• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

Racial Tension in the U.S.

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Where should the thread go from here?

  • Racial Tension in the U.S.

    Votes: 16 51.6%
  • Extremist Views on the U.S.

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Mending Years of Racial Stereotypes.

    Votes: 2 6.5%
  • Protest Culture.

    Votes: 1 3.2%
  • Racist Idiots in the News.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 10 32.3%

  • Total voters
    31
That inept, huh?

Not a fan of Qui-Gon, huh?

I actually thought he was perhaps the best Jedi portrayal in the prequels... I mean, when you think of a Jedi Consular other than Yoda, Qui-Gonn makes the most sense to me.

I thought it was a shame they killed him off in the first movie; but, I understand using his death as a plot device.
 
Last edited:
Not a fan of Qui-Gon, huh?

I actually thought he was perhaps the best Jedi portrayal in the prequels... I mean, when you think of a Jedi Consular other than Yoda, Qui-Gonn makes the most sense to me.

I thought it was a shame they killed him off in the first movie; but, I understand using his death as a plot device.

I enjoy Liam Neeson with a beard and I'm a sucker for a green lightsaber, so I did love him growing up.

But his role in the story is essentially pulling off a convoluted bet that somehow doesn't guarantee the life of Schmee, forcing the training of a young boy who grows up to destroy the Jedi, and then getting offed by a generic villain.
 
I enjoy Liam Neeson with a beard and I'm a sucker for a green lightsaber, so I did love him growing up.

But his role in the story is essentially pulling off a convoluted bet that somehow doesn't guarantee the life of Schmee, forcing the training of a young boy who grows up to destroy the Jedi, and then getting offed by a generic villain.

Well, Qui-Gon couldn't get the boy and Shmi, he could only get one or the other.. Jews.. I mean.. Toydarians, are immune to Jedi mind tricks, obviously due to their shifty ways.. so Qui-Gon could not manipulate Watto into releasing both Anakin and Shmi, so of course, he chose the boy.

Also, Qui-Gon had no interest in freeing the slaves on Tatooine; that wasn't his purpose. And that kind of nuanced moral decision was more or less a moral ambiguity to Anakin, that he was obviously never able to reconcile.

Regarding Anakin, Qui-Gon came across a child whom he believed had been, essentially, a Virgin Birth; conceived of and from the Force itself, and he proved it. So, he took it upon himself to train the child, even though the wisdom of the Jedi Council perceived the danger in doing so... But, once the Sith had revealed themselves; even the Jedi Council agreed that Anakin should be trained, and thus, made him Obi-Wan's padawan.

Lastly, IMHO, Darth Maul was a generic villain only in the sense that he was underdeveloped. It made no sense to me that he was killed off by Obi-Wan in the first film and frankly having been so absent from much of the movie. I thought the character was interesting, and his combat style was new and fresh and actually very welcome in TPM. Those fight scenes were phenomenal when they first came out.

Had Lucas made better character and plot choices, I think things would've been quite a bit different. But I think that goes without saying..
 
Well, Qui-Gon couldn't get the boy and Shmi, he could only get one or the other.. Jews.. I mean.. Toydarians, are immune to Jedi mind tricks, obviously due to their shifty ways.. so Qui-Gon could not manipulate Watto into releasing both Anakin and Shmi, so of course, he chose the boy.

Also, Qui-Gon had no interest in freeing the slaves on Tatooine; that wasn't his purpose. And that kind of nuanced moral decision was more or less a moral ambiguity to Anakin, that he was obviously never able to reconcile.

Regarding Anakin, Qui-Gon came across a child whom he believed had been, essentially, a Virgin Birth; conceived of and from the Force itself, and he proved it. So, he took it upon himself to train the child, even though the wisdom of the Jedi Council perceived the danger in doing so... But, once the Sith had revealed themselves; even the Jedi Council agreed that Anakin should be trained, and thus, made him Obi-Wan's padawan.

Lastly, IMHO, Darth Maul was a generic villain only in the sense that he was underdeveloped. It made no sense to me that he was killed off by Obi-Wan in the first film and frankly having been so absent from much of the movie. I thought the character was interesting, and his combat style was new and fresh and actually very welcome in TPM. Those fight scenes were phenomenal when they first came out.

Had Lucas made better character and plot choices, I think things would've been quite a bit different. But I think that goes without saying..

Indeed.
 
Well, Qui-Gon couldn't get the boy and Shmi, he could only get one or the other.. Jews.. I mean.. Toydarians, are immune to Jedi mind tricks, obviously due to their shifty ways.. so Qui-Gon could not manipulate Watto into releasing both Anakin and Shmi, so of course, he chose the boy.

Also, Qui-Gon had no interest in freeing the slaves on Tatooine; that wasn't his purpose. And that kind of nuanced moral decision was more or less a moral ambiguity to Anakin, that he was obviously never able to reconcile.

Regarding Anakin, Qui-Gon came across a child whom he believed had been, essentially, a Virgin Birth; conceived of and from the Force itself, and he proved it. So, he took it upon himself to train the child, even though the wisdom of the Jedi Council perceived the danger in doing so... But, once the Sith had revealed themselves; even the Jedi Council agreed that Anakin should be trained, and thus, made him Obi-Wan's padawan.

Lastly, IMHO, Darth Maul was a generic villain only in the sense that he was underdeveloped. It made no sense to me that he was killed off by Obi-Wan in the first film and frankly having been so absent from much of the movie. I thought the character was interesting, and his combat style was new and fresh and actually very welcome in TPM. Those fight scenes were phenomenal when they first came out.

Had Lucas made better character and plot choices, I think things would've been quite a bit different. But I think that goes without saying..

Well we do get a lot more Maul in TCW and SWR.

He is more nuanced though his obsession with revenge on the Sith (Sidious and Dooku kill his entire family) and Obi-Wan ultimately prove his undoing.
 
@Akronite
The use of vouchers and/or open enrollment(empowerment) drives improvement in the system. Schools must focus on serving the customers(parents & children) rather than serving the bureaucracy, and all the special interests that orbit the bureaucracy.
When we put money on a family's EBT card we don't tell them they can only use it at Kroger. They can spend those tax dollars at Whole Foods, IGA, Publix, etc. They choose!
Those stores are all still subject to the rules, regulations and inspections as a retailer of food. Any school would have to be subject to regulations and certifications in order to be permitted to accept vouchers.

Does it help students and school districts?

If parents didn't think it would be positive for their children they would stay put and things would remain as they are now...no better, no worse. If they choose to change schools and it is not an improvement, they can choose to go back or choose another school.
Who cares if it helps school districts? They only exist to serve students. I don't care if failing school districts lose all their students and cease to exist. Their buildings and property will be acquired by thriving schools that need the space or some other entity.

And again, this does NOTHING for a failing school. That's why I'm far more interested in learning what you meant about schools refusing to change their practices toward more successful models. Taking kids and funding away from failing schools doesn't fix the problem for those schools that some students will be depending on.

Again, its not any individual school we should care about. We are concerned that every child has an opportunity for a good education. We don't care where he gets that education any more than we care where EBT cardholders buy their groceries. This is not just semantics. Empowering the consumer to define good and bad schools through their choices is akin to the way consumers of hamburgers determine whether to patronize Wendys or Burger King.
In practice, there will not be massive movements of students immediately. But the framework will be in place that drives poor schools to improve and good schools to expand.
School A, that goes from 500 students to 400 will have to cut 20% of staff and quickly improve their product in the eyes of parents. If they continue to disappoint their customers they will continue to shrink.
School B, that goes from 400 to 500 students will expand and plan for further expansion, hire more people and continue doing what works.
In any event, we have more kids in good schools and less in a bad schools, as defined by parents. That is what we want right?
That gets us moving in the right direction...in one year. Now project out 5 years, or 10, or 20.
Perhaps School A will hire a few administrators from School B, implement their practices and right themselves.

Forget Private vs Public vs Charter. Any School that meets the regulations would be eligible to receive vouchers. When I buy a hamburger I don't care if the restaurant owner is profit, non-profit or a part-time nudist. I care about the quality of the hamburger.
Obviously, no school could reject a student until they reached maximum capacity. There would be other details to work out. The validity of the concept is the key thing.
For decades we have had huge school district serving huge numbers of kids and serving them badly. Those families deserve an alternative.
 
Last edited:
@Akronite
The use of vouchers and/or open enrollment(empowerment) drives improvement in the system. Schools must focus on serving the customers(parents & children) rather than serving the bureaucracy, and all the special interests that orbit the bureaucracy.
When we put money on a family's EBT card we don't tell them they can only use it at Kroger. They can spend those tax dollars at Whole Foods, IGA, Publix, etc. They choose!
Those stores are all still subject to the rules, regulations and inspections as a retailer of food. Any school would have to be subject to regulations and certifications in order to be permitted to accept vouchers.



If parents didn't think it would be positive for their children they would stay put and things would remain as they are now...no better, no worse. If they choose to change schools and it is not an improvement, they can choose to go back or choose another school.
Who cares if it helps school districts? They only exist to serve students. I don't care if failing school districts lose all their students and cease to exist. Their buildings and property will be acquired by thriving schools that need the space or some other entity.



Again, its not any individual school we should care about. We are concerned that every child has an opportunity for a good education. We don't care where he gets that education any more than we care where EBT cardholders buy their groceries. This is not just semantics. Empowering the consumer to define good and bad schools through their choices is akin to the way consumers of hamburgers determine whether to patronize Wendys or Burger King.
In practice, there will not be massive movements of students immediately. But the framework will be in place that drives poor schools to improve and good schools to expand.
School A, that goes from 500 students to 400 will have to cut 20% of staff and quickly improve their product in the eyes of parents. If they continue to disappoint their customers they will continue to shrink.
School B, that goes from 400 to 500 students will expand and plan for further expansion, hire more people and continue doing what works.
In any event, we have more kids in good schools and less in a bad schools, as defined by parents. That is what we want right?
That gets us moving in the right direction...in one year. Now project out 5 years, or 10, or 20.
Perhaps School A will hire a few administrators from School B, implement their practices and right themselves.

Forget Private vs Public vs Charter. Any School that meets the regulations would be eligible to receive vouchers. When I buy a hamburger I don't care if the restaurant owner is profit, non-profit or a part-time nudist. I care about the quality of the hamburger.
Obviously, no school could reject a student until they reached maximum capacity. There would be other details to work out. The validity of the concept is the key thing.
For decades we have had huge school district serving huge numbers of kids and serving them badly. Those families deserve an alternative.

Schools aren't fast food joints though. Part of the issue here is that you're funneling money away from a school, which could be part of what makes it worse/failing.

I ask if it improves schools and school districts because unless we completely privatize education (which is a bad idea IMO), there will still be children that depend on them. If we're talking about improving education in this country, how can we say we don't give a shit about schools and districts? What helps one student may harm another, do you see that?

Can you provide some sources that led you to your conclusions, because I do find it interesting. But I'm not sold that vouchers actually improve the situation for a larger number of students compared to other possible reforms.
 
Well, Qui-Gon couldn't get the boy and Shmi, he could only get one or the other.. Jews.. I mean.. Toydarians, are immune to Jedi mind tricks, obviously due to their shifty ways.. so Qui-Gon could not manipulate Watto into releasing both Anakin and Shmi, so of course, he chose the boy.

Also, Qui-Gon had no interest in freeing the slaves on Tatooine; that wasn't his purpose. And that kind of nuanced moral decision was more or less a moral ambiguity to Anakin, that he was obviously never able to reconcile.

Regarding Anakin, Qui-Gon came across a child whom he believed had been, essentially, a Virgin Birth; conceived of and from the Force itself, and he proved it. So, he took it upon himself to train the child, even though the wisdom of the Jedi Council perceived the danger in doing so... But, once the Sith had revealed themselves; even the Jedi Council agreed that Anakin should be trained, and thus, made him Obi-Wan's padawan.

Lastly, IMHO, Darth Maul was a generic villain only in the sense that he was underdeveloped. It made no sense to me that he was killed off by Obi-Wan in the first film and frankly having been so absent from much of the movie. I thought the character was interesting, and his combat style was new and fresh and actually very welcome in TPM. Those fight scenes were phenomenal when they first came out.

Had Lucas made better character and plot choices, I think things would've been quite a bit different. But I think that goes without saying..

You clearly put far more thought into that than Lucas ever did. :chuckle:
 
Work harder is an aphorism, not a plan.

It's also the essential ingredient, without which nothing else will make a damn bit of difference. Though that is particularly true when it comes to employment, hard work is still a key component when it comes to education.
 
Obviously the solution is for black women to start giving their kids white names. Then they won't be discriminated against until after the interview.

Well, you've kind of touched on the key question -- exactly what should be done, specifically, about the residual discrimination that still exists among some? Because I think that is really the underlying, and often under-discussed, core issue that explains a lot of the different opinions in this thread.

The answer to "what do we do about discrimination" was pretty obvious when the law itself was discriminatory. So back before the Civil War -- you had to eliminated slavery. Then it was the 14th Amendment, then the right to vote. After that, you still had separate but equal, and Jim Crow. But then Brown changed separate but equal, and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made both public and private discrimination illegal under the law.

So exactly what else are we supposed do about the residual and implicit bias, of whatever kind, that still exists? It's certainly not universal -- a lot of employers, landlords, etc., don't discriminate on the basis of race. And if someone finds discrimination -- via anonymous phone calls or however -- the system permits lawsuits/prosecution, and under a contingency fee legal system that operates at little or no cost to the plaintiff. It seems to me that "the system" has pretty much done all it can in regards to public and private discrimination in employment, and in schooling.

So (to put it very bluntly) what laudable purpose does it serve for some in society to keep harping on the issue?
 
Last edited:
So (to put it very bluntly) what laudable purpose does it serve for some in society to keep harping on the issue?

The solutions are proactive awareness and outreach programs. The purpose for "harping" on the issue is because discrimination has a real, measurable affect on people in this country and we know it can be mitigated.
 
What does that actually mean, in concrete terms?

Well, I'm sure you know what it means, as it's what most human resources departments at most large corporations already do...

But to be concise, teaching hiring managers, HR staff, about implicit bias and making them acutely aware of how this can unconsciously cause them to discriminate against certain groups is a start. Effectively, awareness boils down to understanding, discussing and consciously mitigating our own implicit biases, especially when in positions of power like management.

Outreach programs are just that... seeking out disadvantaged or discriminated groups if and when they are underrepresented at a particular firm. So, if you're in Silicon Valley, and your development firm is almost entirely White and male; it might not hurt to (1) ensure your application pool is diverse; and if it's not (2) task HR to do some outreach to women and minorities to get some diversity in your application pool... if your application pool is diverse, and yet, you've not hired any women or minorities, then it maybe worthwhile to periodically evaluate the reasons for those decisions.

These kinds of steps are frankly painless, harm no one, and are wholly positive for just about any company. So again, awareness and outreach can solve most of this disparity.
 
What does that actually mean, in concrete terms?
Well since laws and rights apply to everyone and there really aren't any that are unfair to any class, they've moved to work with society rather than with the system and laws. (1. Because shit still does happen and 2. Because if they weren't doing this they'd have no platform anymore)

The radical activists are awful but the people in the middle are swayed by listening to some that aren't as insufferable.

I think police are affected by politics.. White people are shot more often. Some are leaving black people alone entirely (example of negative consequence of the narrative) and some are super careful not to shoot black people (probably a net benefit than detriment without looking at the specifics of each case)
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top