Equality in the law is only the beginning - it sets the stage for increasing awareness, connection and collaboration to effect change at the level of subjective experience. — Possibility

I said that:

Equality can only be realised in principle through the laws that assert equality; beyond that, individuals have to apply the principles as best they can. — BrianW

Calling them ‘ignorant’ or ‘stupid’ is counterproductive, and is itself a form of discrimination. — Possibility

I'm not calling them stupid to their faces. In this discussion I'm just pointing out the root cause.

Taking these statements out of context separates them from their meaning and significance for those who utter them. — Possibility

These statements?:

I am "black" and proud.
I am "white" and proud.

I am tall and proud.
I am short and proud.

I am skinny/thin and proud.
I am fat and proud.

I am rich and proud.
I am poor and proud. — BrianW

Only one pair seems tied to race.

The original ‘pride’ statements are a response to assumptions that one should feel inferior for being ‘black’, for instance. — Possibility

huh? what 'original pride statements' are being referred to?

When people come back with statements such as “I’m white and I’m proud” in a discourse where being ‘black’ has connotations of inferiority, it speaks of white supremacy. — Possibility

That seems true. Ok, ok. So you are just referring to the first pair of statements...Yes, I can agree that White Pride is a BIG problem while Black Pride is only a small problem (the small problem being that ALL pride is discriminatory in its implications). I guess to clarify further or I will get in trouble...White Pride is a big enough problem that society should takes steps (laws?) to discourage it; minority pride doesn't really harm people (but I would still count it as a problem, but more along the lines of how people being selfish is a problem).

I have now read more of the thread and found whoppers like this:

Therefore, it is unjust for "black" people to think they can use the n-word and deny the "white" people that same opportunity. If we know and believe the n-word to be derogatory, then it should be taboo for everybody. — BrianW

So I get that you were likely just pointing out that the OP is playing Jordan Peterson type games, but my words only engaged a specific argument - yes, all 'pride' is discriminatory (of course Nazi pride is more discriminatory than pride in being good at hopscotch, but they all discriminate).

My questioning of reverse racism should suggest I am on your side, but I get the sense I may be missing something...feel free to point me in the right direction.

My questioning of reverse racism should suggest I am on your side, but I get the sense I may be missing something...feel free to point me in the right direction. — ZhouBoTong

The point is to get people to think about what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said about fighting discrimination:

In the process of gaining our rightful place we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. — Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. - I Have A Dream

That it doesn't matter who is the majority or who is the minority. That there is no "little" discrimination in the fight against discrimination. That there is no reverse racism and it's all just plain old racism no matter where it comes from. Hate can't be dissipated by hate.

That there is no "little" discrimination in the fight against discrimination. — BrianW

This seems problematic. Wouldn't ANY law designed to end discrimination, discriminate in some way?

Reminds me of the libertarian argument for an unregulated free market...well, yes, if we assume people are rational, caring, and knowledgeable at all times, then that would work great.

Unfortunately, people are quite flawed and sometimes we may have to violate an ideal for the sake of pragmatism.

I feel quite confident that MLK Jr., would have approved of the majority of Civil Rights legislation, despite the fact that it discriminates against bigots.

Similarly, it makes perfect sense to be pro-tolerance but still be intolerant of intolerance (even though it may violate some 'ideal' of tolerance).

he OP is good by me. If you don't get it, you just don't get it. — BrianW

I don't get it, because I'm wondering what you're quoting and what your take on it is.

I think the equality of law is such that it should allow everybody to be whatever they want. But it should not allow anyone to be under another's 'sword'.

I think the equality of law is such that it should allow everybody to be whatever they want. But it should not allow anyone to be under another's 'sword'. — BrianW

Well, I assume you think it is ok that murders and thieves are 'under another's sword'?

If there is government, we are all under someone's sword (and without government, might makes right so I guess we would still be 'under someone's sword'). If it is democracy, there is the tyranny of the majority. A bill of rights can reduce this "tyranny", but not eliminate it. 'Society' does NOT want criminals treated equally, and 'society' is coming around to the idea that bigots should be treated as criminals.

Well, I assume you think it is ok that murders and thieves are 'under another's sword'? — ZhouBoTong

While our justice system is not perfect, it can also be argued that, in part, the murderers and thieves are under their own 'swords' because they determine their own consequences. We cannot allow people to deliberately harm others, therefore, the law turns such antagonists into victims of their own hostility with the aim of discouraging future acts. It is not perfect but effective - perfect application of law would still not be so accommodating as to allow injustice for fear of offending the offender.

If there is government, we are all under someone's sword (and without government, might makes right so I guess we would still be 'under someone's sword'). If it is democracy, there is the tyranny of the majority. — ZhouBoTong

Ours is a flawed practice of government and democracy and should be improved. Our ideals may hint at something sublime but usually they aren't yet realised to the extent they can be readily practiced. Still, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have those ideals. The law should, in part, represent the ideals we hope to attain and, in part, provide the path towards their attainment. Presently, our laws are just demands without the comprehensive corresponding interpretations, executions and appreciation. However, more often than not, our failings are due to our ambition/discipline imbalance (that is, too much ambition vs too little discipline or great expectations and very little effort applied).