Seibertron.com Energon Pub Forums

Honestly, I don't get that either. The word 'colored' and the phrase 'person of color' mean the exact same thing. so why is it acceptable to use the phrase but not the word? Yes, I know the word has racist undertones, as it was used to label blacks in a mostly negative manner (even though blacks themselves use it) but then shouldn't the phrase be looked down on as well? Yet it's being used every day, mostly by minorities. Or is it that they haven't perceived the phrase being used derogatorily yet by Caucasians? Once that happens, the phrase will be off limits as well.

Rodimus Prime wrote:Honestly, I don't get that either. The word 'colored' and the phrase 'person of color' mean the exact same thing. so why is it acceptable to use the phrase but not the word? Yes, I know the word has racist undertones, as it was used to label blacks in a mostly negative manner (even though blacks themselves use it) but then shouldn't the phrase be looked down on as well? Yet it's being used every day, mostly by minorities. Or is it that they haven't perceived the phrase being used derogatorily yet by Caucasians? Once that happens, the phrase will be off limits as well.

I've been thinking that since my teens. And I'm now 44.
That... term... always rubbed me the wrong way. For me, it's even WORSE than the infamous N word.

Let me Google that for you:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/ ... story.html

If you are sincerely seeking the information, please consider doing the work for yourself first. Otherwise, it could appear that you're defending open bigotry, which I'm sure we all want to avoid.

AcademyofDrX wrote:Let me Google that for you:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/ ... story.html

If you are sincerely seeking the information, please consider doing the work for yourself first. Otherwise, it could appear that you're defending open bigotry, which I'm sure we all want to avoid.

Alright, I read it. It talks about why the word 'colored' is offensive to blacks. I already knew this. My inquiry was regarding the phrase 'people of color' and why it's deemed acceptable when it means the same thing as the word 'colored.' I tried to answer it for myself in my previous post, but I was just guessing, really. Was I right? Or am I missing something?

AcademyofDrX wrote:Let me Google that for you:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/ ... story.html

If you are sincerely seeking the information, please consider doing the work for yourself first. Otherwise, it could appear that you're defending open bigotry, which I'm sure we all want to avoid.

It may be so.
But for me "people of color" is still a nasty term, Because it's not just about black people. It's about any and ALL other "non-white" races.

It's divisive. And disgusting.

Using only PEOPLE. Is it so hard?
Once we stop focussing so much on race and differences, then we will finally have peace. Morgan Freeman once said years ago: "If you want to end racism, stop talking about it."



But we all know that won't happen. The racism industry pay way too much money and give so much power to politicians, pundits, and academics to ever stop.

So to address it sincerely, it's complicated. And even my own use of POC in the context of BLM can have issues. I mean, the really short answer is that POC is permissible because unlike the other term , it was popularized by King (or more specifically, a variation was), and adopted in the last few decades specifically to try to represent those communities in a way largely free of the historical baggage associated with other terms. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Person_of_color

Can POC itself be inappropriate or offensive? Yes, depending on the context.
Here's a Korean-American woman talking about being excluded from that: https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-o ... -of-color/
And similar commentary from Wired on using POC when Black is more appropriate:
https://www.wired.com/story/rethinking- ... -of-color/

There is no magic answer to always treating people as they want to be treated, because no racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is monolithic. My employer has held listening sessions and POC-led discussion sessions, and during a recent call, a Black American descended from slaves and a first-generation African immigrant had very different ideas about not only what terms were appropriate, but even if and when acknowledging cultural difference was desired.

The bottom line? Try to treat people with respect. In my experience, trying to do the right thing and failing is responded to very differently than succeeding or failing when there's no commitment.

I think this topic and this discussion specifically can have value, and I sometimes let my frustration limit the opportunity here. But I do want to emphasize very clearly that not all opinions are equal and not all contributions are in good faith, and I hope I can make that distinction more clearly going forward.

AcademyofDrX wrote:There is no magic answer to always treating people as they want to be treated, because no racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is monolithic.

That's my main issue with the term. It sound too much like "they are all the same."

AcademyofDrX wrote:The bottom line? Try to treat people with respect.

An essential basic rule that too many forget.
Kudos.

There's a Philip K Dick quote that I love:
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

There's a certain view in conservative politics that believes we're in a post-racial society, and that if everyone adopted a colorblind mantra, racism would be over. For me, that doesn't pass the above test. To suggest that the cultural legacy of centuries of obvious discrimination like slavery and Jim Crow, or the fundamental differences in inherited wealth between whites and others, or the history of racist policies in housing, education, and employment ... If you stop believing in racism, does that history and its impacts disappear? Obviously not. That is not an argument in good faith.

AcademyofDrX wrote:If you stop believing in racism, does that history and its impacts disappear? Obviously not. That is not an argument in good faith.

The goal is to MOVE ON. And to look toward the future.
Being angry for ever and ever while holding some eternal grudge is the road to self stagnation and destruction.

How can you improve and evolve if you keep clinging to the past? The past is important to be remembered for sure. But it's also important to move forward.

So explain to me how this idea is conservative?

AcademyofDrX wrote:There's a Philip K Dick quote that I love:
“Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away.”

There's a certain view in conservative politics that believes we're in a post-racial society, and that if everyone adopted a colorblind mantra, racism would be over. For me, that doesn't pass the above test. To suggest that the cultural legacy of centuries of obvious discrimination like slavery and Jim Crow, or the fundamental differences in inherited wealth between whites and others, or the history of racist policies in housing, education, and employment ... If you stop believing in racism, does that history and its impacts disappear? Obviously not. That is not an argument in good faith.

Since you singled out the conservative side, does that mean the liberal side is the opposite of this? That liberalism includes and even promotes the differences among us based on our cultures?

I was specifically making the case that the post-racial view of racial justice is aligned to conservative thought. See for example the famous John Roberts like in an affirmative action US Supreme Court decision: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

The converse of that is that acknowledging and referencing the ongoing disparate treatments and circumstances of people of different races is not only appropriate but necessary for racial justice and for full recognition of the members of society. That's not necessarily or inherently racism, but is necessary for combatting racism.

There are certainly ways to talk about race that are racist, and at times people co-opt progressive language to denigrate people along ethnic, national, and racial lines. But acknowledging that society (and really, societies) has treated and continue to treat people differently based on race shouldn't be controversial.

When "progressive" bring back segregation and repeal anti-race discrimination laws, I draw the line.

"Cultural appropriation". "Safe spaces". Rejecting white and Asian applications at universities.

How can bringing more racism can fix racism?
That's no longer "acknowledging differences" when you impose things on people only based on their race. It's just racism. Pure and simple.

AcademyofDrX wrote:I was specifically making the case that the post-racial view of racial justice is aligned to conservative thought. See for example the famous John Roberts like in an affirmative action US Supreme Court decision: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”

The converse of that is that acknowledging and referencing the ongoing disparate treatments and circumstances of people of different races is not only appropriate but necessary for racial justice and for full recognition of the members of society. That's not necessarily or inherently racism, but is necessary for combatting racism.

There are certainly ways to talk about race that are racist, and at times people co-opt progressive language to denigrate people along ethnic, national, and racial lines. But acknowledging that society (and really, societies) has treated and continue to treat people differently based on race shouldn't be controversial.

I agree 100%. Unfortunately, these days when the subject comes up, most people involved in the conversation tend jump to conclusions and immediately assume the worst in the other person and the negative aspects of the argument. While this is true for both sides, in my experience more often it happens from the liberal side. That's not to say conservatives have things correct, only that their reaction seems more subdued. Of course, this can be a bad thing as well, because sometimes it's not enough. I'm not sure why that is, my guess is all depends on that person's view of things and the environment that person was subjected to in her/his formative years. I can personally attest to this, as in my younger years I was more liberal and as I grew older and gained life experience I became more subdued and conservative. But regardless of which side I identify with stronger, I never subscribed to 'either/or' because I believe that's 1 of the biggest problems we face as a society. Having to choose a side, or more accurately, believing that we have to choose a side. That's how those in power keep us divided and thus defeated.

AcademyofDrX wrote:There is no magic answer to always treating people as they want to be treated, because no racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is monolithic..

Its called the US Constitution. Written a long time ago yet people are still too stupid to read.

Truthstar9 wrote:

AcademyofDrX wrote:There is no magic answer to always treating people as they want to be treated, because no racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is monolithic..

Its called the US Constitution. Written a long time ago yet people are still too stupid to read.

Written by white slaveowning men who had no regard in mind for natives, slaves or even their own women when they wrote it. Nevermind people who don't get a much better start in life because of the wealth left to them by their parents and grandparents and generations before them. "All men are created equal." My ass. Should have said "All rich white men are created equal." Because that's who it was written for at the time. I agree with the spirit of the constitution, but it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.

Rodimus Prime wrote:Having to choose a side, or more accurately, believing that we have to choose a side. That's how those in power keep us divided and thus defeated.

Agree 100%.
I was a "liberal" most of my life but now as I grew older, I'm "conservativish." But forcing people into clearcut "teams" when there's as many ideas as there are people is a bit baffling. That's why I identify neither as a liberal nor a conservative. I'm just me. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Here we are.

Congratulations.

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Truthstar9 wrote:

AcademyofDrX wrote:There is no magic answer to always treating people as they want to be treated, because no racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is monolithic..

Its called the US Constitution. Written a long time ago yet people are still too stupid to read.

Written by white slaveowning men who had no regard in mind for natives, slaves or even their own women when they wrote it. Nevermind people who don't get a much better start in life because of the wealth left to them by their parents and grandparents and generations before them. "All men are created equal." My ass. Should have said "All rich white men are created equal." Because that's who it was written for at the time. I agree with the spirit of the constitution, but it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.

Truthstar9 wrote:

Rodimus Prime wrote:

Truthstar9 wrote:

AcademyofDrX wrote:There is no magic answer to always treating people as they want to be treated, because no racial, ethnic, or cultural identity is monolithic..

Its called the US Constitution. Written a long time ago yet people are still too stupid to read.

Written by white slaveowning men who had no regard in mind for natives, slaves or even their own women when they wrote it. Nevermind people who don't get a much better start in life because of the wealth left to them by their parents and grandparents and generations before them. "All men are created equal." My ass. Should have said "All rich white men are created equal." Because that's who it was written for at the time. I agree with the spirit of the constitution, but it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.

I could be wrong, but usually not. I've heard your rhetoric from self hating white liberals who were indoctrinated at an early age. Still doesn't absolve you.

Since the majority of what you said is ridiculously stupid, I'll reply only to the least stupid comments.

So you ae advocating to a return to a 18/19th century political/social structure. Well us Americans gave up the Kings and Queens of old and it isn't returning. If you feel the need to knee to another, you can always relocate to the country of your choosing. Freedom is great isn't it?

You obviously are against the US Constitution, gotta give you credit for taking a side at least. Some of your comrades took one for the team last night. But I'm guessing you are all talk and no action. I'm truly hoping for the latter. As they say, what's the point of taking an Oath if you don't intend to honor it.

Whatever you're smoking, it's not working.

Rodimus Prime wrote:Written by white slaveowning men who had no regard in mind for natives, slaves or even their own women when they wrote it. Nevermind people who don't get a much better start in life because of the wealth left to them by their parents and grandparents and generations before them. "All men are created equal." My ass. Should have said "All rich white men are created equal." Because that's who it was written for at the time. I agree with the spirit of the constitution, but it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.

I was going to write something earlier and it came off far angrier than I wanted it to. So I've given it time and now I'm better ready to respond to this.

Rodimus Prime wrote:Written by white slaveowning men who had no regard in mind for natives, slaves or even their own women when they wrote it.

I'm gonna start with this. So, because of who wrote the constitution, I suppose we should just disregard it. I'd like you to tell me first, though, which mistake was it? Was it the white part? Was it the men part? Was it the slave owning part? Or the idea that they had no interest in any other people besides themselves. Honestly, human cattle fit for slaughter. I suppose we can spend all day picking that apart. Lets move on to the next part of that though.

Rodimus Prime wrote:"All men are created equal." My ass. Should have said "All rich white men are created equal." Because that's who it was written for at the time.

So I guess it's just the rich then, the wealthy. The government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless you're poor. The government shall make no law dictating the worship of religion if you own a certain amount of land. Shall I go on or can we forget this ever happened?

Rodimus Prime wrote:I agree with the spirit of the constitution

Obviously you don't because you already poisoned the well by somehow taking a document that was supposed to be a legal framework and making it about race, about sex, about wealth, about everything else it doesn't cover. Or didn't, but I'll get to that in a moment.

The constitution is not a permission slip. It's not a list of the things you're allowed to do if you're a citizen. It's a list of restrictions on the government telling the people in power what they are not allowed to do. And you're right, there is a flaw, but that flaw is not with the constitution itself. The constitution dictates the rights of the citizen shall not be infringed by the government. It does NOT, however, dictate who those citizens are. That was never enumerated in the constitution and fell directly into the hands of underwritten federal law until much, much later when it was written in under the 14th amendment. So your arguement about the scope of people it applied to was firstly nullified by it not being covered and secondly because that was later added. It wasn't originally the responsability of the constitution to grant citizenship and rights. But that's something I will get to later. Next.

Rodimus Prime wrote:it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.

Here you are correct about one thing but you still show a fundamental misunderstanding. You're right, the constitution is a flawed, living document that was meant to grow and evolve over time. The people that wrote it knew that they would never be able to make it perfect, knew that it would need to change, and so they put in a process to change it. Had they ACTUALLY believed that the United States, as they were, were perfection incarnate they could have simply have written in that the words were law as passed down by God through their pen and that would have been that. They didn't. And it has changed.

But now I want to get back to the pin I left earlier. Look through the Bill of Rights and you will see that is a list of Shall Nots. The government Shall Not infringe on Expression, Shall not Disarm you, Shall not Quarter Soldiers on your property, Shall not Search or Seize your self or property without cause and warrant. It is a list of shall nots because everything else is permitted. You are free to express yourself in the way you choose, the government is not allowed to dictate when, where, how, and why to you. It means that you have all those avenues available to you instead of the myopic range that the government has given you. Keep that in mind as I detour down a little side street for a moment.

I was asked once to define communism and fascism for someone, and tell them how the US is not a fascist state if I so believe it. I took a moment to think about that because I had never really thought that hard. Then I gave them an answer and I said this: "In a communist state, from everyone according to their ability to everyone according to their need is the rule of thumb. In otherwords, you work, and what you produce is taken from you, and once it is taken from everyone it is re-approtioned as the state sees fit according to your need. If you want more, or less, it doesn't matter. You are given what you are given. Fascism is less restrictive, but only slightly. In a fascist state you're allowed to keep what you produce. And you are allowed to spend or trade it but only in those places as dictated by the state. You can only buy food here, only trade clothes here, and anything not sanctioned by them is criminal. The I thought about the US. We have no such restrictions. What you produce you keep, or are compensated for in currency. Then you are allowed to use that whereever you wish, no one can stop you".

And that right there is the difference. The constitution is not to dictate what you can or cannot do. It is strictly to tell the government what it cannot do. The eleventh amendment dictates that the US government SHALL NOT prosecute you on behalf of a foreign state or actor. The thirteenth amendment states that state nor any citizen Shall Not own slaves or indentured servents. The fifteenth amendment states that the state Shall Not deny the vote to citizens. And this means that everyone is free from foreign prosecution, free from bondage, and free to be represented.

And then there's a few others that you might have heard of that are slightly more contraversial. Like the fourteeth, citizenship. Before, it was accepted that citizens were citizens, and after the end of slavery it was written in that all peoples born here, or all peoples that resided here for a period were citzens. The government MUST grant citizenship to all peoples that fall under these catagories. As you said, it made sense at the time, and look at where we are now. Entire caravans of people marching through thousands of miles of dangerous terrain because if they can get here, if they can have a birth here, if they can hide out long enough, they can secure citizenship. The amendment meant to grant citizenship to all slaves and indentured servants that had been denied before. Now it is being abused as a free ticket to ride. Or the sixteenth which gave the government(read: gave itself) the power to levy taxes without any restriction or moderation. As you can see, giving them the right to simply taken money from the people has worked out so very well. This was the right of the government to levy any tax, not the people shall not be taxed. By granting the right to the government, it has been taken away from the people.

So now getting back to you. You speak of the constitution writteh by men, by white men, by rich white men with no regard to anything or anyone other than themselves. You speak of generational inequalities in wealth and power. And you speak of using the constitution itself as a crowbar to fix it. And you may not like that analogy but that's what it will be. The constitution itself is meant to be a check on the government, a barrier that denies it the ability to oppress the people of the nation. But I can assure you of this. No matter the law, no matter the reparation, no matter the policy seeing to balance some inequality from the past, it will be done by creating inequality in the other direction in the present. Either by taking directly from those deeped to have benefitted from it and giving to others, a redistribution of sorts, or some other government program which merely draws from a larger pool, those being taxed by, again, that troubling sixteenth amendment I stated earlier.

I'm not going to deny that there are inequalities in the past. There are inequalities today, in every single nation on the planet. It's not a perfect world and it's not going to be. But if I can stress anything from this long and rambling entry then let it be this: You cannot change the past. What was done is done. It cannot be undone. Asians in WWII were interred wrongly. They were paid reparations. The black mark still remains. It doesn't go away. If you're sincere about dealing with generational inequalities then there is a conversation to be had there. It will not come from a constitutional amendment. It will not come from a federal law. It will not come from the jackboot of officers coming to take from one and given to another. If you want to fix generational inequality going forward then we have to move forward. Accept the past for what it is. Drop the malice, drop the hate, forgive whatever debts there are and build a better future because here's the dirty truth: There are debts in the past. Debts to previous generations. Those generations are dead. We do not hang the sins of the father, or the debts, upon the sons. And until we do that we will get what we have now: Hatred and violence on behalf of a bygone generation, claiming moral virtue in their names and revenge for their honor. If you try to use the constitution as a tool here, not only will it fail but it will invalidate any good it has done in history.

I saw a quoted line, though I couldn't follow the indents: "I've heard your rhetoric from self hating white liberals who were indoctrinated at an early age."

The correct right-wing talking point is that self-hating white liberals like me were indoctrinated by Marxists at college. It's all in your handbook, do better at staying on message.

Disappointed but not surprised that the thread protesting police violence is now being used to glorify violence against protesters, in particular by commenters who are new to the site.

AcademyofDrX wrote:I saw a quoted line, though I couldn't follow the indents: "I've heard your rhetoric from self hating white liberals who were indoctrinated at an early age."

The correct right-wing talking point is that self-hating white liberals like me were indoctrinated by Marxists at college. It's all in your handbook, do better at staying on message.

Correction perfectly on point. Liberals, like me, are now all on the right anyway. And it's not because we moved. It's the line that was moved by those crazies.

We got warned in 1984 (What a coinsicence!):



Amazing that a video game, Call of Duty of all games, finally put that classic clip to the mainstream!

AcademyofDrX wrote:Disappointed but not surprised that the thread protesting police violence is now being used to glorify violence against protesters, in particular by commenters who are new to the site.

The "protests" ceased to be since the riots began. Those are no longer "protesters" but violent insurgents, terrorists, and psychopaths. They are now terrorising the subburbs with guns, molotov cocktails and such. THEY ARE ENGAGING IN OPEN WARFARE AGAINST THE CITIZENRY! Then, they are all surprised and cry for the police when the citizens they try to kill are shooting back.

Stop calling them "protesters". They are violent criminals that must be stopped at all costs. If those corrupt Democrats keep rejecting Trumps federal help, more people will die on the street.

Even Don Lemon of CNN admit that they are losing because of the BLM riots. Not because people DIE and LIVES GET DESTROYED. Oh no. It's because it make Trump more popular in the polls. Disgusting.

https://thepostmillennial.com/watch-don ... he-police/

ShadowKatt wrote:So, because of who wrote the constitution, I suppose we should just disregard it.

No, we should not. If you seriously think that's a solution, you're wrong. If you were trying to be sarcastic and condescending, it won't get you anywhere. Definitely not through a rational discussion.

I'd like you to tell me first, though, which mistake was it? Was it the white part? Was it the men part? Was it the slave owning part? Or the idea that they had no interest in any other people besides themselves.

All of them. The Declaration of Independence states in part that "all men are created equal." The Constitution, which followed the Declaration by a little over a decade, is a legal framework (as you said) that is there to uphold the truth of that statement in limiting government in what it can do when it comes to ruling the citizens of the brand new country it is set up to govern. It was written and authorized by the men who fought and won the Revolutionary War. Slave-owning white men who had already accumulated different amounts of wealth before the conflict even began, and became even wealthier still after kicking the British out and claiming and divvying up all the land among themselves. If the Constitution was meant for everyone inside the borders of the brand new country they established, why wasn't it immediately also established that slaves were freed, or that women and natives had the same rights as those men did? Why did it take multiple amendments over a long period of time to get to that result? After all, "all men are created equal" had been their message since 1776. So where was equality for blacks and natives? The constitution supposedly prevents government from treating them differently than whites. So were they treated the same? History says the constitution failed in doing so. Because the men who wrote it failed in doing so.

So I guess it's just the rich then, the wealthy. The government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, unless you're poor. The government shall make no law dictating the worship of religion if you own a certain amount of land. Shall I go on or can we forget this ever happened?

Once again, condescension is the wrong way to go. You're making assumptions. Nowhere in my post did I say the constitution specifically selected wealthy people to have any advantage. But as I said, it was written by people of considerable wealth and influence, and as much as you would like to think it was for everyone (as it should have bern and claimed to be), it was written by those men with their vision of society in mind, a society in which natives were banished, blacks picked cotton, women cooked meals and raised children, and those men controlled the wealth of the new country and thus had the power to help or restrict those without wealth from advancing in society.

Rodimus Prime wrote:I agree with the spirit of the constitution

Obviously you don't because you already poisoned the well by somehow taking a document that was supposed to be a legal framework and making it about race, about sex, about wealth, about everything else it doesn't cover.

Exactly. It covers no basic human rights that someone who's not a wealthy white male should have. How the hell is that supposed to be the 'supreme law of the land' when it omits rules regarding a large segment of the population? When it was written, it could've applied to those who wrote it and lived in that society. But it can't be now, because too much has changed. So every time someone brings up the Constitution, this is the debate or argument that takes place. So yes, I do agree that the spirit of the constitution is just. That government shouldn't be allowed to trample an individual's rights. But that should apply to all individuals, and the collection of those individuals is different now than it was 1789.

The constitution is not a permission slip. It's not a list of the things you're allowed to do if you're a citizen. It's a list of restrictions on the government telling the people in power what they are not allowed to do. And you're right, there is a flaw, but that flaw is not with the constitution itself. The constitution dictates the rights of the citizen shall not be infringed by the government. It does NOT, however, dictate who those citizens are. That was never enumerated in the constitution and fell directly into the hands of underwritten federal law until much, much later when it was written in under the 14th amendment. So your arguement about the scope of people it applied to was firstly nullified by it not being covered and secondly because that was later added. It wasn't originally the responsability of the constitution to grant citizenship and rights.

Hence it's biggest flaw. It ignored everyone other than wealthy white men, as I keep saying.

Rodimus Prime wrote:it is by no means perfect. If it was, it wouldn't have needed 27 amendments to it. It made sense at the time, but that was 230 years ago. Everything has changed since, the present time and its circumstances do not fit into the parameters of the constitution. So either the constitution has to be amended again or we have to go back to the societal structure as it was in the 18th and 19th centuries, up to the beginning of the Civil War, anyway.

Here you are correct about one thing but you still show a fundamental misunderstanding. You're right, the constitution is a flawed, living document that was meant to grow and evolve over time. The people that wrote it knew that they would never be able to make it perfect, knew that it would need to change, and so they put in a process to change it. Had they ACTUALLY believed that the United States, as they were, were perfection incarnate they could have simply have written in that the words were law as passed down by God through their pen and that would have been that. They didn't. And it has changed.

So once again, I'm right. It can't be applied as it was written, it has to keep changing, because society is changing. It doesn't seem that I misunderstood anything.

The constitution is not to dictate what you can or cannot do. It is strictly to tell the government what it cannot do. The eleventh amendment dictates that the US government SHALL NOT prosecute you on behalf of a foreign state or actor. The thirteenth amendment states that state nor any citizen Shall Not own slaves or indentured servents. The fifteenth amendment states that the state Shall Not deny the vote to citizens. And this means that everyone is free from foreign prosecution, free from bondage, and free to be represented.

And then there's a few others that you might have heard of that are slightly more contraversial. Like the fourteeth, citizenship. Before, it was accepted that citizens were citizens, and after the end of slavery it was written in that all peoples born here, or all peoples that resided here for a period were citzens. The government MUST grant citizenship to all peoples that fall under these catagories. As you said, it made sense at the time, and look at where we are now. Entire caravans of people marching through thousands of miles of dangerous terrain because if they can get here, if they can have a birth here, if they can hide out long enough, they can secure citizenship. The amendment meant to grant citizenship to all slaves and indentured servants that had been denied before. Now it is being abused as a free ticket to ride. Or the sixteenth which gave the government(read: gave itself) the power to levy taxes without any restriction or moderation. As you can see, giving them the right to simply taken money from the people has worked out so very well. This was the right of the government to levy any tax, not the people shall not be taxed. By granting the right to the government, it has been taken away from the people.

Yes, those are all amendment. Changes that came later. Meaning, the document had to be amended in order to be applied to the society of the time of the amendment, because as it was originally written, it couldn't be used. Because it was ratified with a different society in mind. One made up by white, wealthy slave-owners.

So now getting back to you. You speak of the constitution writteh by men, by white men, by rich white men with no regard to anything or anyone other than themselves. You speak of generational inequalities in wealth and power. And you speak of using the constitution itself as a crowbar to fix it. And you may not like that analogy but that's what it will be.

It's not my responsibility what you assume by my words. I stated that the constitution, as it was written, does not work for today's society without making changes to it. I said this in response to another poster who threw out the blanket statement of "but the Constitution! You're too stupid to read!" I know those weren't the exact words, but that's the gist if his point and my counter point. You seem to be putting way too much into what I was actually saying.

The constitution itself is meant to be a check on the government, a barrier that denies it the ability to oppress the people of the nation.

Has it worked? Has the government, in the 231 years since the constitution has been around, been unable to oppress its people, whether in part or as a whole?

But I can assure you of this. No matter the law, no matter the reparation, no matter the policy seeing to balance some inequality from the past, it will be done by creating inequality in the other direction in the present. Either by taking directly from those deeped to have benefitted from it and giving to others, a redistribution of sorts, or some other government program which merely draws from a larger pool, those being taxed by, again, that troubling sixteenth amendment I stated earlier.

Agreed. And this happens because the writers of the constitution could not (or refused to?) foresee the changes tjis country underwent in the last 2 centuries. So the blame lies mainly with them, along with those who look to exploit the Constitution in present day, through both legal and criminal means.

I'm not going to deny that there are inequalities in the past. There are inequalities today, in every single nation on the planet. It's not a perfect world and it's not going to be. But if I can stress anything from this long and rambling entry then let it be this: You cannot change the past. What was done is done. It cannot be undone. Asians in WWII were interred wrongly. They were paid reparations. The black mark still remains. It doesn't go away. If you're sincere about dealing with generational inequalities then there is a conversation to be had there. It will not come from a constitutional amendment. It will not come from a federal law. It will not come from the jackboot of officers coming to take from one and given to another. If you want to fix generational inequality going forward then we have to move forward. Accept the past for what it is. Drop the malice, drop the hate, forgive whatever debts there are and build a better future because here's the dirty truth: There are debts in the past. Debts to previous generations. Those generations are dead. We do not hang the sins of the father, or the debts, upon the sons. And until we do that we will get what we have now: Hatred and violence on behalf of a bygone generation, claiming moral virtue in their names and revenge for their honor. If you try to use the constitution as a tool here, not only will it fail but it will invalidate any good it has done in history.

Once again, I'm in agreement. But all that you just wrote doesn't excuse the failures of the Constitution or the failures of the men who wrote it. You're right, it will fail, because it was fallible to begin with, which was my point in the first place.

AcademyofDrX wrote:I saw a quoted line, though I couldn't follow the indents: "I've heard your rhetoric from self hating white liberals who were indoctrinated at an early age."

The correct right-wing talking point is that self-hating white liberals like me were indoctrinated by Marxists at college. It's all in your handbook, do better at staying on message.

Disappointed but not surprised that the thread protesting police violence is now being used to glorify violence against protesters, in particular by commenters who are new to the site.

Sounds like someone needs a safe space.

There are mobs of people beating, burning and looting for months. Your playbook is to call them protestors. Maybe it'll happen to your business or house; wait you probably don't have either. Perhaps your parents though will have a unique experience, like the older Gentleman who was knocked out trying to extinguish a fire at his store. In your world he is expendable. In mine, those "protestors" are.

I find it a bit pathetic how die hard fans of Transformers have no sense or understanding of Loyalty and Honor.