Civil rights act of 1964

ChatGPT dijo:
Here's a very simple and kind explanation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, written for a developmentally-disabled third grader typical Kiwi Farms user:




A long time ago, some people were not treated fairly just because of their skin color, where they were from, or what they believed.


The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a very important rule (a law) that says:


  • Everyone must be treated fairly.
  • You can't be told "no" to a job, school, or a restaurant just because of your skin color or who you are.
  • Everyone should be able to go to the same schools, eat at the same restaurants, and use the same bathrooms.

This law helps people be kind and fair to each other, no matter what they look like.
 
  • Everyone must be treated fairly.
  • You can't be told "no" to a job, school, or a restaurant just because of your skin color or who you are.
  • Everyone should be able to go to the same schools, eat at the same restaurants, and use the same bathrooms.
Contrary to boomer-idealist claims that the CRA started out like this and was only hijacked years/decades later, it was in fact baked in that some were More Equal than others, and the groundwork for "affirmatively" treating people unfairly and rejecting them from schools & jobs was there from the very start.

- "Disparate impact" legal theory (any standard, job requirement, or law that minorities underperform on or violate must be struck down as "racist" regardless of intent) was formulated before the CRA passed, and the lawsuit wheels were turning as soon as it was signed into law
- "Affirmative action" was mandated in the FedGov by executive order in 1961, and the 1964 CRA extended its quotas, set asides, and preferences
- School funding for minority urban districts has far outpaced everywhere else, with places like DC, Chicago, and urban New Jersey receiving over double the per-student funding of the national average
 
Any time the government gets involved with showing racial or gender preferences, you're going to have problems and create division in the population. This is an axiomatic truth, yet despite that you will have people shape their entire political ideology around how it's different this time for reasons.
 
I did some light reading of the Act and I come away with a few takeaways
One:
I disagree with Title 1 of the bill. This part of the bill bans literacy tests and bans states from determining who is or is not qualified to vote. This seems to outlaw colorblind laws that could help determine if a voter is qualified enough to make an informed decision about the direction the country should go in and if they have sufficient background to make such a claim. A purely neutral and meritocratic test is anything but a restriction on a persons natural rights, whether this could be implemented without bias is another conversation altogether
Two:
Title 7, the part of the Civil Rights Act people really refer to when they say things such as "repeal the civil rights act of 1964!". This part of the bill outlaws employers from discriminating against workers and customers on the basis of being in a protected class. For obvious reasons, this restriction on a persons property rights is an affront to a liberal society and people need to be more outraged

This is my interpretation of the civil rights act of 1964
 
Northern industry tied to labor unions, plus Dixiecrats was an unbeatable combo. Then Johnson passes the Civil Rights Act and the Democratic Party dies a slow death.

Funniest part is Johnson and Nixon were competing to see who could pass a civil rights bill. Johnson got there first.
 
I'm going to try and keep my reply under 47 pages.

It's one of those things that looked good on paper like communism. People picture some kind of Utopia and end up with epic bureaucracy, bread lines, political leaders literally raping and murdering their own citizens with impunity for fun on the weekends and Chernobyl (The Chernobyl nuclear disaster incident was far far worse than you were taught about in school).

People, even sane people like Charlton Heston, pictured MLK's American Utopia and wanted to give it a chance. 60 years later we have basically denied freedom of speech, right to refuse service, public education for anyone in places like Baltimore has been destroyed for everyone. Tens of thousands of frivolous /vixaious lawsuits were spawned exploiting this act in particular. There was a reason Charlton Heston stepped away from the movement and there's a reason white people are randomly beaten to unconciousness at a Cincinnati Jazz festivals.
 
Did it enrich the lives of White people? Then abolish it if not.
It has measurably harmed society across the board.

White people are denied freedom of association while niggers are allowed it- refer to the ‘Freedom Georgia Initiative’ and its treatment as opposed to ‘Return to the land’.

White people and functional black people are forced to subsidize dysfunctional black neighborhoods- refer to Baton Rouge/St George.

Black-on-white interracial violence has skyrocketed and is often excused or minimized in the media.

Blacks have not only failed to integrate, they have developed an extremely toxic parallel culture that glorifies everything corrosive to a functional society.

We tie ourselves in knots to make excuses for black failure, black violence, black poverty, and the answer always seems to be ‘it’s whitey’s fault, structural racism, send more money’ as if the world’s stupidest and most violent horse can be made to drink when led to water.

It has made our borders porous, imported various colonies of culturally hostile non-integrating parasites, rewarded politicians who pander to such groups, and presented the bill to the white middle class.

It has allowed malicious rootless cosmopolitans to bypass sensible and legal measures by presenting suicidally foolish measures as ‘moral’ and ‘compassionate’.

It has, by every measure, failed to improve society one iota, cost trillions, and driven hatred, anger and destruction. It’s a beautiful example of the good intentions paving the road to hell.

Now get out of my town by sundown, nigger, or else.
 
Fun fact while the act does define protected classes it also says that there is one exemption anyone registered to the communist party or communist party adjacent groups. So if someone says they are a communist you can fire them without fear. No idea if this has actually been tested.
1756595316128.webp

https://www.eeoc.gov/statutes/title-vii-civil-rights-act-1964
 
Atrás
Top Abajo