I disagree that this is true. I think it was “bloody obvious” that people’s equality was being sold as a general principle, beyond the specific effects.
When MLK said “I have a dream that one day, people will be judged by the content of their character, not by the color of their skin”, it was bloody obvious that he was not saying “I have a dream that one day black guys will get some perks based on the color of their skin in order to remedy the effects of historical discrimination”, and no normal person would have taken it that way.
If the Supreme Court’s explicit reasoning behind the decision that was the greatest triumph, at the time, in the history of the civil rights movement does not qualify as what was being “sold” as the justification for anti-discrimination laws, and if I’m not entitled to believe Martin Luther King over you when it comes to what Martin Luther King was trying to persuade people about, then I think this is one of those times where we agree that we live in different worlds and stop wasting our time.
It was the legal justification for finding those laws unconstitutional. That’s not the same thing as the vision that people were buying into.
I didn’t see where MLK said that this was what he was trying to persuade people about. He was commenting on his views. Is that what he made his most inspiring speeches at the most pivotal times about?
but it’s not about denying a service to blacks only in a technical sense. In practice there are not going to be blacks who can’t get a timely, reasonably priced, fully equipped cab ride because of this. They have plenty of other services to choose from. Cab services overall are not very likely going to stop providing rides to blacks. It’s not very likely that any given black person is actually going to suffer any harm at all.
We’re not dealing with the same situation here. What’s the real world negative consequence of letting a new company give, I don’t know, a few thousand whites a year a ride in a whites-only cab? What larger evil does that support, and how and how much does it support it?
ridiculing a proposal to try to help keep whites safe from blacks. only blacks would ridicule such a proposal.
I don’t know why I even typed that though because it’s obvious some of you are actually in favor of discrimination … as long as it’s something you agree with naturally
Such racial discrimination is not and has never been about keeping anyone safe. It’s always been about reinforcing a social idea of superiority and inferiority.
Who are these “people?” The members of the Supreme Court are the people in power in question here.
I don’t really know why you brought up Martin Luther King, but you were mistaken about him. I can’t really argue against your sense of what was important about what he said. The fact is that what he was talking about were the harms caused by discrimination, which was my point. If your opinion is that you think it was all a big snow job and that Martin Luther King lied about true equality in his important speeches while secretly publishing his actual discriminatory reasoning in his own books and in Playboy interviews, then I respect that.
there are whites who actually think that way and what if they said that they are ‘afraid’ of blacks because they’ve been mugged by some black fella … then you agree that they should be allowed to have a white driver only cab service ?
Right, but they were focused on legal aspects of the issue.
It wasn’t about MLK specifically, but that was a well known speech and quote for a reason, that being that it summed up the notion that was inspiring and winning over the people.
This is about your assertion, in post #135, that the hard-and-fast rule is being “convenient[ly]” adopted, and my counterpoint that the same goes for the other side as well.
what if white women want a white female driver only service because they’re scared of black women as well ? lol …
or black women who want black women driver service only because they feel safer around black female drivers … you know, black and female just like her … are we cool with that ?(cringing while typing all of this) …
I don’t even know why this is even a debate … whether you want to argue about female safety is one thing, but this is by definition discrimination from whichever angle you want to look at it
To expand it a bit, it’s not just women. As a gay male (and not a very big or strong male at that) I’ve been assaulted, beaten, sexually come on to by guys who could EASILY have raped me and so on. (Why is it that some straight guys who think fags are bad want to rape us?..side point never mind) There are many situations where I would be happier and feel safer in an all gay environment. Even on lighter notes, I’ve said directly on this board that I’d be happier if straight people of both genders didn’t choose to hang out in gay bars and such.
So while it would personally benefit me to be able to discriminate against straight men, I can’t advocate for it to be legal. Open the door to discrimination and history proves that it won’t stop at the reasonable point (for any one persons definition of reasonable) that it was intended to.
Conceding someone’s “right to think” something is pointless since anyone can obviously think whatever they want, so generally that phrase is used rhetorically, and I assumed your subsequent paragraphs were arguments against that position and continued to argue the case. If that’s not what you meant, then we’ve been talking at cross-purposes.
if you really get down to it, personally I don’t have a problem with it … I have a niece of young adult age … whatever may keep her safer, I’m for it … but at the same time, this is … discrimination …
anyone can proclaim that they’re ‘afraid’ of certain people and thus use that to demand or make some type of service only for themselves … should that be allowed ?
There can’t be cross purposes when only one of us has a purpose. I’ve been making a pretty straightforward point over and over again. Your opinion is that the express basis for opposition to discrimination, as articulated by civil rights leaders at the time, is irrelevant because the talking points – opposition qua opposition – were what motivated people. OK, that’s your opinion.
Meanwhile I’ve demonstrated that the actual changes in society were explicitly premised on: the effects of discrimination. Which is my point.
OK. We’re in the same boat, then. It’s discrimination, and that’s OK.