Intel's Layoff Letter To Employees

[c3141hf]

The North didn't start the war, the South did ... they had no right to secede and we should be thankful the North did win ... I don't know of any country split down the middle that has survived as two separate entities without a Civil War (look at the remnants of Persia) ... the Civil War certainly wasn't about slavery (although slavery was the catalyst) it was about Union (and the Union side won) ... Lincoln had extraordinary powers as president (but he was also the only president to have to manage the country in the midst of a Civil War) ... and he even held an election during the war (if he had been the tyrant you accuse him of being he wouldn't have done that ... and he had many advisers suggesting there not be an election)

By that logic, the US had no right to secede from Britain.

 

[heatlesssun]

It didn't have anything to do with slavery. It had to do with the federal government expanding its powerbase and not wanting the loose the lucrative income from the South.

An excerpt from Declaration of the Immediate Causes Which Induce and Justify the Secession of South Carolina from the Federal Union

We affirm that these ends for which this Government was instituted have been defeated, and the Government itself has been made destructive of them by the action of the non-slaveholding States. Those States have assume the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.

For twenty-five years this agitation has been steadily increasing, until it has now secured to its aid the power of the common Government. Observing the *forms* [emphasis in the original] of the Constitution, a sectional party has found within that Article establishing the Executive Department, the means of subverting the Constitution itself. A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that "Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.

This sectional combination for the submersion of the Constitution, has been aided in some of the States by elevating to citizenship, persons who, by the supreme law of the land, are incapable of becoming citizens; and their votes have been used to inaugurate a new policy, hostile to the South, and destructive of its beliefs and safety.

On the 4th day of March next, this party will take possession of the Government. It has announced that the South shall be excluded from the common territory, that the judicial tribunals shall be made sectional, and that a war must be waged against slavery until it shall cease throughout the United States.

The guaranties of the Constitution will then no longer exist; the equal rights of the States will be lost. The slaveholding States will no longer have the power of self-government, or self-protection, and the Federal Government will have become their enemy.

Sectional interest and animosity will deepen the irritation, and all hope of remedy is rendered vain, by the fact that public opinion at the North has invested a great political error with the sanction of more erroneous religious belief.

We, therefore, the People of South Carolina, by our delegates in Convention assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, have solemnly declared that the Union heretofore existing between this State and the other States of North America, is dissolved, and that the State of South Carolina has resumed her position among the nations of the world, as a separate and independent State; with full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent States may of right do.


Adopted December 24, 1860

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_scarsec.asp


Mississippi and Texas were even more clear about slavery being the reason why left the Union. It simply defies all reason. They wrote it down on paper for all the world to see, mincing no words about it. Yet somehow people come up with all these alternate versions of reality.

 

[heatlesssun]

The North didn't start the war, the South did ... they had no right to secede and we should be thankful the North did win ... I don't know of any country split down the middle that has survived as two separate entities without a Civil War (look at the remnants of Persia) ... the Civil War certainly wasn't about slavery (although slavery was the catalyst) it was about Union (and the Union side won) ... Lincoln had extraordinary powers as president (but he was also the only president to have to manage the country in the midst of a Civil War) ... and he even held an election during the war (if he had been the tyrant you accuse him of being he wouldn't have done that ... and he had many advisers suggesting there not be an election)

The Civil War did not start to end slavery. It started to preserve it. If you look at the history prior to the war, the issues with Fugitive Slave laws, the slave rebellions, the fights of the admission of slave states and territories and of course the huge moral conflicts and debates the subject caused, there's just nothing else in the historical record that I see that had anywhere the impact to start such a long and intense conflict.

 

[kbrickley]

By that logic, the US had no right to secede from Britain.

We were not part of Great Britain (and had no representational rights with them) ... had King George been willing to give Americans seats in parliament it is highly unlikely we would have split from them (our founding fathers tried every avenue available to them before they went to war) ... the South had full representation in the government ... they were nervous about the future and made a very bad gamble (it was only the incompetence of the Northern Generals who kept them going at the start) ... their entire gamble depended on England and France coming in on their side (without that their cause was hopeless)

 

[Ducman69]

The Civil War did not start to end slavery. It started to preserve it.

The North, and Abraham Lincoln went blue in the face assuring everyone that there was never the remotest plan to end slavery in the South, and this has been explained to you before with numerous quotes from speeches and more. The question was whether or not the new states would be slave states or not. Why did this matter for Southern states, if no changes were whatsoever being pushed to change their states? VOTES! Southern interests for some time now were not being represented in Washington, with the North levying heavy import tariffs crippling Southern state's trade with Europe, where they would sell cotton and other such items of abundance in exchange for the highest quality manufactured goods brought back to the US which fetched top dollar, because no US industries could yet match Europe in quality just like Chinese knockoffs in the 80s and 90s couldn't hold a candle to Japanese goods. This was done to force the Southern states to trade with the North for inferior products and their wares sold at far lower prices, which was great for the North but crap for the South. There were many other such problems, and ultimately like most wars it was fundamentally about economics and representation, the same as the "civil war" in the colonies prior in which American born British subjects found massive tariffs unacceptable with no proper representation to affect change.

But that is completely irrelevant now because its 2015, and we are talking about the actions of a mega-corporation like Intel. The socio-political climate has completely changed from hundreds of years ago, and right now we are simply discussing the hypocrisy of neo-liberals claiming they think everyone should be treated equally and race/gender blind, while now champion treating individuals differently based merely on their race and gender, as long as that race/gender combination is "the man", aka the white male patriarchy that has to be ganged up on and taken down a peg... not realizing that not every random white guy is deserving of punishment and prejudice as some kind of evil boogie man that is the cause of all the world's problems.

 

[heatlesssun]

The North, and Abraham Lincoln went blue in the face assuring everyone that there was never the remotest plan to end slavery in the South, and this has been explained to you before with numerous quotes from speeches and more.

Because everyone believes the words of a Washington politician.

An excerpt from the Georgia Declaration of Secession

The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party. While it attracts to itself by its creed the scattered advocates of exploded political heresies, of condemned theories in political economy, the advocates of commercial restrictions, of protection, of special privileges, of waste and corruption in the administration of Government, anti-slavery is its mission and its purpose. By anti-slavery it is made a power in the state. The question of slavery was the great difficulty in the way of the formation of the Constitution.

http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp

Again, I don't understand why people have such a hard time simply referring to the documents that CLEARLY point out the reasoning behind Secession. The idea that the South and Lincoln and more broadly The Republican party were on the same page on slavery is clearly refuted multiple times by them.

But that is completely irrelevant now because its 2015, and we are talking about the actions of a mega-corporation like Intel. The socio-political climate has completely changed from hundreds of years ago, and right now we are simply discussing the hypocrisy of neo-liberals claiming they think everyone should be treated equally and race/gender blind, while now champion treating individuals differently based merely on their race and gender, as long as that race/gender combination is "the man", aka the white male patriarchy that has to be ganged up on and taken down a peg... not realizing that not every random white guy is deserving of punishment and prejudice as some kind of evil boogie man that is the cause of all the world's problems.

It's 2015, and Americans were talking about this same issue and making the same points in 1915. The only difference between now and then is the completely obvious racial overtones back then. Deferential and preferential, real or perceived, to blacks in particular has long been a hot button issue that's been framed in racial terms by many whites. It's an issue smattered, smother, covered and deep fried in the ugliest and most bitter race hate this country has ever seen. That simply just doesn't go away by saying it's 2015 and everything is different especially for an issue this old and reoccurring. Especially when there's virtually nothing new to add to the subject.

It's easy to say let's live a meritocracy. But when has that ever been the case? Black, white, Asian, male, female, etc. when it comes to issues of employment or access to education, the idea that it's just about merit is kind of laughable to everyone for different reasons.

 

[Ducman69]

It's 2015, and Americans were talking about this same issue and making the same points in 1915.

This is literally one of the most ridiculous comments you have made to date. Yes, I'm very sure the big argument back then was whether or not blacks should receive preferential treatment and white excluded from participation in government and private enterprise programs based only on their race and gender...

Again, you have yet to explain to me why I deserve to be excluded and treated differently because I'm a white male. You love to talk circles about things that happened before you were alive and in gross generalities, but specifically why do YOU deserve to be treated differently from myself? Did you face more prejudice as a child than I did? How can you possibly know that? Did you have poorer parents? You don't know me. But because I'm a white male, and maybe I had parents in the South during the time of slavery (pro-tip, I didn't), somehow I deserve to be treated differently than you in a school application, seeking scholarships, job interview, by the government, and so forth. Why?

Again, I'm a unique individual just like you are, and it boggles the mind that you don't believe its racist if I'm to be held to a different standard than you rather than treated equally as people. THAT to you is racist... *shakes head*

 

[heatlesssun]

This is literally one of the most ridiculous comments you have made to date. Yes, I'm very sure the big argument back then was whether or not blacks should receive preferential treatment and white excluded from participation in government and private enterprise programs based only on their race and gender...

Have you ever seen The Birth of a Nation? Unbelievably racist which isn't hard to understand considering that it's a tribute to the rise of the KKK. But strip the film of the obvious racism and the subject matters that it raises issues are eerily familiar. Blacks getting unfair advantages, free stuff from the government, voter fraud. And that's the G rated stuff. A silent movie complaining of black voter fraud that was made 50 years before the Voting Rights Act.

It's not your fault, it's not my fault. But these subjects really have been talked about long before either of us were born.

Again, you have yet to explain to me why I deserve to be excluded and treated differently because I'm a white male.

If there are all of these issues in the black community, high unemployment, crime, lack of education, wealth etc. then it would appear to be a community that's in distress. People in distress generally do need some help. That's not to say jobs and other resources should be solely given based on race. But simply ignoring these longstanding issues and pretending that don't exist and that nothing can be done because that's racist sounds kind of racist as well.

 

[Ducman69]

If there are all of these issues in the black community, high unemployment, crime, lack of education, wealth etc. then it would appear to be a community that's in distress.

You're a person. I'm a person. Again, why do YOU as a person deserve to be treated differently than me. Are you in more distress than I am? Do you feel 100% confident assuming that because I'm a white male that my life is easier than yours? I sure don't because I never met you, but somehow you feel justified in the government and schools and corporations treating you and I differently, because my skin is pale. But if they were to treat us the same, talk to us as unique people with unique backgrounds and evaluate us on that basis, that would be racist. *bangs head on table* Oh well, I give up, you win. I'll leave my door unlocked, so help yourself to reparations for whatever I did to you.

 

[heatlesssun]

You're a person. I'm a person. Again, why do YOU as a person deserve to be treated differently than me. Are you in more distress than I am? Do you feel 100% confident assuming that because I'm a white male that my life is easier than yours? I sure don't because I never met you, but somehow you feel justified in the government and schools and corporations treating you and I differently, because my skin is pale. But if they were to treat us the same, talk to us as unique people with unique backgrounds and evaluate us on that basis, that would be racist. *bangs head on table* Oh well, I give up, you win. I'll leave my door unlocked, so help yourself to reparations for whatever I did to you.

White conservatives will flip out in a hot minute all of the issues in the black community. But doing anything to help fixe those problems is racist. I'm not saying that things should be done for people that don't need it. I've been fortunate enough to not need help outside of my family. But some, be it whatever race or gender aren't as fortunate.

But here's thing the. The only way to reduce black unemployment is for more blacks folks to get jobs. The only way for black folks to get ahead will be for black folks to acquire more wealth. Even if these things are achieved solely based on individual merit, there's still going to be a lot of people who have a problem with it. At least they would in 2015.

 

[GearChoices]

White conservatives will flip out in a hot minute all of the issues in the black community. But doing anything to help fixe those problems is racist. I'm not saying that things should be done for people that don't need it. I've been fortunate enough to not need help outside of my family. But some, be it whatever race or gender aren't as fortunate.

But here's thing the. The only way to reduce black unemployment is for more blacks folks to get jobs. The only way for black folks to get ahead will be for black folks to acquire more wealth. Even if these things are achieved solely based on individual merit, there's still going to be a lot of people who have a problem with it. At least they would in 2015.

I do not even know what you guys are talking about now, it's been going on for so long, but...

The whites who have a problem with minorities achieving "financial success" on their own merit, are very much in the minority, so they are barely even relevant unless you live in southern rural area. Now the majority of conservatives (both white and minority) flip out over any proposed government attempt to help give poor people, both minority or otherwise, opportunity to achieve financial success.

Other than in rural southern areas, any racial disadvantage for minorities in terms of gaining financial success, has been completely eliminated. In fact, it has become the reverse. A poor or middle-class minority has more going in favor for him/her than a poor or middle-class white, as long as he/she takes advantage of it and does not, by his/her own choice, throw it away. Even a poor/middle-class minority from the rural south has a better chance than a poor/middle-class white as long as they get out of there as soon as possible, for example by going to a college not in the rural south.

The only time a white person has an advantage over a minority, is when the minority is poor/middle-class and the white person is upper-class. Those already in the upper-class, regardless of their demographic, have vast advantages over all those below, regardless of their demographic too.

As I said in one of my much older posts in this thread concerning H1-Bs, poverty, or any kind of injustice, should not be "shuffled" around. That isn't justice at all. So yes, in order for the cycle of injustice and poverty to be broken, society is going to have to offer guaranteed work, with a living wage, to every person, regardless of their demographic (targeting only specific demographics will only make things worse in the long-term). Humanity as a whole will have to be very different at that point in time, for that to happen. People will have to be fundamentally better than the vast majority of them are right now.

 

[evilsofa]

 

[Ducman69]

Other than in rural southern areas, any racial disadvantage for minorities in terms of gaining financial success, has been completely eliminated. In fact, it has become the reverse. A poor or middle-class minority has more going in favor for him/her than a poor or middle-class white, as long as he/she takes advantage of it and does not, by his/her own choice, throw it away. Even a poor/middle-class minority from the rural south has a better chance than a poor/middle-class white as long as they get out of there as soon as possible, for example by going to a college not in the rural south.

The only time a white person has an advantage over a minority, is when the minority is poor/middle-class and the white person is upper-class. Those already in the upper-class, regardless of their demographic, have vast advantages over all those below, regardless of their demographic too.

Absolutely, and there would be no stink if Intel didn't specifically spell out that they believe they have too many white and asian male employees, set aside funds to "diversify" (which again can only be accomplished without growing the employee base by firing whites and hiring target groups in their place), and also making funds available to anyone except for white and asian males. THAT is just plane racist and sexist discrimination, and absolutely it would be a whole other ballpark if a poor\middle-class white male had the same treatment by such corporations and the government as a poor\middle-class black female.

It is mind boggling to me though that they have the audacity to call others racist, while championing institutionalized racist policies. The only real long term kickback to that which I can see happening is that white and asian males may end up doing the one thing that's never even really been thought about, and actually banding together in response to this prejudice, and then you really have an "us vs them" conflict, which seemingly is what 1%'ers are really rooting for as that finally takes the pressure back off of them which was so focused for quite some time.

 

[heatlesssun]

The only real long term kickback to that which I can see happening is that white and asian males may end up doing the one thing that's never even really been thought about, and actually banding together in response to this prejudice, and then you really have an "us vs them" conflict, which seemingly is what 1%'ers are really rooting for as that finally takes the pressure back off of them which was so focused for quite some time.

I you think no one has thought about this and acted on this idea long before you were born, wow. All you did was throw in the word "Asian"! LOL!

 

[Ducman69]

I you think no one has thought about this and acted on this idea long before you were born, wow. All you did was throw in the word "Asian"! LOL!

It doesn't exist at the moment. At the last election for example, Republicans picked up only 62% of the white male vote and 27% of the asian vote, whereas Democrats picked up 97% of the black vote for example. If that changed, and white and asian males banded together politically due to external pressures lumping them together, and voted unanimously like the black vote in the election, the results would be significantly different... I'm not sure why you are so excited about fostering an "us vs them" war, rather than just treat people equally. America the divided... yay.

 

[c3141hf]

Because everyone believes the words of a Washington politician.

An excerpt from the Georgia Declaration of Secession



http://www.civil-war.net/pages/georgia_declaration.asp

Again, I don't understand why people have such a hard time simply referring to the documents that CLEARLY point out the reasoning behind Secession. The idea that the South and Lincoln and more broadly The Republican party were on the same page on slavery is clearly refuted multiple times by them.



It's 2015, and Americans were talking about this same issue and making the same points in 1915. The only difference between now and then is the completely obvious racial overtones back then. Deferential and preferential, real or perceived, to blacks in particular has long been a hot button issue that's been framed in racial terms by many whites. It's an issue smattered, smother, covered and deep fried in the ugliest and most bitter race hate this country has ever seen. That simply just doesn't go away by saying it's 2015 and everything is different especially for an issue this old and reoccurring. Especially when there's virtually nothing new to add to the subject.

It's easy to say let's live a meritocracy. But when has that ever been the case? Black, white, Asian, male, female, etc. when it comes to issues of employment or access to education, the idea that it's just about merit is kind of laughable to everyone for different reasons.

That only states why the southern states seceded. But the slavery is not the reason the north decided to wage a civil war; they waged a civil war because, despite all the north's protestations against slavery, they made themselves rich off of the south's economy and didn't want to lose the income.

 

[Ducman69]

they made themselves rich off of the south's economy and didn't want to lose the income.

And continued that tradition with all the carpetbaggers after the war. Something the South has not forgotten, and what the confederate flag represents, which the media somehow has never attempted to mention... its just the pro-slavery flag in all the news outlets lately.

 

[heatlesssun]

It doesn't exist at the moment. At the last election for example, Republicans picked up only 62% of the white male vote and 27% of the asian vote, whereas Democrats picked up 97% of the black vote for example. If that changed, and white and asian males banded together politically due to external pressures lumping them together, and voted unanimously like the black vote in the election, the results would be significantly different... I'm not sure why you are so excited about fostering an "us vs them" war, rather than just treat people equally. America the divided... yay.

You many not realize, but you just made the same point that was made in a so called "manifesto" that has recently become public. That's not exactly what many would call unifying.

 

[CreepyUncleGoogle]

And continued that tradition with all the carpetbaggers after the war. Something the South has not forgotten, and what the confederate flag represents, which the media somehow has never attempted to mention... its just the pro-slavery flag in all the news outlets lately.

In the last few days I've read like five MSN articles about that flag thing and every single one of them has mentioned the history of the flag beyond the present day symbol. Since most of them are republished stuff from the Associated Press, it's likely that other news outlets are posting the same things.

 

[heatlesssun]

That only states why the southern states seceded. But the slavery is not the reason the north decided to wage a civil war; they waged a civil war because, despite all the north's protestations against slavery, they made themselves rich off of the south's economy and didn't want to lose the income.

Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery-- the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth.

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/csa_missec.asp

So the south had its economics closely tied to slavery but the North didn't want to lose the income? Ok, then slavery should have still existed at the end of the war as that would have been in both the North's and South's interest.

 

[heatlesssun]

And continued that tradition with all the carpetbaggers after the war. Something the South has not forgotten, and what the confederate flag represents, which the media somehow has never attempted to mention... its just the pro-slavery flag in all the news outlets lately.

It was the battle flag of Lee's army of Northern Virginia that didn't even appear in South Carolina's Capital until 1962. It was designed by a man from South Carolina, William Porcher Miles who was the staunchest supporter of secession and slavery. This flag is inexorably tied to slavery.

 

[Ducman69]

It was the battle flag of Lee's army of Northern Virginia that didn't even appear in South Carolina's Capital until 1962. It was designed by a man from South Carolina, William Porcher Miles who was the staunchest supporter of secession and slavery. This flag is inexorably tied to slavery.

If he was also a staunch supporter of pumpkin pie, would it be inexorably tied to that desert? Or is it possible that's a painfully one-dimensional explanation? The Roman Empire and their Eagle was certainly tied to slavery as well, as the Romans always captured slaves in their military expeditions, but there was a heck of a lot more to the Roman Empire and the Golden Eagle standard than slavery.

 

[DocSavage]

And continued that tradition with all the carpetbaggers after the war. Something the South has not forgotten, and what the confederate flag represents, which the media somehow has never attempted to mention... its just the pro-slavery flag in all the news outlets lately.

Even if what you say is true, that flag to black people is similar to how Jews (and most other westerners) feel about swastikas. Swastikas have been a pretty positive symbol for thousands of years, so feel free to place them all over your car. Just don't get upset when the rest of the community thinks you are a blatant Nazi and treat you accordingly.

 

[heatlesssun]

If he was also a staunch supporter of pumpkin pie, would it be inexorably tied to that desert? Or is it possible that's a painfully one-dimensional explanation? The Roman Empire and their Eagle was certainly tied to slavery as well, as the Romans always captured slaves in their military expeditions, but there was a heck of a lot more to the Roman Empire and the Golden Eagle standard than slavery.

I go to South Carolina a lot. You can't take a piss there without hitting a Confederate memorial or a bridge or road named after a Confederate general. I don't have a problem with that, the blacks I know from the state don't either. Indeed a place like Charleston thrives on tourism in part because of it's rich Southern history. Neither blacks or whites are complaining about all the history, not even the Old Slave Mart.

But that particular flag that was never before at the Capital just happens to pop up there in 1962? Yes, it's 2015 and in 1962 for that flag to show up wasn't about heritage.

 

[heatlesssun]

Even if what you say is true, that flag to black people is similar to how Jews (and most other westerners) feel about swastikas. Swastikas have been a pretty positive symbol for thousands of years, so feel free to place them all over your car. Just don't get upset when the rest of the community thinks you are a blatant Nazi and treat you accordingly.

The reason we are talking about this subject at this time is because of a guy that that said he wanted to start a race war. The symbols he chose to associated himself with were not picked at random.

 

[Ducman69]

Even if what you say is true, that flag to black people is similar to how Jews (and most other westerners) feel about swastikas.

Its manufactured outrage now as a powerplay, and not the same, or people wouldn't have loved the good ol' Duke of Hazard, which made it clear the symbol was about Southern heritage and free spirit of independence, and to some extent anti-authority or anti-federalism.

I go to South Carolina a lot. You can't take a piss there without hitting a Confederate memorial or a bridge or road named after a Confederate general. I don't have a problem with that...

But didn't they already move it from the capital building a while ago, and its just sitting next to the confederate memorial that you have no issue with? Besides, a lot of the most vocal opponents of the confederate flag also desecrate the stars and stripes federal flag, as you can see with the "flag stomping" video that are all over youtube and other social media.

Regarding the lone mass murderer, is the argument that he is somehow representative of all whites? Pretty sure he's not elected king, and heck the Panthers have more members than the Klan now when it comes to extremists on the spectrum.

Either way though, Intel has nothing to do with the rebel flag, so we should just agree to disagree about whether or not it should be removed from the confederate memorial, and get back on track on whether or not its a good thing that Intel is trying to "balance the playing field" by creating policies to discriminate against white and asian males.

 

[heatlesssun]

But didn't they already move it from the capital building a while ago, and its just sitting next to the confederate memorial that you have no issue with? Besides, a lot of the most vocal opponents of the confederate flag also desecrate the stars and stripes federal flag, as you can see with the "flag stomping" video that are all over youtube and other social media.

Regarding the lone mass murderer, is the argument that he is somehow representative of all whites? Pretty sure he's not elected king, and heck the Panthers have more members than the Klan now when it comes to extremists on the spectrum.

That flag was put on top of the SC Capital in 1962 in direct response against the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that made possible the 2015 you constantly remind us is a different time than 1962.

The Klan name is beyond toxic. They go by names like the Conservative Citizens Council these days. I've known a number of blacks that were low life criminals in gangs, murders, drug dealers, etc. I have yet to know one personally that was a member of a black political extremist group. But some that would call the NAACP that today.

Either way though, Intel has nothing to do with the rebel flag, so we should just agree to disagree about whether or not it should be removed from the confederate memorial, and get back on track on whether or not its a good thing that Intel is trying to "balance the playing field" by creating policies to discriminate against white and asian males.

That flag has been used for a long time as a symbol by white supremacists. The same folks that deny that preeminent cause of the Civil War was slavery. Then they go around complaining about people trying to wipe out their heritage. But then they seem to completely wipe out their versions of the Declaration of Independence, i.e. their statements of Secession, several of which clearly make of the point that left they Union to preserve slavery, South Carolina being one that unequivocally made the case. Nor do they seem to have any pride in the heritage of the Constitution of the CSA. A document that's significantly different from the Constitution of USA of the time in one way. Yep, they wrote the state right of slavery clearly into it.

That's not pride in heritage, it's selective amnesia.

 

[Ducman69]

That flag was put on top of the SC Capital in 1962 in direct response against the Civil Rights Movement, a movement that made possible the 2015 you constantly remind us is a different time than 1962.

And was already removed is what I said... as far as I know it was taken down some time ago and put next to the confederate memorial. As was said, symbols can mean different things to different people and there are plenty of hate groups that wave old glory, but certainly the red white and blue isn't ONLY used by hate groups anymore than the confederate flag is only used by Klansmen, and clearly there is more to the confederate flag than slavery. The Dukes of Hazzard were about the rebel Southern spirit, not slavery... cmon.

Duke Boys, always up to no good, promoting slavery in your neighborhood!

Either way, Intel treating people differently based on their race has nothing to do with the rebel flag, nor will institutional racism somehow improve race relations.

 

[heatlesssun]

That flag comes from a defeated nation state founded on the principle what all men are NOT created equal. That is why it is used by race haters. That people have some romanticized notion of what it represents are just making it up as they go.

 

[evilsofa]

Walmart, Amazon, Sears and eBay will no longer be selling Confederate flag merchandise, even through third-party vendors on their websites.

 

[heatlesssun]

Walmart, Amazon, Sears and eBay will no longer be selling Confederate flag merchandise, even through third-party vendors on their websites.

When that "manifesto" become public knowledge last Saturday, I'm thinking that a lot of people actually started Googling "black on white crime". If you think Al Sharpton is a race baiter, go tell a bunch of black folks to Google "black on white crime".

 

[Ducman69]

Walmart, Amazon, Sears and eBay will no longer be selling Confederate flag merchandise, even through third-party vendors on their websites.

But Amazon will sell you more swastika merchandise than you can shake a stick at! Hell, they even have reproduction SS armbands so you can sieg while you heil and heil while you sieg!

Of course the real reason they pulled it, is that it was showing up on their "most popular" items list, so people not even looking for the flags were seeing them. The hilarious thing is the little turd wanted to start a race war, and the media and left is doing everything possible to help him fulfill his dream. Now all we need is for a bunch of urban youths to go on another mob looting adventure, fire some more police officers for doing their jobs, and get some more companies like Intel to make champion some more prejudice policies.

Seriously, we just need North Korea to attack us or something, so all these disgusting race baiters and haters can focus their energy externally outside the US.

 

[crusty_juggler]

I put Ducman on my ignore list after he attempted to back up his statements with a link to a Holocaust denial website. I have no idea what he's ranting about now (I can guess), but perhaps you guys should put him on ignore as well.

 

[heatlesssun]

I put Ducman on my ignore list after he attempted to back up his statements with a link to a Holocaust denial website. I have no idea what he's ranting about now (I can guess), but perhaps you guys should put him on ignore as well.

Holocaust denial and the denying that the Civil War had anything to do with slavery. This stuff comes from same place doesn't take a rocket scientist to know where.

 

[Ducman69]

Holocaust denial and the denying that the Civil War had anything to do with slavery. This stuff comes from same place doesn't take a rocket scientist to know where.

So now lies that I denied the holocaust happened and that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery... I hope you're enjoying your straw man, since you still haven't been able to explain to the class why you deserve to be treated differently than me in admissions, job interviews, fund allocations, scholarships, and so forth or any other white or asian male on the forum, just because your skin is darker.

Hey, when you can't attack the argument, attack the person making it... sorry, but its not a new concept.

 

[maverikv]

A computer hardware forum is such an odd place to be a racist troll.

 

[heatlesssun]

So now lies that I denied the holocaust happened and that the civil war had nothing to do with slavery...

Just out of curiosity, what do you think their cause was? Please don't tell me you think the civil war was about slavery, lol! That's like saying that the American revolution was about tea. Yes, the tea tax was one hotpoint, as was the slavery issue in the new states, but it had nothing to do with tea or slaves in and of itself. For the revolutionary war, tea was just one example of a multitude of trade restrictions placed on the colonies, preventing them from trading with other European partners, high tariffs, and various other regulations limiting their freedom.

http://hardforum.com/showpost.php?p=1041505983&postcount=36

Fair enough, not a total denial but you quoted a well known Holocaust denier and make an equivalence between slavery and tea from the Revolution. These kind of arguments come for the same ideology.

 

[Ducman69]

These kind of arguments come for the same ideology.

And what ideology is that exactly, which involves recognizing facts and complexities in history and that not everything is black and white like crusaders like yourself make it out to be? And I understand why you have to do that, as how else can you justify why its OK to support racist policies that discriminate against someone only based on their race... after all, that must be difficult to rationalize even to yourself, yet alone stay on topic and be direct without coming across as a racist hypocrite.

 

[DocSavage]

how else can you justify why its OK to support racist policies that discriminate against someone only based on their race... after all, that must be difficult to rationalize even to yourself, yet alone stay on topic and be direct without coming across as a racist hypocrite.

Isn't it pretty obvious? You can't just beat someone down for 200 years and suddenly call it even. To be fair, the downtrodden need a little help to get back on their feet. So us white guys have it rough for a bit. You can complain when we have it rough for 200 years. I'll agree with you that it isn't exactly fair, but then neither is history.

 

[heatlesssun]

And what ideology is that exactly, which involves recognizing facts and complexities in history and that not everything is black and white like crusaders like yourself make it out to be?

Dude, you linked an article by a well known Holocaust denier from the site of what's considered by some the biggest Holocaust denier on the planet.