*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[oskar]

The reasoning in this case was that legislators had requested voter data by demographic, and later passed this law. It seems to me that they are making a correlation/causation link and I'm not seeing any evidence for that.

Why would they request a voter breakdown by race when the purpose of the law is to prevent voter fraud?
And it isn't about just photo ID's. They systematically inconvenienced people based on race, and the supreme court agreed. There is a clear causation. They closed voting places that were primarily used by black people. They changed voting hours to later in the day because black people tended to vote earlier. You seem to know a good deal about it, but the actual supreme court document seems to have escaped you.

[BananaStand]

Why would they request a voter breakdown by race when the purpose of the law is to prevent voter fraud?
And it isn't about just photo ID's. They systematically inconvenienced people based on race, and the supreme court agreed. There is a clear causation. They closed voting places that were primarily used by black people. They changed voting hours to later in the day because black people tended to vote earlier. You seem to know a good deal about it, but the actual supreme court document seems to have escaped you.

Then justice was served. What's your beef?

[oskar]

Then justice was served. What's your beef?

The only reason I asked is to see if I can find anything you would view as racist. If you don't think a law that the supreme court agreed targeted black people with surgical precision was racist, then I don't have to try to convince you of anything, because nothing can be racist in your eyes.

[BananaStand]

The only reason I asked is to see if I can find anything you would view as racist. If you don't think a law that the supreme court agreed targeted black people with surgical precision was racist, then I don't have to try to convince you of anything, because nothing can be racist in your eyes.

You're going to have to do more than just point to an outcome that disproportionally affects one segment of the population and then claim that segment is being victimized. That's like the reddest of red flags to me. Demanding equality of outcome, and then playing an oppressor/oppressed victimization game whenever you don't get it, is a deplorable method for influencing policy.

It's entirely possible that these guys in Starbucks just didn't like being asked to leave. For whatever entitled bullshit reason, they felt that they had some kind of right to occupy space inside a private business, without patronizing that business. And what you have there is a simple pissing match, not racist oppression.

The result in this case is the EXACT result that I literally fear will cause a civil war in this country. In this case, the conflict is de-escalated because of Starbucks' willingness to succumb to the radical leftists demands. First, it's to fire, shame, and besmirch the white oppressor, and then to brainwash the remaining employees into thinking exactly the way they identity politics ideologues demand that they think. That game is going to end real fucking bad.

because nothing can be racist in your eyes.

You've only presented me with two samples for evaluation. One is the starbuck's incident where the employee was simply enforcing company policy against two guys who deliberately chose to be stubborn ass holes. The other is a clear as mud controversy over a piece of legislation that is heavily disagreed upon among high-ranking justices.

I think it's pretty shitty to accuse me of having an overall philosophy of dismissing racial complaints based on these two murky-as-fuck situations. Yes racism exists. And it's bad. And I hope it's discovered, stopped, prosecuted, and punished whenever it happens. But that doesn't mean I'm about to blame white privilege, or rail against some nefarious anglo-saxon dominance heirarchy conspiracy. That's a fucked up game. And it's about political power, not equality.

Certain issues disproportionally affect black people because black people are disproportionally poor. They're disproportionally poor because of individual behaviors that affect prosperity. Your chances of living in poverty in America are less than 10% if you simply A) Finish high school B) don't have babies out of wedlock and C) Dont' have a baby before age 20. That's it. White privilege isn't making black boys drop out of school. White privilege isn't knocking up black teens. White privilege isn't preventing black couples from getting married and raising their kids in a cohesive nuclear family.

Show me where black kids are being denied opportunities, and I'll cry "racism" right along with you. But if you're going to point to inequalities of outcome, I'm just gonna shake my head.

[OngBonga]

I guarantee every single employee will pass. It'll be like when I got my fork lift license. You basically have to be missing an arm, or blind, to fail.

A given company will do this shit because they fear negative publicity or legal problems if one of their white employees fucks up by doing their job at a minority. So all the company gives a fuck about is signatures. All staff have signed to say "yeah we get it" so the company can bask in the good publicity that being racially aware brings.

Noone will get fired, because companies will also fear those consequences.

Our Starbucks employee got reassigned to another cafe, as I understand. That's not fired.

[oskar]

I guarantee every single employee will pass. It'll be like when I got my fork lift license. You basically have to be missing an arm, or blind, to fail.

A given company will do this shit because they fear negative publicity or legal problems if one of their white employees fucks up by doing their job at a minority. So all the company gives a fuck about is signatures. All staff have signed to say "yeah we get it" so the company can bask in the good publicity that being racially aware brings.

Noone will get fired, because companies will also fear those consequences.

Our Starbucks employee got reassigned to another cafe, as I understand. That's not fired.

Yes. correct. I don't understand why this is difficult. Starbucks has to do this.

[OngBonga]

Yes. correct. I don't understand why this is difficult. Starbucks has to do this.

From a business pov, yes they do. The screeching banshess buy their coffee. It's business.

Still, they could have noted that their cafes are not public toilets or waiting rooms and insisted this had fuck all to do with race, and I might have bought a grossly overpriced tea from them out of respect for their position.

[wufwugy]

They systematically inconvenienced people based on race

How does this compare to what happened in control districts?

[BananaStand]

Why would they request a voter breakdown by race when the purpose of the law is to prevent voter fraud?

I haven't seen where the two were specifically connected. Those could just be two things that happened. If your livelihood is dependent on election results, I would think that you would be interested in all sorts of data. Do we know for a fact that they ONLY asked for voter breakdown by race? Do we know for a fact that they had no access to voter data broken down by age, by income, or by any of dozens of other demographic factors??

And it isn't about just photo ID's.

Really? Every photo-ID legislation is accused of being about racism. It doesn't work the other way around?

They systematically inconvenienced people based on race,

That's a speculative accusation

and the supreme court agreed.

A possibly activist court agreed. Another court, also possibly activist, disagreed. So who knows what the "right" conclusion is. I'd say the picture here is about as clear as mud. So I'm really curious how you're so sure this is all driven by pure, malevolent racism.

There is a clear causation. They closed voting places that were primarily used by black people. They changed voting hours to later in the day because black people tended to vote earlier.

So??? There are probably dozens of reasons that certain polling location might be closed or moved. There are probably dozens of reasons why voting hours are what they are. It's possible that those reasons are benevolent. It's possible that they're not. But if they're not, it's possible they could be motivated by something other than racism.

It seems ridiculous to me that legislators would want to specifically suppress black people. A more effective game, would be to suppress low income voters. That's still bad, but it's not racist. If those voters just happen to be mostly black....that's black people's problem.