Not schizophrenic at all. Discrimination is simply the act of distinguishing or differentiating.

I am talking about race discrimination, i.e. when people like you want to discriminate against people solely based on their race.

The mere act of recognizing racism is therefore race based discrimination.

No, it is not. You should finish high school. Recognition of disrimination based on race is not race based discrimination. Recognizing Jim Crow discrimination and Ricci discrimination are identical. There is no contradiction - except in your mind.

In fact claiming that precluding the ability to indentify race as a way of determining if racism has occurred is the Catch-22 redefinition that you and other conservatives are trying to engage in.

Ricci was discriminated based on his race. Blacks were discriminated during the Jim Crow era. These recognitions are obvious. There is no Catch 22 in stating the obvious.

By YOUR definition of "racism"

• MLK's Freedom March was racist
• Montgomery Bus Boycott was racist
• Freedom Summer was racist

Nonnsense. MLK Freedom march, montgomery bus boycott and people's recognition that Ricci was discriminated are identical things.

And that's just outright dishonest.

Your claims are clearly stupid. I am not sure you are dishonest.

You can't get around that your definition of race discrimination: Making choices based on race - applies to

• MLK's Freedom March - blacks were preferred in participatoin
• Montgomery Bus Boycott - it was based on blacks acting differently because they are black
• Freedom Summer - was based on differentiating who was being registered to vote by race (the volunteers did not go after poor whites just minorities).

In each case the act of fighting racism required recognizing race and making decisions based on race - which is by definition, racial discrimination.

Your definition then creates a Catch-22 where the mere act of recognizing racism is itself "racial discrimination".

And you are too smart not to undestand that. Which is why I reach the conclusion that you are being dishonest.

You can't get around that your definition of race discrimination: Making choices based on race - applies to

Making choices based on other people's race - as in hiring, firing and promoting. Yes, this is racist.

• MLK's Freedom March - blacks were preferred in participatoin

The Freedom March was for preferential treatment of blacks at the expense of every one else? You sure about this?

• Montgomery Bus Boycott - it was based on blacks acting differently because they are black

No, it was based on the fact that white race pimps were discriminating against blacks. The boycott was an action which aimed to end rrace discrimination. Based on YOUR views, this movement was racist, had the people affected were whites.

• Freedom Summer - was based on differentiating who was being registered to vote by race (the volunteers did not go after poor whites just minorities).

It was a movement to have particular group of people (blacks) to be denied voter registration - i.e. were they black version of your anti-white racism? No, they were not. Ergo - these people were not racist.

In each case the act of fighting racism required recognizing race and making decisions based on race - which is by definition, racial discrimination.

All the movements you described promoted exactly same policy I promote - color blind treatment by the state. They and I are twin brothers. Your views are in line with anti-semitic and anti-black racists...

Your definition then creates a Catch-22 where the mere act of recognizing racism is itself "racial discrimination".

Discrimination based on race is racist. This is my view, and the view of the movements you tried to slander above.

And you are too smart not to undestand that. Which is why I reach the conclusion that you are being dishonest.

I am sure that you are 100% honest in your assessment. Which means you are stupid.

Making choices based on other people's race - as in hiring, firing and promoting. Yes, this is racist.

Not inherently so. Participation in MLK's Freedom March, was based on "other people's race" - by your definition this makes the Freedom March racist. Same with Montgomery Bus Boycott, Same with Freedom Summer.

Your definition of racism is specifically designed so that it precludes any actions to ameliorate racism. But in doing so you make it a meaningless definition. That's not slander. It may be your viewpoint but it is one that is itself based in perpetuating racism.

degsme:

Making choices based on other people's race - as in hiring, firing and promoting. Yes, this is racist.

Not inherently so. Participation in MLK's Freedom March, was based on "other people's race" - by your definition this makes the Freedom March racist. Same with Montgomery Bus Boycott, Same with Freedom Summer.

The above were based on the denial of equal treatment. There was no race requirement to participate in those activities.

And the discarding of the NH test was based on the denial of equal treatment as demonstrated by the disarate outcome.

After all, in Montgomery AL, blacks could still ride the bus and get from point A to point B- how was that a 'denial of equal treatment" to require blacks to sit in the black section and whites to sit in the white section? Oh that's right, the black section's ride was less comfortable. Hence the outcome at the end of the ride was disparate.

but of course that doesn't matter.

People were treated unequally based on race - i.e. your seating arrengement was directly dependent on your skin color.

All people took same test. Do fail to see the difference?

Not inherently so.

Inherently so.

Participation in MLK's Freedom March, was based on "other people's race" - by your definition this makes the Freedom March racist. Same with Montgomery Bus Boycott, Same with Freedom Summer.

No, all of the above was a movement to have people of different races treated same by the government. By YOUR definition, this movement was racist.

Your definition of racism is specifically designed so that it precludes any actions to ameliorate racism.

My definition is the only reasonable definition. It does not preclude actions to ameliorate racism - I am doing it right now with your racism.

But in doing so you make it a meaningless definition. That's not slander. It may be your viewpoint but it is one that is itself based in perpetuating racism.

You are perpetuating racism, not mean. Your theories rely on classical anti-semitic theory that some groups stick to their own, and we must discriminate against them because of this.

degsme:

What's wrong with blatant and obvious? Affirmative Action was MOST effective when it WAS blatant and obvious. The Little Rock integration was hardly a calming influence on the existing racial hostility. Yet it worked. Same is true of quotas.

The problem with blatant and obvious methods of improving the conditions of one race at the expense of another is that if these were legal, it would also be legal to create policies intended to increase racial inequality (eg. Jim Crowe segregation).

People were treated unequally based on race [mont. bus boycott] - i.e. your seating arrengement was directly dependent on your skin color.

The former doesn't follow from the latter. That your seating is directly dependent on skin color is not inherently unequal. What was unequal was that minorities were required to surrender their seats to whites and they were required to surrender BETTER seats because they were deemed inferior and not deserving of such seats.

Again what you are trying to argue is a Catch-22, ie the fact of recognizing and ameliorating racism is "racist" itself because it uses skin color to determine how the initial racism will be dealth with.

That's useful if you want to preclude any ability to ameliorate racism. Something that continues to entrench your daily white male privilege.

IE you are arguing the Catch-22 so that you don't have to ever compete on a level playing field.

Am 14s Equal Protection clause is the law and the test. AA -even blatant and obvious - increases the EQUAL Access to legal and economic rights and powers to a broader set of the population.

Jim Crow does the opposite/

Affirmative action does not increase equal access, it merely promotes an unequal access for a different race.

The 14th Amendment makes no distinction between equal protection and equal treatment. The Jim Crow laws were violations of that amendment, and so are most AA laws -- you cannot have differentiated treatment and equal protection any more than you can have "separate but equal" schools. The differing treatment itself leads to inequality, as SCOTUS ruled in Brown v Topeka Board of Education. You can either have identical treatment, and hence equal protection, or differing treatment, and consequently differing protection.

degsme:

Am 14s Equal Protection clause is the law and the test. AA -even blatant and obvious - increases the EQUAL Access to legal and economic rights and powers to a broader set of the population.

Jim Crow does the opposite/

First of all no one is advocating Jim Crow. It was a bad thing. Also your statement about AA is flawed. You cannot increase access to a broader set of the population by limiting access for some and increasing for others. Your net gain is zero. You increase access by increasing it for all.

AA in the form of a quota system doesn't do this. AA in the form of improving all public schools to ensure everyone has access to a quality education does. Efforts to recruit more minorities into underrepresented fields does.

You cannot increase access to a broader set of the population by limiting access for some and increasing for others. Your net gain is zero.

Not true at all. While it is true that white unearned privilege is decreased, that unearned privilege is not the only acces to legal and economic rights available to white males. But in the case of minorities, that position defended by AA is usually the ONLY access to such rights.

AA in the form of a quota does exactly this. It says that we don't worry about levelling the playing field between whites and minorities between men and women. Each gets to compete within its own proportionality of the population for their fair share of the pie. Then over time you clearly have the most meretricious of each group in place. Do that for 3-5 generations and then you might be able to start going towards more blended metrics.

degsme:

You cannot increase access to a broader set of the population by limiting access for some and increasing for others. Your net gain is zero.

Not true at all. While it is true that white unearned privilege is decreased, that unearned privilege is not the only acces to legal and economic rights available to white males. But in the case of minorities, that position defended by AA is usually the ONLY access to such rights.

AA in the form of a quota does exactly this. It says that we don't worry about levelling the playing field between whites and minorities between men and women. Each gets to compete within its own proportionality of the population for their fair share of the pie. Then over time you clearly have the most meretricious of each group in place. Do that for 3-5 generations and then you might be able to start going towards more blended metrics.

Seperate but Equal? Who advocates Jim Crow now? I also find it racist to assume blacks can't compete with whites. But even more racist is your statement that AA is the only access to such rights by minorities. So Barak Obama is our President because of AA? According to your statement he had no other access.