Someone explain Emmanuel Kant to me

Kant told people to be lawful good

What about white people who do not discriminate based on ethnic background? How do you justify discriminating against them based on ethnic background?

If your answer is that they are privileged then you need to justify the government stepping in to offset privilege, how you quantified it to determine how much privilege should be offset and why you are not focussing on people with far more privilege first.

Trump is not against affirmative action.

You don't need to be racist yourself to profit from a racist system. If you are getting a job because the employer doesn't like black people and you are white, you are profiting from institutionalized racism which affirmative action wants to "even out".

Not even the point I was making, what trump is for or isn't for is completely irrelevant to the statement he made.

Love it when words are redefined and individuals become institutions in their own right so that one can blabber about institutional racism and then "fix" it with actual institutional racism.

>corporations are not institutions

You're not talking about racism from corporations, you're talking about racism from individuals who may or may not be part of any such corporations, individuals who are braking the law. Do you call restaurants "institutionally poisoning" people when some retard chef drops poison into someones food against the policy of the restaurant and in opposition to law?

The irony is that affirmative action justifies racism. Hiring people who got their credential in large part due to their ethnicity rather than merit is probably not a good idea so just filtering out all the blacks, women and other "under represented minorities" and hiring only asians and whites seems the best logical conclusion. The worst part is that its actually hurting those who got their credentials trough actual merit and not affirmative action but are sadly in the same ethnic group as those who did..

As long as the diversification quotas in the institutions of power are not met, there is institutionalized racism and sexism.

Genuine question: How does one abandon any sort of reason or logical thinking? Is this a /pol/ psy-ops to make leftists appear mentally retarded or do you actually believe your own bullshit?

Kant's most important philosophic contribution is the idea that jacking off is worse than suicide

>Ad hominem because he doesn't have any counter-arguments

Stay classy, whitey.

>implying being black or a woman isn't merit

Firstly, how can you counter-argue something that's not falsifiable and is in the "ether". In order to even argue with people like you one must simply accept some tenants as truth despite the lack any sort of evidence proving them and then go out of their way in an attempt to disprove them. Like claiming leprechauns exist and than demanding everyone accept it as truth and when people call you out on it call them "resorting to ad-hominem".

Secondly, you replied to me without an argument at all, you simply made a statement without any evidence of it being true and followed it up with inherently institutionally racist demands to supposedly reverse what you have no evidence of occurring but still claim as fact.

Well, akshually, you should just hire all women because apparently you can get away with paying them less for the same work.

Also, diversity is strength, and 100% lgbtq female blacks is a Herakles-tier workforce.

>racist system
>institutionalized racism
Which institution? Which particular policy/protocol/law?

If the institution/system is invisible and covert, how do you know which employers are a part of it and which are not?

Even if we assume every employer is part of this invisible secret society and guilty, how do you justify actions against employees? If someone pays you to wax his ferrari and later turns out to be a drug dealer you "profited from crime", saying "profiting from institutionalized racism" sounds spooky however alone it does not justify actions against them.

Even if it is morally justified it may not be practically justified, as I anticipated.

>If your answer is that they are privileged then you need to justify the government stepping in to offset privilege, how you quantified it to determine how much privilege should be offset and why you are not focussing on people with far more privilege first.

You would have to be naive not to consider that there might be other motivations behind this. We all get angry and lash out at inanimate objects which have nothing to do with the problem, it doesn't take much understanding of human behavior to see what's happening.

Whitey, with a decent debate culture you would try to convince me that institutions are not racist and sexist, despite the fact they are 90% white male. Instead you go on rambling about some Ad-hominem nonsense. Whitey, pleeeeease.

Institutionalized does not mean written in law. Definition of institutionalized as per Oxford Dictionary:

>Establish (something, typically a practice or activity) as a convention or norm in an organization or culture.

If 90% of employer are white males, and white males tend to discriminate against blacks and women, racism and sexism is institutionalized in America.

>I don't need to prove anything because you're a fucking white male
I'm just wondering why asians outperform white males academically and financially.

Maybe niggers and women should stop being biologically inferior to the white man :^)

That's because whitey is positively discriminating Asians "'cause dey be good at math n sheeeeit"

>To succeed as a manager, whites needed an I.Q. of 100, while Chinese-Americans needed an I.Q. of only 93.

nytimes.com/2015/10/11/opinion/sunday/the-asian-advantage.html?mcubz=0

>being violent towards people you disagree with
These people haven't even read a Wikipedia summary of Kantian ethics

Affirmative Action does not exist outside of USA and South Africa. You Americans are all fucking insane and race-obsessed.

Want to stop racism?
Stop talking about race
Stop asking questions about race in the census
Stop gathering statistics about race
Forbid asking about race in employment forms or any racial discrimination

Done. You are now sane like the rest of the civilized world.

>da whyte man keepin us down
It's funny because you're bringing IQ into this.

>average african american IQ is at ~85
>why arent we ceo's n shiet

You don't seem to get it. If Asians get manager positions with an IQ of 93, whiteys with an IQ of 100, then blacks and women have to score IQs of 110 or more for the same position.

> then blacks and women have to score IQs of 110 or more for the same position.
Love this part where you make up stuff. Then again you people do nothing but make up stuff and cite studies you find favorable.

>After controlling for grades, test scores, family background (legacy status), and athletic status (whether or not the student was a recruited athlete), Espenshade and Radford found that whites were three times, Hispanics six times, and blacks more than 15 times as likely to be accepted at a US university as Asian Americans.[79]

>Want to stop racism?
>Stop talking about race
>Stop asking questions about race in the census
>Stop gathering statistics about race
So we can just pretend we've brought the Black Community into the First World, instead of actually doing so?
Stupid Euro, you can fallate your progressive ideologies with your incredibly low non-white populations, but Multiracial countries need to actually fix their shit. We can't just pretend all is good, like less than 20% of the population doesn't commit over half of the violent crime.

You say "just now" and the "shitty sense" like we aren't living in the shitty part of Western Civilization.

Actually, it does exist. Female quotas are being introduced everywhere and at least in Germany the government is spending loads to make integration into society easier for eastern germans. When the "Deutsch-Russen" from the Soviet Union came (who are in fact just regular russians by now) they also cheap, federally funded house mortgages to make integration for them easier.

>institutionalized racism
your schizophrenia is showing

Eat shit commie faggot.

The question posed is not an adequate place to discuss Kant, or his project as questions of this sort are intrinsically disingenuous.

Nobody here seriously wants to discuss Kant's critical philosophy, his relation and commentary with thinkers such as Descartes, Leibniz, Berkeley,
Hume, the Romantics, or even Fichte, Schelling and Hegel.
All that is being sought in this context is a platform for snide remarks, simplifications of a highly technical thinker and crude attempts to jar him somewhere
in contemporary debate; people taking their mere recognition of Kant as clear superiority over that of surely ignorant others.

Simply the presence of an influential text in a piece of media makes people seem to think they may spit on the dignity of philosophy. As Schelling puts it,
the very nature of human freedom and the unlimited richness of knowledge - the tackling of the facts of human existence, may be used as a dunce cap
whenever the appropriate piece of trivium oozes out onto some ideologue's plate from a sewer of petty refuse.
An excellent time to express mere assertions of contingent attitudes, totally lacking the slightest hint of self-criticism, or in the case of irony, ignoring self-criticism.

I acknowledge that the low effort of discussion and argumentation is to be expected, perhaps with the rare thoughtful insight here or there, but the fact that
people will come here each day to assert the same point as the day prior, and so on, and will carelessly invoke the names of those who made the effort to
prove their points, to provide reasons to think as they do, those who changed the very fabric of the higher pursuits is repugnant.

Bless this board to the greatest heights of the Absolute, and damn it to the smallest and most odious bowel of hell.