The comment was intended for posters here in the TB as I've witnessed them first-hand. Regarding double-standards outside this forum, of course they exist in all manner of iterations. Assuming that the data is normalized (which I assume that it is in this case) then it would seem that the comparisons are clear cut. However, given my own life experience, I'd ask how these pan out across all other racial lines. I would expect that the asian demographic would shed more light on said generalizations. Moreover, I'd guess that how immigrants fare when compared to anyone native-born would add another layer of consideration. Personally, I despise double-standards. If one possesses the experience and expertise to do a job, then a meritocracy is ideal. I have no illusions about how the real world plays out with respect to people garnering favors over more qualified persons. However, having seen how most of the world offers far less opportunity in general, I am not as quick to assume that we are born with a predestined path in the US. I've known far too many people that have accomplished more with far less to take such generalizations at face value without a single question regarding their results. Regarding the justice system, the data that I've seen is pretty convincing. I'd agree that being black and male would actually be a factor against you in the criminal justice system. The vast majority of the accounting for this disparity is due to the drug laws in place. Rather than create more laws to ensure equal treatment under the law is accorded for drug violations, I'd simply do away with the laws regarding drugs... (and any victim-less crime for that matter).
It's a go-to option for a lot of posters on this board in the hopes of scaring off actual discourse. Can't remember if it was this thread or not, but Teeray pointed out a number of things pioneered under the Nazi regime that are used by many societies today. To my knowledge, he's not received any retorts that he must sympathize with the Nazi party. Were he perceived as a conservative voice in here, he'd have long been hung in effigy.
Hence, this is largely how the discourse is laid out.
Guy made a choice. There are consequences to that. I hope more of these continue to surface. I doubt it will stop those precious few MMQBs out there stating that this was excessive, but I am less concerned about their outrage than the fact that this guy will no longer be a threat to anyone else.
While pstall is correct that human trafficking hasn't taken a hit over the past few decades, I don't think I'd be able to find anyone that is okay with slavery as an institution. What I do think is that a lot of people would overlook that a many of the aspects of slavery have been carried over into an increasingly crushing debt paradigm that most Americans now employ. Tack on a government's ability to confiscate more currency and property through its regulatory arm, and what one is missing to complete the picture of complete servitude is ownership of one's own children (which Native Americans can attest to how that has been respected) and freedom of mobility (which those of Japanese descent would contend is another sticking point). Regarding the invocation of slavery, the first thought is one of viscous white southern plantation owners. There's a reason for that as they set the most heinous examples. As people, we are prone to automatically consider the worst of all scenarios to further the hyperbole parable that has been highlighted and exploited by Hollywood and politicians alike. I think if people understood more truth rather than the extremes to feed hyperbole, the discourse would be more reasonable. Then again... this is people that we're talking about. Hyperbolic news has overtaken journalism for news for a reason.
I think he's referring to how slavery is seen as a purely caucasion institution when it isn't. Though it isn't stated outright, it does appear to be the underpinning point to set a dichotomous view to apply to people today, in this forum, and mostly with ad hominem attacks in mind.
I don't know enough about most of them to comment. But for the majority of the ones that I do know, I don't think that the comparison is apt. In fact, it isn't relevant to the actual heart of the issue in my opinion. If you're intent on playing out this ridiculous scenario of how symbols are uniformly responsible for people's actions, then you've kept this train wreck right on schedule. If you're intent on getting at the heart of the matter, then you're asking the wrong question.
^^This is you talking about what you think I believe. This is me telling you what I believe. Being an asshole was never supposed to be against the law. People thinking that people are assholes was never supposed to be against the law. I pretty much take the Trey Parker stance on the issue. The 14th amendment doesn't invoke some Harrison Bergeron stance on the world to make everyone the same. The 14th amendment was created for the redundant purpose that all legal citizens are provided equal protection with respect to the law. The 14th amendment was not the protection to purchase whatever you want whenever you want it. How private entities run their business is not up to people that have no say in those business decisions. It's not up to the government to raid the public coffers to bail out favored businesses when they fail for whatever reason. This isn't about reverse racism. This is about actual tolerance rather than purported tolerance. Tolerance is coexisting with people regardless of their views so long as no legal citizens' rights are violated. I was simply pointing out the hypocrisy of being okay with any number of businesses shutting down their section of sales geared towards a specific demographic while not being okay with another business shutting down their section of sales that was never offered towards a specific demographic. Do I agree with either view? It shouldn't matter. If someone owns a business, I can't demand that they make decisions as if it were my business. I can opt to take my patronage elsewhere (which I often do), but without becoming a business partner with a say in how things are run, anything else is compulsion by force.
Because some people don't recall or perhaps don't even know how the DSM classified homosexuality as a mental disorder not so long ago. When someone makes being an asshole against the law, get ready for someone to point the finger at you for the crime of being offensive. For the time being, we'll wrap up these arguments into nuance of how public facing companies aren't allowed to exercise their rights for the purpose of equal treatment. All the while, we'll pick and choose what equal treatment is, and what rights are worth protecting.