This nonsense should have been REALLY settled with the Crown Act being signed into law, but here we are....
NEWS: The family of a Black high school student suspended for his hairstyle has filed a federal civil rights lawsuit against Texas' governor and attorney general.
https://apnews.com/article/hairstyles-dreadlocks-racial-discrimination-crown-act-e79ede512923b672a275abf054e2407b
🇳🇱
@LilHulkQ While I am certainly against dress codes in public schools of any kind, im confused why they claim a policy that is neutrally written (simply doesnt hair past a certain length) somehow is a racial issue itself.
Now i think its fair to be concerned it was **applied** raciall and only use to attack this poor kid and letting whites who violate get a pass.. and that should be illegal and persued in court if that happened.
But reading the court case thats not what they are arguing. They are arguing the policy itself, even if uniformly applied, disproportionately attacks blacks... how does a length restriction on hair disproportionately target blacks on its own? I mean if anything the opposite, since the law is defined by length past ones elbows that would target straight haired people disproportionately while tightly-curled hair would form an afro and would take quite the effort to get an afro "below the elbows"...
So yea... while i dont know if he was discriminated against specifically im really having a hard time seeing where this rule, when applied evenly, would be racist. I would love to hear thoughts that might explain this.
@freemo in May of 2020 in the same school district a federal judge ruled the district’s hair policy was discriminatory. I'll let this play in court. I sense some willful ignorance from your post. Could be wrong but anyway...Take care...
I mean i am specifically making a post asking for clarification... Meaning i identified my possibility of ignorance and asking for someone to clarify it.
How is a request for someone to correct my ignorance somehow the opposite, willful ignorance? That seems odd.
> in May of 2020 in the same school district a federal judge ruled the district’s hair policy was discriminatory
Thank you for attempted to answer this, but that wasnt my question. I asked for what the logic or reasoning behind it being discriminatory. Knowing some judge ruled it to be discriminatory doesn't really answer that does it?
@JoBlakely @freemo Spot on Jo.
Especially when pursuing people with relentless requests for evidence, often tangential or previously addressed, while maintaining a pretense of civility and sincerity, and feigning ignorance of the subject matter.
I dunno, the ruling seems like a good one since, as I stated, it absolutely makes cultural assumptions and violates freedom of expression.
But i do agree its kinda small compared to the real sorts of racism out there and the kinds of rulings that mean something that we should be seeing and dont.
@freemo @LilHulkQ I was meaning that the ruling of the school that suspended the child regardless of the Crown Act was wrong. You want to understand "why it disproportionately affects Blacks, when it should not." It's because there are NO good reasons outside of racism and having rules that can and will be arbitrarilarly & disproportionately enforced by racists at will. It's because of racism.
Have you even met racism?
> Have you even met racism?
Did you really just ask a Native American, a race that has almost been completely eliminated due to genocide, if I ever met racism.... seriously!?
> I was meaning that the ruling of the school that suspended the child regardless of the Crown Act was wrong.
Completely agree fromt he get go, the rule itself was wrong, and the choice of the school to enforce it also wrong. This would be true regardless of any racial component but doubly so if there was some racial bias at play as well (which is likely).
> You want to understand "why it disproportionately affects Blacks, when it should not." It's because there are NO good reasons outside of racism and having rules that can and will be arbitrarilarly & disproportionately enforced by racists at will. It's because of racism
That is perfectly fair, and I said exactly this early on and agree with you. The problem is by this logic **all** rules of any kind and of any nature are wrong because racists will ultimately be the ones applying it... My point is that if the rule itself isnt racist (and im not even convinced of that mind you) then fine, lets just admit that and focus on the problem of racists applying rules, which would seem to be the real problem... however if it is racist in **addition** to racists also applying it then we (and specifically me) should better understand why it is racist so we can better see and identify other rules that are racist.
This is supposed to be about learning and attacking people and calling them sealions when someone makes a sincere attempt to understand another POV and consider it as one they may want to adopt... that hurts everyone on the side of good here, everyone.
I agree with you, as I stated in my original reply as well they are wrong, biased, etc... that was never in question. What I am trying to understand better isnt how it is biased, or unfair.. but rather what elements about it are explicit to race... I got that answer from another person who instead of attacking me and calling me a sealion actually bothered to make a sincere attempt at answering that, and they had a good answer: because it assumes a white cultural norm (long hair being unprofessional) that does not exist in other cultures. And thus is written to specifically enforce the rules of a white culture... it was a good answer... just a shame people like you were derailing an honest productive conversation.
@freemo @LilHulkQ
What do you mean you want to understand 'what elements are explicit to race?' It's how it is arbitrarily & disproportionately applied. Those reasons will change, it's not just bc of white norms. They'll find reasons, until girls are wearing burkas & Black kids have heads shaved or neither allowed in school. It will be arbitrarily applied bc of racism. That is how hate works.
I didn't presume you were white. I saw you didn't seem to know racism.
> What do you mean you want to understand 'what elements are explicit to race?' It's how it is arbitrarily & disproportionately applied.
That part was never in question (as I pointed out in my original quote)... the fact that racists apply it unfairly is not the least bit in doubt and I stated so.
The point is a law being racist or not is seperate from if the law is applied racist or not. If murder is made illegal and you only arrest black people for murder, then it is applied unfairly and in a racist way. No one would argue we need to strike murder from the books as a law because it is a racist law, of course not, instead we try to address the racism in one way or another.
By comparison a law like segregation or slavery is **inherently** racist regardless of if it is applied by someone without racial bias (as the law itself is racist).
Thats the question here, the original article claimed the law itself was unfair and racist, this part I was confused on (though now i can see reasons to justify this thinking). The fact that it was also applied in a racist way as the article claims was something i explicitly didnt question.
> I didn't presume you were white. I saw you didn't seem to know racism.
While I can accept that was your assumption, it was still based on you not even bothering reading my response (because you claimed i didnt know things that I explcitly claimed and agreed in my response)...
So the question remains, why did you make all these assumptions when clearly you didnt even bother to read my comment? You explanation as to why you felt it was justified was literally the complete opposite of what I **actually** said... Do you have an excuse for that or maybe you want to apologize and are willing to admit you were wrong for doing so?
I am happy to listen, but so far you sound like a bully who is just trying to justify their disgusting behavior rather than admit they were wrong.
> dude. now I know you are sealioning.
Oh no i get it, you are a toxic horrible human being who has no issue attacking minorities trying to address racism because... well your a shit human, thats what you do.
> I quoted you: "What I am trying to understand better isnt how it is biased, or unfair.. but rather what elements about it are explicit to race... I got that answer from another person"
Correct this is what I **was** trying to understand with my original question.. not if it was biased in a non-racial way, but specifically the racial biases inherent in the law itself, rather than the application of the law.
> So you keep moving the question and answer goalposts.
Nope, same goal post as my original reply.. I already quoted that original reply earlier and made that quite clear.
> Now you say that was never in question.
This is what I actually said "That part was never in question (as I pointed out in my original quote)... the fact that racists apply it unfairly is not the least bit in doubt and I stated so."
So, if you bothered to read this isnt a change in anything I stated with my original reply.. the fact that racists **apply** it unfairly was not something i ever questions (and ive shown this quite clearly with quotes)... was was asked is how the law itself (not its application) is considered racist.. something that has been answered and I agreed with so is now resolved.
> Please. you don't even know what you want to know. What is your question? Where do you stumble?
I said last time, there is no question left, no stumbling.. I asked it and a polite person came and gave a good answer.. its been resolved and I came to agree the law itself is also racist, not just its application.
Why you are obsessed that there is still some lingering questioning order to prove im sealioning, when there isnt, and in fact this was resolved quite quickly why you still keep pretending it wasnt is... bizzare to say the least.... I guess you gotta convince yourself your not a horrible person by pretending I am sealioning after all.. cant do that if you admit I accepted the first answer and agreed.
@freemo
I'm an intersectional marginalized minority but I don't use it like a shield, nor do I harass others. I came as an ally of a Black person who shouldn't have to labor to teach you some basics and who also thought you came to harass them.
Well your doing an horrendous job then if you think harassing other minorities who ask respectful questions is you being an ally for black people is helping your cause in the slightest... the only thing your doing is pushing people to the other side of the fence by harassing well meaning and sincere questions where someone is trying to understand someone elses perspective.
If you really think going around calling people names because they ask someone respectfully to explain something about racism in an attempt at personal growth... I dunno what to tell you but "ally" is the last thing you are.
For those who don't know Dr. Freemo: He's a Republican. A hard core propagandist for a party that's now dedicated itself to violent white Christian nationalist revolution.
For whatever reason, he enjoys the challenge of employing dishonesty and outright lies to convince people with left-leaning values to let fascism win. That's what he does here.
@barney thank you. good to know. Really appreciate your adding this comment.
@freemo
dude. now I know you are sealioning.
I quoted you: "What I am trying to understand better isnt how it is biased, or unfair.. but rather what elements about it are explicit to race... I got that answer from another person"
So you keep moving the question and answer goalposts. Now you say that was never in question. Please. you don't even know what you want to know. What is your question? Where do you stumble?