this post was submitted on 26 May 2024
485 points (98.0% liked)

politics

19232 readers
3913 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey 182 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (8 children)

“Racial isolation” itself is not a harm;

Yes. It is. Isolation inherently breeds tribalism, prejudice, and fear of the other. It is extremely harmful.

only state-enforced segregation is.

And what would you call racial Gerrymandering if not state-enforced segregation, Clarence? I mean, apart from voter manipulation and disenfranchisement, that is.

After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks.

No, the idea that separation is harmful doesn't presuppose the reason being that black people are inferior. It is harmful because black people are often treated as inferior and are not given equal treatment, resources, and opportunity. Black schools in the Jim Crow south weren't worse because they were full of and run by black people. They were worse because they were fucking broke. Schools are largely funded by property taxes. And black home ownership has always been lower than white home ownership, and the value of those homes (and thus their property taxes) has always been lower on average. That means less money going to black schools per capita. Less money means fewer resources and opportunities. It's pretty fucking simple, Clarence.

I'm sure your next question is why black families owned fewer and cheaper homes. Well, the first and most obvious reason is that black families started with a handicap. They came from poor slaves who had nothing and had to start completely from scratch. White Americans had control of industry, agriculture, commerce, and government. Black Americans had to play catch up once freed.

Then, when the GI benefits of the returning soldiers of WWII helped millions of white families buy their first homes, those benefit weren't honored for black soldiers. When new valuable homes and nice schools were being built in the suburbs, those neighborhoods were red-lined, preventing black families from buying these valuable properties even when they had the finances to do so. When new highways and industrial works were being put in, things that bring pollution and drop property values, those things were intentionally built in and around black neighborhoods, robbing the existing black home owners of long term wealth. Do those things still happen now? Mostly no, and never explicitly racially biased. But this is not ancient history. This is in your life time, Clarence. It's effects are still seen today and black people are still poorer, own fewer homes and less expensive homes as a result of generations of oppressive and unequal treatment. It's absurd to equate acknowledging black poverty with deeming blacks inferior. This state was inflicted in them, not their fault.

Under this theory, segregation injures Blacks because Blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority,” he said in 2004.

If black people had been left to their own, they wouldn't have been slaves, wouldn't have been screwed out of their benefits they earned fighting for this country that hated them, wouldn't have been forbidden from moving into white neighborhoods, and wouldn't have had their homes tainted against their will by industry and transport that enriched white people. Let's also not discount the effects of unequal treatment under the law, unequal enforcement of the law, and unequal justice for crimes against them. Let's also not forget that at the time the Brown decision was made, black people were still being FUCKING LYNCHED, CLARENCE. This fallacy of "separate but equal" has no legs to stand on. It never existed. Fuck all the way off, Clarence, you fucking sell out self-hating prick.

[–] [email protected] 66 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] kryptonianCodeMonkey 23 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (2 children)

You know what's really sad? How events like this are/were not taught in history classes. Or at least not properly. I had never heard about the Tulsa Massacre until I was an adult. And you know where I first heard about it? The fucking Watchmen TV series in 2019. I did research on it and was mystified that it was not only a real event, but that I had never so much as heard it mentioned before. I did finally learn about it through formal education, but only as an elective course in college about the history of American racial biases. Smh.

And it's history like this that is explicitly being filtered out by laws to protect white students from feeling uncomfortable. No student in Florida will ever learn about Tulsa now until those laws are repealed. For the record, I'm white. I think I should have learned about this in high school at minimum.

[–] Dultas 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Did you happen upon the Wilmington Insurrection of 1898? I grew up in NC and it was never mentioned in NC history classes. I was in college before I heard about it.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

When people like Ron De Santis talks a "war against woke!", he's talking about a war on things that make privileged people uncomfortable and poor people pissed off.

They know that if more "woke" gets out there, it'll result in the rich potentially having to share.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 months ago

Well spoken

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] mechoman444 102 points 6 months ago (27 children)

“Racial isolation” itself is not a harm; only state-enforced segregation is. After all, if separation itself is a harm, and if integration therefore is the only way that Blacks can receive a proper education, then there must be something inferior about Blacks. Under this theory, segregation injures Blacks because Blacks, when left on their own, cannot achieve. To my way of thinking, that conclusion is the result of a jurisprudence based on a theory of black inferiority,” he said in 2004.

Says a well educated black man sitting on the supreme Court of the United States only because of brown v. Board.

I don't know if calling this man an Uncle Tom is appropriate so I won't. But man it sure does feel like he is.

[–] masquenox 29 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I don’t know if calling this man an Uncle Tom is appropriate so I won’t.

"Pick-me" seems to be the going term these days. I just refer to them as bog-standard right-wing grifters.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Papergeist 25 points 6 months ago

I've been calling him Uncle Thomas.

[–] Bytemeister 22 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

If you think a historically oppressed racial minority can't raise the funds to build a parallel society equal to an established and segregated majority, then you are the real racist.

Thats basically what it says. Why the fuck is this guy still on the SC?

[–] John_McMurray 6 points 6 months ago

This is gonna be a wild thread of unintentional racism by well meaning people unaware how superior they sound.

[–] [email protected] 20 points 6 months ago (2 children)

I think he's basically saying that it's racist to "artificially" integrate communities, because (I think he's saying) if they need to be integrated, then that's the same as saying that black folks are necessarily inferior. I don't think he's trying to say they're inferior, but that laws forcing integration are based on that assumption. So he can be well educated and successful because he isn't inherently inferior, therefore there is no need for forced integration.

... Which is such a weird stretch of naturalism in a direction I wasn't ready for. Naturalist BS is usually, "X deserves fewer rights because they are naturally inferior", whereas this is "We should ignore historical circumstances because X is not naturally inferior".

Start a game of monopoly after three other players have already gone around the board 10 times and created lots of rules explicitly preventing you from playing how they did and see how much the argument of "well, to give you any kind of advantage here would just be stating you're inferior, and we can't do that."

Man probably got angry at his golf handicap making him feel inferior and took things too far. Among other things.

[–] mechoman444 8 points 6 months ago

Honestly I think his core argument is an overly worded "pull yourself up by your boot straps" crap.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (23 replies)
[–] [email protected] 95 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] WhatAmLemmy 24 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Clarence Thomas isn't blind. He's a house negro — a full blown race (and justice) traitor. He knows he's a corrupt piece of shit sociopath and he revels in it.

The ridiculous part is that Americans still consider this court legitimate, when it is ruled by treasonous domestic terrorists.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 66 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (3 children)

Hollywood lied to me. Growing up, if I see a gray-haired black judge, I would assume he/she is the most trustworthy person who's wholeheartedly devoted to justice.

Imagine the shock when I heard about Clarence Thomas.

[–] Godric 37 points 6 months ago (9 children)

Huh I guess you can't just assume what type of person someone is based upon appearances, who could've guessed

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Valmond 8 points 6 months ago

Guess skin color isn't something you should use to judge people by.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 58 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Speculater 39 points 6 months ago (3 children)

How is someone so astoundingly against people with his own skin color?!

[–] not_that_guy05 38 points 6 months ago (1 children)

You should listen to behind the bastards eps about him and you'll understand why.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 months ago

Yep. That's some fucked up shit they will listen to.

[–] 0110010001100010 15 points 6 months ago
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 47 points 6 months ago

This dude is both openly corrupt, and an uncle Ruckus. What a disgusting human being.

[–] [email protected] 31 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

Drawing political districts is a task for politicians

Ah, so he is a complete moron. I suppose next he’ll say that the presidential candidates will count their own votes?

[–] Viking_Hippie 9 points 6 months ago

For him, the corruption is a feature, not a bug. Just ask Nazi memorabilia enthusiast and his billionaire sugar daddy Harlan Crow.

[–] Sam_Bass 31 points 6 months ago

When the current election cycle is done, there needs to be a concerted effort to legislate term limits for supreme court justices. Having a permanent placement for any single branch of government is simply not workable moving forward.

[–] [email protected] 28 points 6 months ago (1 children)

The cynic in me is hoping a Loving vs. VA challenge gets to the Supreme Court because I know he's going to overturn it without a doubt... while the pragmatist really just hopes the whole Supreme Court goes on a five year vacation so our rights stop getting eroded.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Even if that's overturned they'll never prosecute him for it. He's rich and so above the law.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] not_that_guy05 20 points 6 months ago (1 children)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I didn't think the Supreme Court would go this far. We knew they would be bad, that's why they were appointed, but they've tried and succeeded at making themselves so completely illegitimate, so completely out of touch with what the American public needs. And that only pushes people towards significantly more activism. Who do they hate? Who don't they respect? Women, ethnic minorities, librarians, anyone who isn't rich.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I wonder what kind of deep self-hate and hate for others lives inside this man, but don't dare to even try to imagine it.

[–] orrk 9 points 6 months ago

he's rich, the whole racism bit was always nothing but a ploy to keep poor people divided, a lot of people fell for it, but the rich don't care, the rich don't affiliate with "white" or "black" groups, they just care about money, and if pumping racism into society to keep their slaves was useful, then the black man just had to suffer.

Remember, at least in the American concept, anti-capitalism is anti-racism (this does not apply to all people or regions of the world)

[–] homesweethomeMrL 16 points 6 months ago (1 children)

As he was always intended to do. Mission Accomplished.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] eran_morad 14 points 6 months ago (2 children)

Shouldn’t he have cancer by now?

[–] wolfpack86 34 points 6 months ago (1 children)
[–] Alexstarfire 6 points 6 months ago

And sadly, it's inoperable. Take whichever meaning you like. They all fit.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Anamnesis 14 points 6 months ago (1 children)

Damnit, saw his name in the headline and had a brief moment of hope that he had Scaliaed himself out of this world. 😑

[–] jeffw 9 points 6 months ago

Sorry, the headline said “back” not “forwards”

load more comments
view more: next ›