Reddit Reddit reviews Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?

We found 4 Reddit comments about Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.

Civil Rights Law
Constitutional Law
Law
Books
Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?
Check price on Amazon

4 Reddit comments about Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?:

u/Legitninjaguy · 3 pointsr/asheville

Firstly, if you actually have any interest in convincing me of your views you should start by treating me like another human being from the same town.. instead of starting with "fuck it, I'm downvoting you." Onto your arguments:

>Was the Civil Rights Act an infringement on personal liberty?

The Civil Rights Act covered a lot and was largely a great document. This is a very different discussion. Its important to remember some key facts. HB2 only "discriminates" against those who identify as a gender that differs from their actual sex. If you live in North Carolina and committed to changing your sex and had an operation, HB2 has zero affect on you at public events. You may change your birth certificate in North Carolina as a result of a sex change. Other states are even more loose on the issue and allow birth certificate sex changes based on doctors notes. Now talking specifically about personal liberty and businesses: hopefully we can agree that an individual deciding in their mind with no operation that they were born in the wrong body and demand they have separate bathrooms is very different than black people being allowed to vote.

That said, I do disagree with TITLE 2 in the civil rights act though I agree that the section may have made a positive impact on interracial relations. This wasn't the only route to this accomplishment though. I recommend Thomas Sowell's (whos an African American economist) book [Civil Rights: Rhetoric or Reality?] (https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0688062695?ie=UTF8&tag=thomacom-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=0688062695) For further reading on the topic. Heres an excerpt:
>> Sowell: “In the period from 1954 to 1964, for example, the number of blacks in professional, technical, and similar high-level positions more than doubled. In other kinds of occupations, the advance of blacks was even greater during the 1940s — when there was little or no civil rights policy — than during the 1950s when the civil rights revolution was in its heyday.

>>“The rise in the number of blacks in professional and technical occupations in the two years from 1964 to 1966 (after the Civil Rights Act) was in fact less than in the one year from 1961 to 1962 (before the Civil Rights Act).

back to your comments:
>That's such an entitled argument - that you should be free to act however you want with your business. Can you deny African-Americans? Women? People in wheelchairs?

Yes. its entitled but its no more entitled than allowing you to refuse Jehovas' witnesses from entering into your home if you disagree with their ideas. Though I would argue that those who deny women or people of color is horrible for business and the free market will weed those businesses out. That can be accomplished through free speech. Not government regulation. We should all be entitled to decide who we want in our homes or in our place of business. It is YOUR home and it is YOUR business.

>We have communal rules to protect those with little power. Move your business to a totalitarian state if you don't like it.

The constitution are the communal rules that protect all individuals and it doesn't discriminate based on race or gender.


>fuck it, I'm downvoting you.

>You're throwing out this tired "blame Charlotte" argument for HB2.

>If you look at the 30 largest U.S. cities, only 8 of them lacked discrimination protection for LGBTQ individuals. Charlotte's attempts at democratic governance would have taken that number to 7. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/04/houston-isnt-alone-these-are-the-largest-u-s-cities-that-still-allow-lgbt-discrimination/

This argument is entirely irrelevant.

>And if you don't like abortions, don't get one. 3% of planned parenthood money goes to abortion. The rest goes to health efforts like STD prevention and contraceptive services. The money that "Obama" is taking from you is actually reducing the number of unwanted pregnancies way more than any theoretical abortions. http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2015/08/05/429641062/fact-check-how-does-planned-parenthood-spend-that-government-money

I never even mentioned planned parenthood but I will just copy paste what I responded to another user with

Some reasons you shouldnt like planned parent hood (below)

Planned Parenthood has become a billion-dollar organization on the backs of taxpayers. They earned $128 million in revenue with over $1.4 billion in net assets last year. In the same year, federal and state governments gave them over $528 million to fund their lucrative programs.

Planned Parenthood performs one in three abortions in the U.S. They reported performing 327,653 abortions last year. Former employees have even made allegations that there are mandatory “abortion quotas” each affiliate must meet.

Planned Parenthood emphasizes abortions instead of preventative care. They made only 1,880 adoption referrals and just 18,684 prenatal services last year. Even cancer screenings at Planned Parenthood have decreased 50 percent since 2004.

Planned Parenthood has been accused of financial fraud with taxpayer dollars. In 2013, an affiliate payed a settlement of over $4 million to Texas for Medicaid fraud. Similar investigations revealed over $8 million in possible fraud across nine states.

Planned Parenthood fights laws that protect women and children. They have opposed legislation that would protect infants born alive after failed abortions and tried to derail an anti-human trafficking bill because the legislation included a longstanding and widely-supported policy against taxpayer funding of abortion.

But ultimately if you are pro abortion, planned parenthood may not horrible to you, so we can just agree to disagree there.

u/[deleted] · 1 pointr/politics

Wow. Your argument really sounded interesting until you started to apply a sort of a vulgar-psychoanalysis to me. Perhaps you are that self-righteous kind of type who desperately wants to see himself as more compassionate, more enlightened than others? As there are two possible approaches to this whole thing, 1) to actually try to solve some problems 2) to appear to be sensitive and caring. And talking about "reprehensible prejudices" as a shoot in the dark is kinda the badge of the 2) approach.

Oh BTW feel free to ignore stuff like:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0688062695/qid=1080590332/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_2/103-8721379-3476654?v=glance&s=books

u/TheOnlyKarsh · 1 pointr/skeptic

They assert why it happens, they have yet to support the why.

That the individual just wasn't as well liked as the other interviewees.

You've cited zero objective evidence other then to point to other who make the same assertion without any support.

Incorrect. The discrepancy only exists when you compare all women with all men. Again when comparing equally prepared individuals, in the same job of opposite gender the discrepancy not only vanishes but in many cases women end up ahead.

http://smile.amazon.com/Civil-Rights-Rhetoric-Thomas-Sowell/dp/0688062695?sa-no-redirect=1

Karsh