I agree with all of that.de officiis wrote:Part of the problem in the U.S. that needs to be understood and acknowledged is the serious possibility that the idea of reverse race discrimination, which since the death of Travon Martin is catching on with, and being openly advocated by groups like BLM, will lead to a legitimization of the idea that making race-based distinctions among groups is acceptable. The idea that minorities always enjoy free rein to discriminate against the white majority, and that somehow when you discriminate against a majority based on race, it isn't "discrimination," is wrong-headed, short-sighted, and is going to backfire in a severe way when enough people in that majority feel sufficiently threatened that they abandon the notion that ours is a race-neutral country. If the minorities in this country increasingly adopt the attitude that what MLK was talking about in the '60s is a dead letter, the white majority may not be far behind. After all, why defend a principle when the the intended beneficiaries of that principle reject it? When and if those attitudes change and become mainstream, life in this country will become even more difficult and fractious than it presently is. The Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment is not going away soon, but there are plenty of ways that people can make one another miserable that don't involve state action. There are a lot of important questions that you can criticize StA for not answering, but it is not difficult to understand him as simply being in the vanguard of what might become a serious backlash if the militant anti-white attitudes emanating from the Left continue.Hanarchy Montanarchy wrote:Just because it seems to need repeating: There is a world of difference between laws based on race and almost any other category of law.
I can, if I am inclined, propose a law that says you can't go to Mosque, own a Koran, or speak Arabic. Odious and oppressive as it may be, it is still comprehensible, as a law, since you can choose to follow it or risk punishment.
I can not pass a law that concerns itself with being Arab, because that is a law that cannot be followed. Passing laws that cannot be followed is contrary to having a rule of law.
Laws that concern themselves with race are for uncivilized morons.
Fortunately, as tribal as humans naturally are, race-based laws are one of those rare instances where sound law, ethics, reason, and enlightened self-interest align perfectly.
Seeing as this forum is not riddled with rabid SJW progressives calling for anti-white discrimination, arguing against that position here isn't needed. The folks here that want to argue against that position want to argue against a sort of leftist tulpa that can take on whatever vile form they imagine.
