In what way did Jim Crow Laws have the core idea that blacks “shouldn’t be held to the same standards as everyone else because they can’t do anything about their own inferiority”?
And based on your OP –
How are young black males needing the government to help them “every step of the way” be described as “Jim Crow all over again.”
Do you see Jim Crow Laws as some sort of government giveaway for blacks?
Your notions would be laughable if they didn’t scream of ignorance of a terrible period in our history.
Jim Crow’s core idea was that black people are inferior (and therefore should be shunned). LHOD’s core idea is that black people are inferior (and therefore should be helped).
Disadvantaged is not the same as inferior. Not everyone shares the Randian/sociopathic faith that people are always at fault for their misfortunes. Just because you do doesn’t mean that **Left Hand of Dorkness **does.
So, tell me, in what respect does LHOD feel that black boys are disadvantaged in the scenario under discussion?
How do they know not to play it against you? 
How about some of those many games you’ve won?
Or is this all in your imagination? :smack:
Or is this all in YOUR imagination? :smack: indeed.
By ( among many other things ) not having a role model in the school ? The very thing you mentioned in the OP of this thread ?
Exactly. And LHOD also mentions that teachers are overwhelmingly female, yet doesn’t say anything about boys of other races not having role models. Instead, he focuses on “these black boys.” Apparently LHOD feels that groups other than black boys will be fine despite their lack of role models.
WERE there other such boys there ? And did the subject come up for him to say “yes” or “no” anyway ?
You fucking pussy. You have made a claim and utterly failed to back it up, such behavior being exactly what you have accused others of doing in this thread. Obviously you recognize that **glee **is capable of calling you on your bullshit, so you dance around the issue like a drunken buffoon.
No, he says that white male teachers constitute a sizable minority, and that white male students have positive role models at home and in their communities, unlike the black students, who don’t. If you’re just going to straight up lie about shit that can easily be checked with a click of the mouse, why not just shut the fuck up?
I’m assuming from the responses that nobody who is both honest and able to rub a couple of brain cells together without borrowing from a friend has any questions about the accuracy of Rand Rover’s interpretations of what I said. On the off chance that I’m wrong, please lemme know, and I’m happy to explain. Otherwise, I confess I’m kind of enjoying this failed pitting.
Or have I?
You suppose I didn’t know that? You suppose I just responded to someone about chess at random?
Which is just more conjecture on LHOD’s part, which you and other liberal douches here accept hook, line and sinker because it comports with your prejudices.
Let’s not lose sight of the big picture here. I’m perfectly fine with removing obstacles and guaranteeing everyone an equal opportunity. What I’m against are (i) programs that infantilize minorities and treat them as inferior* and (ii) programs that seek to hire minorities based solely on their status as minorities. LHOD wrote an OP that combined of these and wrapped it all up in his own cite-free analysis that others accepted whole-heartedly (and empty-headedly), which got my dander up.
*Der Trihs, “disadvantaged” is just another word for inferior, which adds that the inferioirity is perhaps temporary and due to outside forces. I don’t see how that term changes anything.
Yeah. You have.
No, you responded to someone who asked you to back up a claim that you made. And watching you run from it like a scalded dog kind of puts your internet tough guy shtick in the crapper. You don’t really know what “random” means, do you?
It works like this. Somebody says something, somebody else asks for clarification, then the first somebody responds. It’s kind of like a conversation. Only in print. Civilized folks have them all the time.
I see absolutely no reason to suspect that **Lefty **is not aware of the family situations of his students. Most good teachers are, and by all accounts he seems to be a good one.
Gee. And just yesterday I was part of the right wing talk machine. I must be doing something right.
Or did he? Opinion is divided. All of the other posters say he didn’t, you say he did.
Yeah, I still don’t think I get it either.
Unfortunately you’re not bright enough to understand when someone is asking for an explanation. Responding for a request for elucidation with a
‘you don’t get it’, doesn’t get anyone very far. But, if that tactic is the level you’re working with then I shall stand by my idea that even bringing in the notion of a black actor playing a black character is trite and that’s being gracious.
Give me a hot English teacher like Ms. Berry any day of the week over a positive male role model. 
That would be as stupid as having Cate Blanchette play Bob Dylan.
Garbage again, but I’m not surprised to see that from an ideologically driven sociopath, aka a Randian. A person can be “disadvantaged” for all sorts of reasons having nothing to do with any personal “inferiority”. Being poor, being mistreated due to prejudice, lacking access to good schools or other resources out of school, illness, and so on. I realizes that offends your “it’s always the fault of the victim, the weak should starve and die” view of the world, but that’s reality.
I don’t really see what’s so hard about this comparison. Look at it this way:
If you want someone to play Michael Jordan in a movie, the color of his skin is important, because that’s a factor in his ability to be convincing to the audience as Michael Jordan.
If you want someone to be a role model for black youths, the color of his skin is important, because that’s a factor in his ability to be convincing to these youths as a role model.
Obviously, it’s not the only factor. And unlike the Michael Jordan example, it’s not a deal-breaking factor - Danny Devito is never going to be convincing as Michael Jordan, but I suspect that LHoD has made a positive impression on more than a few of his black students. But it does seem to be a factor, and all else being equal - if there were another teacher who was just as talented and dedicated as LHoD who was also black - then his race would be a legitimate factor for consideration in hiring him.
Of course you don’t. Because you’re extraordinarily dumb. But purely for my own amusement, allow me to ask the following question.
It’s a matter of record that blacks are disproportionately poorer, less educated, and more likely to be incarcerated than people of other races. There are, as far as I can tell, three explanations for this: black people are inherently inferior, black people face several social disadvantages that make it more difficult for them to succeed, or it’s simply due to random statistical chance. Now, from your attitude towards LHoD, we all know that you’re a staunch foe of any sort of racism. So we know option 1 is out. But you’re also claiming that option 2 is functionally identical to option 1. So that’s out, too. Which leaves only option 3: that you believe the widespread social problems and lack of advancement that is endemic to African American society is nothing more than a blind statistical anomaly.
Is this, in fact, what you believe to be the root cause of racial disparities in the United States? Or is there another option that I’ve overlooked?
They make a shampoo for that, now.
Maybe you should take two seconds to even attempt to understand what I am actually saying instead of just assuming and getting all wrapped around your own dick.
I agree with this statement: “A person can be “disadvantaged” for all sorts of reasons having nothing to do with any personal “inferiority”.”
Let’s review. I said this: “Jim Crow’s core idea was that black people are inferior (and therefore should be shunned). LHOD’s core idea is that black people are inferior (and therefore should be helped).”
You said this: “Disadvantaged is not the same as inferior.”
I said this: “Der Trihs, “disadvantaged” is just another word for inferior, which adds that the inferioirity is perhaps temporary and due to outside forces.”
If you’ll take a second and look, you’ll see the words “due to outside forces.” This is the opposite of “a reason having to do with personal inferiority” and allows for the outside forces you subsequently list in your post above.
In other words, we agree. I think that when you say “disadvantaged,” it means “inferior, but not inherently and inextricably so, only due to their circumstances.” So what I said earlier about an equivalence between Jim Crow’s core idea and LHOD’s core idea holds true.