Who wants to use the “N” word?

a reply to: Spider879

A little more about the specifics of which I rant regarding Disparate Impact:

Disparate Impact:
A theory of liability that prohibits an employer from using a facially neutral employment practice that has an unjustified adverse impact on members of a protected class. A facially neutral employment practice is one that does not appear to be discriminatory on its face; rather it is one that is discriminatory in its application or effect.

In other words: if you run background checks on residents before signing a lease and you will disqualify any who have felony records, you are violating a "protected class's rights" due to Disparate Impact. Does not matter if you apply the same check, the same disqualifying bar equally, regardless of race, color creed etc you are still acting in a discriminatory fashion due to the "protected class".

Really?

BTW...the above also applies to hiring practices. Does not matter how equally you apply the rules.. you are being discriminatory.

Bull effing shist!!!

a reply to: bbracken677

First: We have laws that penalize robbing a person of their civil rights. Do we need hate crimes on top of that? If so, why do those same hate crimes do not apply in the opposite direction? Are we truly equal, or not?

Yes they do go in the opposite directions if you don't know that then perhaps the culprit is media?? btw those rash of knock out games the majority of those caught were charged with hate crimes.

My point is that when the govt starts screwing around trying to "make things right" how often do they actually fix something and how often does the law of "unintentional consequences" come into play?

Here I can't argue with you government always decline into mission creep whether in war or peace.

What has the govt done to fix poverty? Have they helped the poor blacks or trapped them into a never ending cycle of poverty? Have they improved our educational system or introduced the mother of all clusterfunks? Regardless of how you feel about the Affordable Care act, you have to admit it is neither affordable nor a success. I can go on and on....

Well quite a lot actually prior to FDR's great society programs the vast majority of Americans were living under the poverty line,the rise of the American middle class was a direct result of government programs off course this was applied unequally to blacks but all the same the rise of the middle class came about by gov. actions
When Affirmative Action Was White':
www.nytimes.com...
pls klik when you have time.

you have to admit it is neither affordable nor a success.

No I don't have to admit that unless we are looking at totally different numbers.

When one group, one person, one whatever is placed above another by the govt whose constitution clearly states that all are created equal and there are amendments assuring this... exercises clear hypocrisy by making it lawful to do just that, then I just want to scream.

Well perhaps if those laws were applied equally in day to day situation there would be no need for extra laws

a reply to: bbracken677

In other words: if you run background checks on residents before signing a lease and you will disqualify any who have felony records, you are violating a "protected class's rights" due to Disparate Impact. Does not matter if you apply the same check, the same disqualifying bar equally, regardless of race, color creed etc you are still acting in a discriminatory fashion due to the "protected class".

Really?

BTW...the above also applies to hiring practices. Does not matter how equally you apply the rules.. you are being discriminatory.

If the above is true and there is no ulterior motives other than a background check then I agree this is Bs and a good example of mission creep.

a reply to: bbracken677
It should not be legal to deny a person a home or job due to prior convictions. It is incompatible with our justice system, which is based on a rehabilitation system. If a person cannot find a place to live or a job due to past mistakes already paid for, then we might as well just execute people convicted of crimes.

a reply to: TKDRL

It should not be legal to deny a person a home or job due to prior convictions.

The fellow who wants to rent in your building has four conviction for arson. If you know this and the building burns down, killing 20, do you have responsibility? How about multiple convictions for rape? Setting up a meth lab? Pimping girls from his former apartment?

It is incompatible with our justice system, which is based on a rehabilitation system.

I know the politicians say that in order to sound humane, but it isn't, I don't believe it ever was, and I pray that it never will be.

Consider a driving while intoxicated conviction. The State Board of Penal Psychiatry determines he has an addictive personality. If he were to be rehabilitated, he'd be in some type of psych ward where doctors could do anything they wanted to him. His sentence wouldn't be three years, it would be however long it took for the State to declare him "Rehabilitated." Of course he might never be cured, and would serve life in the psych ward.

But that's OK, because the scientists are working for his good and trying to rehabilitate him, right?

Imagine what happens when you're picked up during a mass protest and the psychs say you have oppositional defiant disorder, and they keep you until you've learned to accept authority.

If a person cannot find a place to live or a job due to past mistakes already paid for, then we might as well just execute people convicted of crimes.

Do you think that's happening now? A lot of honest people who happen to have a conviction are homeless because of the conviction? Or are the vast majority homeless because they have a drug or mental health problem?

a reply to: charles1952

The fellow who wants to rent in your building has four conviction for arson. If you know this and the building burns down, killing 20, do you have responsibility? How about multiple convictions for rape? Setting up a meth lab? Pimping girls from his former apartment?

Should anyone be held responsible for the acts of another? Where does it end? I sold someone a car, and they take said car and decide to go bowling for people with it, am I also responsible? I sell someone a gun, and they decide to use that gun to take out their perceived enemies, am I responsible? I say no. How can one be held responsible for another person's actions, and where do we draw the line? Nobody is born a criminal, if it were like that, any landlord could be held liable for a person that snapped and went bad with no indication of the fact, if equality reigns supreme at least.

I know the politicians say that in order to sound humane, but it isn't, I don't believe it ever was, and I pray that it never will be.

Consider a driving while intoxicated conviction. The State Board of Penal Psychiatry determines he has an addictive personality. If he were to be rehabilitated, he'd be in some type of psych ward where doctors could do anything they wanted to him. His sentence wouldn't be three years, it would be however long it took for the State to declare him "Rehabilitated." Of course he might never be cured, and would serve life in the psych ward.

But that's OK, because the scientists are working for his good and trying to rehabilitate him, right?

Imagine what happens when you're picked up during a mass protest and the psychs say you have oppositional defiant disorder, and they keep you until you've learned to accept authority.

Not sure where you are going with this, but it doesn't really work that way. You are given a sentence, and you either serve that sentence and pay your debt to society, or you accept a parole, which is getting out early, in exchange for a lot of rights being tossed out the window . Even if you serve your sentence in full and don't take the BS agreement through parole, you are still a second class citizen. You lose so-called natural rights, through backround checks.......

Do you think that's happening now? A lot of honest people who happen to have a conviction are homeless because of the conviction? Or are the vast majority homeless because they have a drug or mental health problem?

I couldn't guess as to the numbers really, but in my experience through charity organizations meant to help ex convicts getting on their feet, I will tell you the number of people that are homeless and jobless due to criminal records in the tristate area is staggering. Even those that are honestly trying to do the right thing and turn their life around are at a huge disadvantage.

a reply to: TKDRL

So you are fine with a sex offender, a child molester living next to you and your children in an apartment complex? What about a nice apt complex that is gated...one where you are, in effect, paying for safety in addition to amenities?

Not all apartment complexes have stringent background requirements. Some do...those who offer a safe place to those who desire to live without fear of having their car broken into, stolen or their home burglarized. Those places have stringent requirement and are applied equally across the board. It is those places where the residents have the right to the expectation of safety.

What about a bank? Should background checks be eliminated for jobs where specific employees handle large sums of money? What about a retirement home? Is it ok for employees of a retirement home to have felonious assault records? What about common freakin sense??

I understand what you are saying, but those who have behaved in an antisocial manner to the degree they have records should not be given a carte blanche access to those they have wronged in the past so we can be politically correct. Not until they have established a few years without additional antisocial behavior.

a reply to: Diderot

You know, I have a story to confirm this. So the other week I had met a black guy from a rich area and he is a producer. So I gave him some music samples and because they used this N word, he wouldn't even talk to me after - like not even a word, or even look at me. Lol he happened to be different I guess, but it wasn't like some undertone racist thing that I was trying to show him - it was just 2Pac.

In my case, I'm white from San Francisco - an incredibly diverse city. The culture of the area brought me to appreciate black american music greatly, so the way I view black people are like brothers and sisters, just like any other race although African Americans have been more open to that kind of idea, of 'worldly unity' rather then other cultures, I know that from dealing with them.

So I am used to black men calling me N (if they use the word), but even then it is after I have gained a level of friendship with them and trust that I will not say the word. This is because the word used to be an example of hatred that white slave masters called their slaves - it was the later generation's choice to take a word of complete negativity and exchange it for a simple meaning of 'dude' or 'man' mostly just to fill in sentences.

a reply to: greyer
Like I stated earlier context mean a lot and individuals means alot when using the term call it P.C all you want but some black folks don't wanna hear it or be associated with it and it's not just "rich" blacks like your friend but many a middle class and working class black folks, using the N word even back in the day was just not kool matter o fact you couldn't even swear before our family matriarchs aunts and gray haired types no matter who and how old you are and my family is not unique.

a reply to: bbracken677
I say yes to all. If someone harms another, than punish them for that. Punishing people because they "might" harm another is counter-productive. Ever seen what happens to people when they are stuck under a negative label no matter what they do? Most decide "Well, no matter what I do I am treated like a scumbag, might as well be one then. # the world". That makes our western belief of justice system rehabilitation a joke. It keeps the prison bubble growing though.

It has more effect the younger it starts. There is a reason that a huge percentage of kids labeled bad seeds become worse. I was one of them kids, luckily I lived long enough and had family willing to help me break away from all that.

a reply to: greyer

"So I am used to black men calling me N (if they use the word), but even then it is after I have gained a level of friendship with them and trust that I will not say the word. This is because the word used to be an example of hatred that white slave masters called their slaves - it was the later generation's choice to take a word of complete negativity and exchange it for a simple meaning of 'dude' or 'man' mostly just to fill in sentences."

A word as powerful as the "N" word can be turned on its head and be used in a positive, reaffirming way. The level of friendship that you gained was earned by your fellowship.

There are 2 different "N" words.

The first is a tool of humiliation, emasculation, and dehumanization.

The second is a well deserved mockery of the feebleness of bigotry.

Guess which word will prevail.