Looks like RFK Jr. supports affirmative action.
(twitter.com)
Comments (75)
sorted by:
This is what happens when you start to think there might be a based Democrat. Turns out, nah. This delusional poison is bone deep.
Same thing with 95% of Republicans.
Did you happen to catch that interview with Mike "Putin started this unprovoked war and the American people need to be leaders of the world" Pence?
Generational bias. Affirmative action is so old that even Republicans think its normal.
Probably a bit of that as well. And I'm ok with people not having an opinion on it.
What's going to be interesting is seeing how many establishment Republicans suddenly come out hard against racial discrimination now that it's shown to be popular.
Pence was never a Republican.
You need to let go of your team jersey and realize that the Republicans were always your enemy.
I took this particular blackpill 4 or 5 years ago. Republicans are not good, they're just markedly less bad than Democrats.
Parties are best understood as teams. Club teams. People act to consolidate power with everything that entails. I think you find the slimiest people deep in the party machinery. They don't believe in anything but power.
I think in certain states you can be a good guy and put that R next to your name. How often that happens, I dunno.
Does 'based' mean that he agrees with you 100% of the time?
By Democratic standards, he is extraordinarily based. Hell, he's probably way too based to have a chance. I wish he'd be less based.
Based means not being a DIE shill, and it looks like he's a DIE shill.
It's amazing -- when he talks about vaccines or the corrupt intelligence agencies, he's clear, provides specifics, and it all makes sense.
When he starts talking about things like this or "climate change," he starts waffling, speaking in unquantifiable generalities, and defers to appeals to authority. It becomes very clear that he no longer actually knows what he's talking about.
Everybody has their blind spots. Some people simply have sacred cows, and they can't introspect their way out of the situation.
It's like the bowl of poison M&Ms, except the analogy actually works here.
The problem with granting any ground to racist programs like Affirmative Action, means we end up where we are now. The problem with this fellow right here, is that he defends that like it wasn't observably and painfully a failure.
And it was the poster definition of slippery slope in practice, as everyone opposed to it knew it was back then. When it was sold as a policy it was "this isn't racial quotas, this is just guaranteeing everyone gets a fair shake during interviews and hiring" and within 5 years it was racial quotas to ensure you were doing that 'fair shake' thing.
Affirmative Action had its partner slogan of Equal Opportunity. Everyone who followed the AA mandates could brand themselves as "An Equal Opportunity employer" in their advertisements and solicitations. It was a sham because all of the impositions of the policy were that you did NOT give equal opportunity to anyone because you first filtered them by 'race' and 'gender,' and later they tacked on 'sexual orientation' because gays and 'religious affiliation' because muslims. And people would want to know if you were an Equal Opportunity employer (caps palpable) and you had a legal barrier to replying to that honestly lest you be in violation of a technicality of this policy since they owned those two words now.
This is a fundamental issue of our times and culture. Disagreeing on this isn't merely missing out on a 100% compatibility mark. And he is doing more than disagreeing, he is defending the provable failure of the last 30 years with very modern, very Marxist reasoning that they didn't even use then because they lied about what it WAS then. He's buying the premise of what it turned out Affirmative Action IS and defending THAT. It is beyond unconscionable.
Let's, for the sake of argument, say that's true. Is the answer really to let in blacks at six times the rate of whites, or whatever, when they have the same score?
I wish these people would be open about exactly what it is they're talking about. Exactly who is being affected, both negatively and positively, and if that's fair. It's all well and good to say 'racism bad, we should do something about that,' but that's not what this court case is about. This isn't about diversity. It isn't about racism. Well, it is, but not the main kind (white-on-black) that liberals recognize.
I've heard it so much today. That this is discrimination against blacks, that this is banning them from college, this is segregation. No, this is righting some of the unfair policies that targeted races that on average performed well. It was utter bullshit, deserved to be overturned, and never should have been allowed in the first place.
These cowards need to speak clearly about what it is they're advocating for, and what questions this case actually answered.
This wasn't a referendum on Racism™, this wasn't a referendum on blacks.
It's a sad state of affairs when this lib is at the lowest my third favorite candidate, and the other two also leave varying degrees of sour taste in my mouth. We need better candidates, man. I like Trump, but he's sorta retarded. I respect some of what DeSantis has done, but I think he's snake. I like a few of RFK's takes, and appreciate that he's at least mostly anti-establishment, but he's a lib through-and-through. I want better choices, fuck.
Indirectly it was a referendum on blacks because left or right if we're being honest, we know only one group benefitted from it. And why wouldn't they? That's the group it was specifically designed to benefit even if no one ever said it explicitly.
We all know what inner city means. What bad neighborhood means. What "youths" means. The polite euphemisms we create to avoid stating the obvious ugly truth. AA was created to favor blacks and it going away will undo that. But colleges are about to become much safer places.
AA was created to favor Democrats. It is a matter of indifference whether blacks are harmed or benefited by it, as long as all they have can be claimed to be a political favor.
There were some people on social media yesterday denouncing Clarence Thomas for having allegedly benefited from AA and now voting to outlaw it. Because if you ever benefit from AA, even if you didn't ask for it, you are in their debt forever.
And how stupid does it sound to say “I have second rate employees, but my staff is so diverse”
Also - the racist administrators were basically admitting ultra rich Nigerian princes. Not the poor US blacks. Because they cared about the optics, not the country.
I agree 100%, you just described my views on the current options to a T.
Yup. Only good thing I can say is, at least there are semi-palatable people in both parties this time around; that wasn't really the case last time around. You had Trump, or you had Covidiot Gun Grabbing Authoritarian Dem #XX.
Question is, in the unlikely scenario that neither Trump, DeSantis, or RFK make the ballot...am I writing in Trump, or RFK?
The first time I voted for president, I wrote in Ron Paul :)
I would pull the lever for either Trump or DeSantis without too much pain though. They are speed bumps at least.
My feeling/experience is that "black americans" are unlikely to be benefiting from these policies in the first place.
Most of the people I've seen benefit are either white women or people who's parents are from other countries - completely uninvolved in the so called "history of discrimination in the us".
Moron just torpedoed his whole presidential bid.
He's a democrat, so this is just blatant pandering to his base.
RFK Jr is such a diverse mélange of things he supports that it's kind of amazing to watch.
It's almost a pity I don't follow liberal echo-chambers, as I'm slightly curious what the horde of NPCs think about it. Probably mumble something about 'anti-vaccine' before stumbling on their way, or something.
On the contrary, this probably helps him.
Yeah, he's a Democrat. This is perfectly acceptable to his voting base.
Wasn't seeing a lot of support for him in his reply feed. Almost universally, "well, that was good while it lasted."
I think Biden has the racist vote pretty well locked down.
It makes me fucking sick. Institutionalized racism is so fucking normal on the Left that they barely even comprehend it. They just assert that race control is good and necessary, and it's totes not racism if they are subsidizing morally superior races, while sanctioning degenerate ones.
I'm genuinely going to have to teach my kids that racism is wrong because no one else will.
He must be talking about the Irish or the Chinese? Both of them are being discriminated against in college admissions. Maybe that's what he means by 'going back centuries'
Probably not. He means Saint Floyd of Dindu.
Jews as well, but not 'for centuries'. That's why it's so hard to find a Jew on a college campus.
Do some of these people sometimes sit back and wonder why the black community (I'm starting to dislike the moniker btw) is way worse off today than they were before the Civil Rights Act?
Just kidding, I'm aware that this was the goal all along.
Yes, it's all white racism. There was barely any of that during Jim Crow, but right now it's so bad that they can't get ahead even with preferential treatment.
I know this is a joke, but I'm reminded of the various polls people have done re: racial percentages in the American population.
If the same people spouting this are the same ones whom think blacks make up 30/40/50% of the population, they might honestly believe it.
It's amazing to hear people really argue that, without realizing that's what they're arguing. It's all 'historical wounds' and 'past wrongs' and 'generational wealth.'
Yeah, than, like what you were responding to, and joking about, how come they're worse off now? If it's wounds and wrongs, shouldn't that be - even if slowly - healing? Considering things were "less racist" shouldn't things have gotten at the very least mildly better?
The victimhood narrative is very frustrating, and doesn't hold up to basic scrutiny.
By the way, did you watch any of that John Doyle video that was posted recently? That was pretty interesting, to hear all the college "educated" black liberals voice their opinions.
Interesting way of saying they squander every opportunity they have.
Affirmative action is not only unfair to hard workers (of all races) and inevitably destructive to society, it doesn't work. The kind of people who want to benefit from affirmative action have externalized responsibility, they'll take what you give them and demand more rather than work to improve their own situation.
Anyone else should hate affirmative action even if they benefit from it, because degrading. It's saying you can't make it on merit, you need to be coddled.
With AA saying that 12% of engineers must be black no matter what, black people have two paths to being an engineer:
If there's only enough qualified blacks to fill 6% of engineering jobs then the incompetent have a chance at the other 6% of positions. Without AA if you tear down your own race you're still not getting that job, there's just fewer black engineers.
This same principle applies to everything. Under AA instead of merit, an individual black person personally benefits from the rest of blacks being screwups. That makes it self-perpetuating.
Self-perpetuating = Reflecting reality
Ugh. And he is so good on other things. Terrible take
well yeah, he's a democrat. He's just the only democrat willing to investigate the covid crimes.
RFK vs DeSantis 2024
On the plus side, he acknowledges that "the effects ... are self-perpetuating" or in other words black people are not going to become normal, civilized people if left on their own.
That is in fact the reality.
The only delusional part is he thinks the cause was slavery and discrimination, when the reality is it's always been self-perpetuating -- it's been self-perpetuating for the past hundred thousand years. There's no place in Africa, sub-Saharan, that's ever had a rule of law Western style civilization except when imposed on them by colonialism.
Racism and discrimination is the result, not the cause.
I supppse the question is: If negro failure is self-perpetuating, even if it is cause by muh slavery, how long will affirmative action take to fix it? 5 years? A decade? A generation? Forever?
Is there any indication that putting black people in positions they aren't qualified for has accomplished anything except having more black people unable to contribute to society in visible positions?
Yeah, and the same is true of Africa north of the Sahara, Asia, Latin America and a lot of places in Europe, including Russia.
Then I was too specific in attempting to not be too dark. There's no place sub-Saharan that had a civilization.
Just look at the wikipedia for civilization.
Pictures from Mesopotamia, Egypt, China, Greece, Persia, the Americas. Ctrl-F "Africa": 0/0.
It's not exactly dark. If this is true (I'm not sure if Nigeria and Mali count as 'civilizations'), it's but the current state of affairs at a given moment. 2000 years ago (which is the blink of an eye in world-historical terms) there was no 'pale white' place that had a civilization. One Muslim traveler wrote that the farther north you go, the paler people get, and the stupider they get. Obviously, history proved that they were not incapable of such a thing, and now they have in fact surpassed previous civilizations and most of those places are total basketcases.
The Sahara is a formidable barrier, so it's not exactly surprising that isolated people are less developed than Persians who can easily copy the civilization of Mesopotamia and then build on that. The people in the Canary Islands weren't Stone Age savages because they were white, but because they were isolated.
I'm not sure if Africa will ever be a great place. I do hope so, because in the 21st century, it will be the center of Christianity, let alone faithful Christianity. Perhaps the values that made the West great can make Africa great. I have nightmare visions of a Europe that has sunk into complete chaos and degeneracy, and we have impeccably dressed African Christians with a monocle visiting us like a safari tour, whispering to each others in a horrified manner: "they say these people castrate their own children because their priests, whom they call "scientists", tell them they should do it!"
Every place with people had writing, agriculture, buildings and the cornerstones of civilization for at least 5000 years except sub-Saharan and Australia.
I think you're getting your facts wrong there. The Germanic peoples of Europe certainly did not have writing 5000 years ago. Hell, the Greeks did not have writing 2800 years ago - they had to re-invent (actually copy it from the Phoenicians) it after the Iron Age collapse. Almost no one had writing 5000 years ago.
It's always going to come down to what definition you want to use. Is it writing, or proto-writing, is it cave painting - but whatever standard you want to use everywhere had it in spades compared to sub-Saharan and Aus.
Proto-writing for example:
7000 BC Eastern Europe and China
4000 BC India
3500 BC Mesopotamia
500 AD Nigeria
Not to leave out the Americas, here's a 10000 BC frieze. Sure looks like they're telling a story of some kind.
Here's a sword from 3000 years ago in Germany. Absolutely gorgeous even after having been in the ground for all that time. You need civilization to make something like this - they didn't just wake up one day and make this - and consequently there's nothing even remotely like this from Africa proper.
It seems to me that you moved the goalposts to something that you think Africa won't satisfy.
Here as well. Suddenly metallurgy is the standard for civilization? And of course, these things move about a lot. Was this actually produced in Germany? Even in late Roman times, 'Germany' was not 'civilized', but tribal. Why do you think there was such movement of peoples?
Well, 5000 years ago there were no Romans. The traditional founding date for Rome is 753 BC. I'm not sure at what point they copied their alphabet from the Etruscans, but it was after that date.
Not very surprising. If he didn't, he wouldn't have a snowflake's chance of winning the Dem primary.
That said, the thing that worries me is that he brings it in a so much less obnoxious manner that is more likely to get people to support AA.
He also advocates for putting people that don't support his climate "change" grift in jail.
I hope he wrecks Biden's primary cake walk but he'd be a disastrous President.
Well he’s a democrat
I told y'all so. I'm curious as to why there's this trend on the dissident right to glom onto iconoclastic current or former Democrats and then act surprised when these characters still maintain most of their leftist ideology. RFK Jr. and Tulsi both. I myself will not support these people unless they completely and openly renounce their former ideology.
Can't win em all
Truly surprising stuff.
Just because he's better than 95% of his party doesn't mean he's wildly different than them.
The only Affirmative Action I want to see is blatant pro-white preferential accommodation.
Still in favor of Affirmative Action? Didn't think so.
Well what do you know. A broken clock IS wrong all but twice a day.