is wanted by every person, a fair fucking chance…

 

[Brett327]

I don’t know how you get that conclusion from all this. Numerous times, i and others have both put forth that there’s work yet to be done in this country. Like Mirage, I find your ways to move forward that you are personally doing, a good start.

I appreciate that. I'm not just talking about you two.

Maybe it won’t radicalize kids (maybe it will for a few of them), but it will perpetuate toxic notions about race, and it is being taught to kids in this manner: “race is the most important thing about you” “POC are oppressed and non POC are oppressors” “America is racist and is beyond salvation.” These ideas should not be taught to young children. At least I don’t want them taught to mine. And if you spend some time actually looking into it, rather than declaring it wrong, you may be shocked at what you find.

Like I stated previously, I am not in favor of this kind of thing in schools. I do think that it's being sensationalized and that makes a lot of folks think it's a universal problem when it probably isn't. I have no doubt that in some schools it is being done to the extent that you claim, and in those cases there should be reasoned, dispassionate pushback. My sense is that these cases are outliers. I don't know if anyone has done a proper study upon which we can draw, but that would certainly be helpful.

 

[Birdbrain]

Perhaps I'm misinterpreting your post, but to say "skin color doesn't define you, according to a black leader who was assassinated because of the color of his skin" somewhat disproves your point. No?

It does nothing to disprove my point. MLK was killed because of the color of his skin. Skin color does not define you. Those two statements can exist simultaneously.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

MLK said:
"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character "

In my opinion and personal experiences, we as a nation are still a long way from what MLK advocated.

I agree we are far from what MLK advocated for. I'd assert that things like CRT are the opposite of what MLK advocated.

I am pretty dead set against what I know of CRT so far. I think Python and Scoolbubba have both made some good, long, posts highlighting the concerns that I have with it.

That being said, I don't think it is as simple as "What you do defines you". I think that it is a somewhat true statement. But it is incomplete and not nuanced enough. I think we have to realize that the deck really is stacked against a lot of people in this country. Many of them are black. Some of them are white too. I think we have to acknowledge though that skin color has played a role in the history of this country in perpetuating the cycles you mention in your post, and that by some measure it was intentional.

As someone who was raised upper middle class, had college provided for, two parents that looked out for me etc, I absolutely know that I had huge advantages in life that others did not have. Some might call that privilege, but my parents had to work hard to do that, and I have had to hold up my end of the deal and work hard to provide for my own family now.

Conversely, I've worked in settings in which I saw the polar opposite and how the cycle of poverty truly traps people. Do I think I should have to apologize for what I received and they didn't? Not really. It is the way it is to a certain extent. Are there ways we can try to improve these problems in society? Absolutely. Is there a simple broad strokes answer like CRT? Heck no.

The problem with CRT as it is currently being advertised is that it puts all people on trial: it presumes irredeemable guilt on the part of white people, and presumes innocence on the part of minorities. If anything I think it will fan the flame of racial tensions more than help. But I think it is also helpful to consider that CRT is a reaction to historical injustices that still perpetuate themselves in some cases today.

I think I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Just because you are White or Black doesn't mean anything. It's just the amount of melanin in your skin. I'm not an eloquent man but my point is that your actions and choices are more important to where you go in life than the color of your skin. Does that make sense?

 

[Spekkio]

I think the civil rights movement attempted to solve it but, as can be seen by continuing discrepancies, didn't solve all the problems. It did result in equal legal treatment for all and many advances. I feel that the attempt to address equity/systemic racism/etc is the next step as people have realized that despite great gains and improvements there is still a great deal of disadvantage for certain communities. So this is an attempt to dig deeper and to continue to improve the situation.

I think it's important to understand that people who experienced the civil rights movement and subsequent backlash on both sides are still alive today. Although from a law perspective the civil rights movement was successful, I don't think that an entire generation of Americans suddenly changed their minds on how they viewed race relations just because the law banned segregation in 1964.

That is to say - change and acceptance is naturally slow.

I don't see a lot of other alternative proposals on the table as to how to help people improve their lot in life. So I guess a plan is better than no plan at all. If we agree that this is a problem that should be addressed, what other approaches are out there to address this?

I think that painting inequity of outcome is 'racism against 'people of color',' therefore the only way to solve the problem is to rig the system against whites is overly simplistic and not a good approach.

Take this emperical data point of SAT scores by ethnicity and religion: Asians, Indians, and Jews are minorities who consistently outperform whites on the SATs. Then you have native Americans, Pacific Islanders, hispanics, and blacks that underperform...but even among those groups, black are second to last only in front of native Americans. This trend occurs even when you control for income.

So is this yet another example of systemic racism against blacks? Should the college board auto subtract 200 points from white, Jewish, and Indian SAT scores and 250 points from Asians to make it more equal for everyone? That seems to be the explanation and solution proposed by CRT.

Until we can find the actual cause of things like this, we're not going to be able to find a solution that works. I also think that the solution is going to have to come from within people of those race / ethnicities because I think that the most significant problems at play are unique to each group and I don't think that someone outside of the group can really fully understand them.

 

[MGoBrew11]

I think I didn't explain what I meant very clearly. Just because you are White or Black doesn't mean anything. It's just the amount of melanin in your skin. I'm not an eloquent man but my point is that your actions and choices are more important to where you go in life than the color of your skin. Does that make sense?

Yeah, I understood that to be your point, I just don't really agree with it. I agree its the way it should be. I think the cycle of poverty no matter your race makes it much more difficult to succeed in life than someone who has "been given it all". Race comes into play because a disproportionate number of minorities are impoverished due to the history of our country.

Still don't agree with CRT.

 

[Python]

I think it's important to understand that people who experienced the civil rights movement and subsequent backlash on both sides are still alive today. Although from a law perspective the civil rights movement was successful, I don't think that an entire generation of Americans suddenly changed their minds on how they viewed race relations just because the law banned segregation in 1964.

That is to say - change and acceptance is naturally slow.


I think that painting inequity of outcome is 'racism against 'people of color',' therefore the only way to solve the problem is to rig the system against whites is overly simplistic and not a good approach.

Take this emperical data point of SAT scores by ethnicity and religion: Asians, Indians, and Jews are minorities who consistently outperform whites on the SATs. Then you have native Americans, Pacific Islanders, hispanics, and blacks that underperform...but even among those groups, black are second to last only in front of native Americans. This trend occurs even when you control for income.

So should we auto subtract 200 points from white, Jewish, and Indian SAT scores and 300 points from Asians to make it more equal for everyone?

Until we can find the actual cause of things like this, we're not going to be able to find a solution that works. And I don't think that the problems at play are the same for every single race and ethnicity.

I think your post brings up excellent points. People are generalizing all these groups’ circumstances. It is hard because people want to broad brush apply policies and remedies. IIRC, Nigerian immigrants are disproportionately successful and many of them become physicians (which is awesome). Many whites grow up in poverty. Some members of minority groups may make poor choices, rather than be affected by the legacy of historic injustices. As a general statement, minorities have been left behind and screwed over by immoral policies of the past. That legacy does linger today. But how do you apply nuance to this? This is the issue with broadly applying classification to groups of people rather than looking at individuals. I’m not entirely sure what the best strategy would be.

 

[Spekkio]

But how do you apply nuance to this? This is the issue with broadly applying classification to groups of people rather than looking at individuals. I’m not entirely sure what the best strategy would be.

I think the first step is to stop using a more verbose version of a 1950s phrase for black people to lump all minorities together.

I don't think that we have to get down to every individual level. However, I think that if we parsed by race / ethnicity, and also by the region of the nation where these groups tend to live in large numbers, the significant cultural and economic issues that contribute to or hinder the success of various groups are going to be different. Why does the child of a Chinese illegal immigrant, on average, outperform the child of a Mexican immigrant on the SAT? Both are poor and are have language barriers to overcome. Why do both of these groups, on average, outperform blacks who were born in the U.S?

Boiling it all down to institutional racism and poverty is lazy and ultimately doesn't adequately explain the data.

 

[number9]

It does nothing to disprove my point. MLK was killed because of the color of his skin. Skin color does not define you. Those two statements can exist simultaneously.

I guess what I was saying is that there seems to be an inherent contradiction in your statement: if his skin color didn't define him, why was he killed for it? MLK's assassin certainly defined MLK by the color of his skin...

Put another way, if I had black skin (which I don't) I may not feel defined by the color of my skin -- but other people (i.e. racists) would certainly define me by it.

 

[Swanee]

Gerrymandering has been going on for years my dude. It’s done by both parties and there’s nothing recent about it.

Yet it's still happening, by the right, to purposefully diminish the value of a non-white vote so they can stay in power.

But hey, the right supports civil* rights.


(*civil meaning the right to oppress other people so they stay in power.)


And don't start with the "But the Dems do it too" bullshit. If it's wrong, then it's wrong. Have the balls to admit it.


I get really embarrassed by most military officers. We exist in a socialist society for our entire careers, we get a ton of social benefits, yet most say that any type of socialist policy is wrong. We vote to purposefully not give the rest of society the benefits that keep us going. As if somehow we're better than the rest of society... We're not. We're just people doing a damn job, and we don't want to share our good deal with anyone.

The next comment is, "Well yeah man, but we're in the military and that's owed to us. We risk our lives!" Yet the most dangerous thing most of us do is get in our car and drive after being awake on duty for 36 hours, or having a continued bullshit attitude towards mental health. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10899.pdf


Most military officers are hypocrites when it comes to their view on how society should work.

 

[Hotdogs]

I get really embarrassed by most military officers. We exist in a socialist society for our entire careers, we get a ton of social benefits, yet most say that any type of socialist policy is wrong. We vote to purposefully not give the rest of society the benefits that keep us going. As if somehow we're better than the rest of society... We're not. We're just people doing a damn job, and we don't want to share our good deal with anyone.

The next comment is, "Well yeah man, but we're in the military and that's owed to us. We risk our lives!" Yet the most dangerous thing most of us do is get in our car and drive after being awake on duty for 36 hours, or having a continued bullshit attitude towards mental health. https://fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/IF10899.pdf

Most military officers are hypocrites when it comes to their view on how society should work

Yikes.

You can stop putting words in other service member’s mouths. You’re also assuming a lot of the thoughts/actions of people you don’t know…. and that’s ironic considering the topic/discourse in this thread. You sound very hyperbolic about this subject in particular.

Which part of the military is socialist? I know you’ve heard that trope thrown around and didn’t come up with it yourself. I am generally curious if you actually think that or are just throwing around a neoliberal discussion point to further substantiate your previous posts. It also significantly discredits alot of military service member’s opinions in this thread. What makes the military a socialist organization?

 

[wink]

[Gerrymandering] is still happening, by the right, to purposefully diminish the value of a non-white vote so they can stay in power.

In correct. When it does happen ( in many states procedures for drawing boundaries prevent it ), the goal is to make up majority DEM or GOP districts. That is it. Just like when disparate outcomes are assumed racist, you are ignoring other obvious motives. If you don't think the GOP would draw up a majority black district of Republican voters you are crazy. If DEMs gerrymander districts that are largely minority, it is because they are reliable DEM voters. They are not being inclusive of minorities at the risk of losing elections for moral reasons. Politicians want to be elected and stay in power. That is the only thing that motivates contemporary gerrymandering.

 

[Swanee]

Yikes.

You can stop putting words in other service member’s mouths. You’re also assuming a lot of the thoughts/actions of people you don’t know…. and that’s ironic considering the topic/discourse in this thread. You sound very hyperbolic about this subject in particular.

Which part of the military is socialist? I know you’ve heard that trope thrown around and didn’t come up with it yourself. I am generally curious if you actually think that or are just throwing around a neoliberal discussion point to further substantiate your previous posts. It also significantly discredits alot of military service member’s opinions in this thread. What makes the military a socialist organization?

Pay, rank, promotions, medical benefits, dental benefits, housing and BAH, the commissary, the exchange, BAS, the hiring process, the firing process, the retirement benefits, the retirement pension, the disability benefits, Exceptional Family Member Program, Montgomery GI benefits, Post 9/11 GI benefits, MWR and recreation programs, Gyms, Chowhalls, ITT...

All of this is guaranteed by the Government through tax dollars. Our entire careers and lives in the military are dependent upon a socialist structure.
Need I go on?