|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On May 13 2015 03:22 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 02:43 Yoav wrote:On May 13 2015 02:09 Paljas wrote:
centralized organisation is also great at institutionalizing extremism, as shown by history of the world biggest religion.
And this is why we should teach history better. The Catholic church, for all its many faults (I'm a Presbyterian and they spent a lot of time and money trying to wipe us out) has generally been a pretty solid bulwark against extremism. They were broadly anti-war, strongly against harming non-combatants, quite consistently stood against anti-Jewish violence (often sheltering fleeing Jews), and opposed the Spanish Inquisition. But I know, atheistic narrative, religion bad, etc. (Because we all know atheists never engage in repression of infidels, ideological violence, suicide bombing, terrorism, and mass killings) On May 12 2015 23:46 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 12 2015 23:21 Yoav wrote:On May 12 2015 22:49 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:America’s Changing Religious Landscape
Christians Decline Sharply as Share of Population; Unaffiliated and Other Faiths Continue to Grow The Christian share of the U.S. population is declining, while the number of U.S. adults who do not identify with any organized religion is growing, according to an extensive new survey by the Pew Research Center. Moreover, these changes are taking place across the religious landscape, affecting all regions of the country and many demographic groups. While the drop in Christian affiliation is particularly pronounced among young adults, it is occurring among Americans of all ages. The same trends are seen among whites, blacks and Latinos; among both college graduates and adults with only a high school education; and among women as well as men. To be sure, the United States remains home to more Christians than any other country in the world, and a large majority of Americans – roughly seven-in-ten – continue to identify with some branch of the Christian faith.1 But the major new survey of more than 35,000 Americans by the Pew Research Center finds that the percentage of adults (ages 18 and older) who describe themselves as Christians has dropped by nearly eight percentage points in just seven years, from 78.4% in an equally massive Pew Research survey in 2007 to 70.6% in 2014. Over the same period, the percentage of Americans who are religiously unaffiliated – describing themselves as atheist, agnostic or “nothing in particular” – has jumped more than six points, from 16.1% to 22.8%. And the share of Americans who identify with non-Christian faiths also has inched up, rising 1.2 percentage points, from 4.7% in 2007 to 5.9% in 2014. Growth has been especially great among Muslims and Hindus, albeit from a very low base. Christians Decline as Share of U.S. Population; Other Faiths and the Unaffiliated Are GrowingThe drop in the Christian share of the population has been driven mainly by declines among mainline Protestants and Catholics. Each of those large religious traditions has shrunk by approximately three percentage points since 2007. The evangelical Protestant share of the U.S. population also has dipped, but at a slower rate, falling by about one percentage point since 2007.2 Even as their numbers decline, American Christians – like the U.S. population as a whole – are becoming more racially and ethnically diverse. Non-Hispanic whites now account for smaller shares of evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics than they did seven years earlier, while Hispanics have grown as a share of all three religious groups. Racial and ethnic minorities now make up 41% of Catholics (up from 35% in 2007), 24% of evangelical Protestants (up from 19%) and 14% of mainline Protestants (up from 9%). ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/hVHXBAp.png) ![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/08EwXs2.png) (even more information at http://www.pewforum.org/2015/05/12/americas-changing-religious-landscape/ ) There are about 4 times as many non-religious Americans (atheists, agnostics, etc.) as there are non-Christian faith Americans (Jewish, Muslim, Buddhist, Hindu, etc.); the non-religious demographic continues to increase steadily to nearly 1/4 of all Americans; and Christian faith Americans still make up a large majority, although dropping steadily to around 70%. I wonder if 23% is a big enough chunk of the American population for non-religious people to become part of the consideration when every American politician metaphorically gives the Christian god a blowjob during and at the end of every speech. Politicians also seem to have a lot more conversations about non-Christian faiths than they do about non-religious people. Can I emphatically bitch about Pew not even including historically black denominations on the chart (it's in the data)? I mean, we already basically erase black folks from any discussion of religion in the US, which is just frankly bizarre. It's outrageous, and paints a more realistic picture than "white evangelicals are all there is to American Christianity." The US is 70% nominally Christian... "Evangelicals" are, in this poll, 25% of the population, which sounds about right. They're about a third of American Christianity. So yeah, why every politician acts like Jerry Falwell speaks for all American Christians is quite beyond my comprehension. I'll give evangelicals that they're good at outreach and the increasingly voluntary nature of religion has been good to them. I hope in my life to be a part of the outreach mainliners do to keep from getting too small in the US religious scene. The table does have a category for "historically black" Christian denominations, but I certainly think it would be cool if they cross-referenced religion with race/ ethnicity as well. I'd imagine that if every sect of Christianity was included on the table, it would be twice as long and have a lot of 0.1% rows. I think this data is trying to show the heavy hitters and the different religions overall. Historically black churches are on the table, as I said, but they are excluded from the chart (along with Mormons and some). They are absolutely sizable enough to matter, especially given their beyond-numbers attendance and intellectual life/social engagement. They're also politically important, because if the Republicans ever get their shit together, they are the obvious target for large-scale defections away from the Democrats. Blacks have been taken for granted by the Democrats for a long time, but Dems get away with it because the Republicans look so much worse. Churches are the main structure that would be organized enough to actually effect a major defection, if the Republicans are able to make a good pitch. Republicans have 0 to offer to get the black vote. The only thing black churches and Republicans agree on is being anti-gay marriage, but even there the Republicans are moving slower than the people.
It's absolutely an age/ generational issue with the Republicans though. All age groups of Republicans are still less okay with gay marriage than all age groups of Democrats, but there's a startling difference between younger and older Republicans (which is really, really good). Here:
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/aeCdbkA.png)
~ http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/03/10/61-of-young-republicans-favor-same-sex-marriage/
I'd like to call it the Fox News Syndrome. With such a high median age of Fox News viewers, that demographic will start to fade and the new/ younger social conservatives are going to be less ridiculous because they live in a world that fact-checks Fox and goes out of its way to educate and criticize and ostracize the people who believe that bullshit.
|
On May 13 2015 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 03:40 Chocolate wrote:The way elections work in this country ensure that the majority of the population (if this majority is rather ubiquitious, like with % of people that are religious) will be overrepresented in government. I don't think you should antagonize Republicans for their demographics, they represent their electorate decently well (other than in terms of gender, but they tend to be more religious/conservative and so women may not even want to run). Then we'll have commentators asking what's wrong with the white community that even after hundreds of years of oppressing everyone else they still have so many poor people who often turn to a life of crime. How almost 40 exclusively white administrations couldn't help with so much white poverty and crime.
How even when white people controlled everything there has always been more white people on government aid than any other group.
Oh fuck off, maybe it's because when white people are in government they don't exclusively focus on the needs of white people? And this is a bad thing? lol, you realize every time anything racial comes up that line (or some variation) is trotted out about Obama and the black community. It's pretty funny that it would upset you, and suddenly the non-sensible nature of the comment becomes readily apparent.
I'm not AT ALL a conservative, I just think you're posting flame bait because you have some weird resentment of white people
I'd never say that about Obama and black people and think most educated conservatives wouldn't either. There are a lot of dumb conservatives (and a lot of dumb liberals), there's no point to stoop to their level
I'll say it again: identity politics is a distraction
@above, yeah, fox and O'Reilly aren't meant for you so they don't give a shit if they make you mad. the median age of viewership is like 69 and 72 respectively. fox pretty much represents ideas that are going out of fashion
|
Historically African-American churches would be the first place to look for criticism on the lack of black fathers, breakdown of the family, secular culture. It's a good area to watch for defections. Locally, Prop 8 was buoyed by so many blacks coming to the polls to vote for Barack Obama that also bared their views on gay marriage. Nationally, open-border immigration hurts low-skilled blacks looking for jobs (which is to say, the same political party can't pander to both minority groups forever without pissing off one or the other.
Secondarily, if the vehemence of hate directed against the religious faithful ever gets prominently tied to Democratic Party candidates and platform, that would spell disaster. Right now the candidates are nominally Christian and don't receive much flak. I think all the major '08 candidates vocally opposed gay marriage, too.
|
United States42698 Posts
GreenHorizons. Out of curiousity how weird is that Obama, who is in no way a member of the African American community, and is only half African is treated as a the head of your national community? When I say African American community here I mean the community of black Americans whose roots go back to slavery and who form the vast majority of the black population.
Because he doesn't share any of that historical or cultural stuff and racially he's similar only in the sense that both he and African Americans make me look pale. West Africa and East Africa have totally different genetic backgrounds, even though they're both blacker than Europeans. I feel it's like having a half black, half Russian appointed as the head of Boer minority in South Africa.
|
On May 13 2015 03:06 Paljas wrote:
the crusades were anti war. good to know
I see your anecdote and raise you a trend.
But seriously, only the first three crusades could reasonably count as remotely religiously motivated, and were at least conceived of as defensive in nature against an aggressive, expansionist Islam. We can quibble with that historically, but it's easy to understand how a European of that time could have believed their culture was in existential threat and that the crusades were a chance to strike back in an organized foe who kept striking deep into their territory. Terrible things were done (again, largely by individuals against the orders of authorities), and it's a dark period in Christian history, but let's not pretend it's all there was.
On May 13 2015 03:06 Paljas wrote:
the spanish inquisition was also not the only inquisition and is for itself also a terrible argument in favor of religous organisations based on authority
Right, but usually our idea of "inquisition" with the persecution and the torture is based on a Protestant-propaganda idea of what the Spanish Inquisition was like. An "Inquisition" is just an "investigation" as a part of Church court procedures. For about 60% of church history, the death penalty was extremely rare and torture was non-existent. After that point, there were spates of violence amid largely peaceful periods, usually when a new heresy cropped up.
In any event, while the anti-heretical inquisitions were a sacrilege from a religious point of view, the violence they contained was on a scale orders of magnitude down from the ordinary violence of medieval and early modern life. The Spanish Inquisition, widely noted for its independence of Rome and its corresponding unusual levels of violence, executed people at a rate of about 10 a year at its peak.
Witchcraft burning and anti-Jewish pogroms, which were "grassroots" and opposed by the institutional church, were on a massively larger scale, and were in turn dwarfed in scale by the ordinary trivial violence of micro-wars across Europe throughout the period.
On May 13 2015 03:06 Paljas wrote:
also no idea why yoav is already coming up with that atheist strawman. i actually defended peoples choice to be religious without the need to follow an authority.
Is it okay for me to defend people's choice to be atheists if they go to church?
But seriously, the narrative I'm combating (apparently along with Nyx) is the one that misreads history out of an attempt to justify an ideological narrative that suggests organized religion is the source of all evil. If you don't buy it, good for you. But it's absolutely out there, and is politically and socially dangerous, nevermind historically ignorant.
|
United States42698 Posts
Also sorry for singling you out and doing the whole "hey, you're black, speak for your people" thing.
|
United States42698 Posts
On May 13 2015 03:58 Yoav wrote:I see your anecdote and raise you a trend. But seriously, only the first three crusades could reasonably count as remotely religiously motivated, and were at least conceived of as defensive in nature against an aggressive, expansionist Islam. We can quibble with that historically, but it's easy to understand how a European of that time could have believed their culture was in existential threat and that the crusades were a chance to strike back in an organized foe who kept striking deep into their territory. Terrible things were done (again, largely by individuals against the orders of authorities), and it's a dark period in Christian history, but let's not pretend it's all there was. Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 03:06 Paljas wrote:
the spanish inquisition was also not the only inquisition and is for itself also a terrible argument in favor of religous organisations based on authority
Right, but usually our idea of "inquisition" with the persecution and the torture is based on a Protestant-propaganda idea of what the Spanish Inquisition was like. An "Inquisition" is just an "investigation" as a part of Church court procedures. For about 60% of church history, the death penalty was extremely rare and torture was non-existent. After that point, there were spates of violence amid largely peaceful periods, usually when a new heresy cropped up. In any event, while the anti-heretical inquisitions were a sacrilege from a religious point of view, the violence they contained was on a scale orders of magnitude down from the ordinary violence of medieval and early modern life. The Spanish Inquisition, widely noted for its independence of Rome and its corresponding unusual levels of violence, executed people at a rate of about 10 a year at its peak. Witchcraft burning and anti-Jewish pogroms, which were "grassroots" and opposed by the institutional church, were on a massively larger scale, and were in turn dwarfed in scale by the ordinary trivial violence of micro-wars across Europe throughout the period. Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 03:06 Paljas wrote:
also no idea why yoav is already coming up with that atheist strawman. i actually defended peoples choice to be religious without the need to follow an authority. Is it okay for me to defend people's choice to be atheists if they go to church? But seriously, the narrative I'm combating (apparently along with Nyx) is the one that misreads history out of an attempt to justify an ideological narrative that suggests organized religion is the source of all evil. If you don't buy it, good for you. But it's absolutely out there, and is politically and socially dangerous, nevermind historically ignorant.
Crusades were absolutely aggressive and religiously motivated and the focus that the Crusades to the Holy Land do a disservice to the history. There was huge scale persecution of "heretic" sects in southern France, there were crusader states across eastern Germany and up to Lithuania, the expulsion of the Moors from Spain was done by crusaders and even the Spanish Armada, and the subsequent Anglo Spanish wars, were paid for with crusade dues.
There is a debate within the historical community about what counts as a crusade but I think it's a pretty dumb debate because the church at the time had no such confusion. They raised crusade dues (special tithes to pay for crusading), they granted crusade pardons and indulgences and they forgave sins for all of the above. The Spanish Armada was funded by Catholics contributing crusade tithes, it was a crusade against Anglican England. Crusading was aggressive, brutal and generally practiced against other Europeans.
|
On May 13 2015 03:51 Danglars wrote:
Historically African-American churches would be the first place to look for criticism on the lack of black fathers, breakdown of the family, secular culture. It's a good area to watch for defections. Locally, Prop 8 was buoyed by so many blacks coming to the polls to vote for Barack Obama that also bared their views on gay marriage. Nationally, open-border immigration hurts low-skilled blacks looking for jobs (which is to say, the same political party can't pander to both minority groups forever without pissing off one or the other.
Secondarily, if the vehemence of hate directed against the religious faithful ever gets prominently tied to Democratic Party candidates and platform, that would spell disaster. Right now the candidates are nominally Christian and don't receive much flak. I think all the major '08 candidates vocally opposed gay marriage, too.
You are allowed to change your views over time. Many people who currently support gay marriage were also alive in '12, '08, '04, etc. and may or may not have supported gay marriage then. It's a process, and not one that involves all opponents dying off to be replaced with a new generation that is magically supportive.
The "vehemence of hate" should be addressed, but it's not just for the religious. This is a problem our culture is currently struggling to deal with and the prevalence of social media does not help the cause. If someone does something you do not like, you and one thousand of your closest internet friends can get that person fired or within an inch of their sanity! I'd like to think internet culture will grow out of this eventually, but who knows.
That said, this "war on Christianity" is really about religion as a whole. There is a growing number of non-religious people in this country, and they are at odds with religions that promote discrimination. "Hate the sin, not the sinner," is not a sufficient explanation or excuse in their eyes, because you cannot condemn a lifestyle/way of life without also condemning the person. Think of all the people you've met (or heard of) that say that video games are stupid or not worth spending time on. Even though they haven't said anything about you as a person, if you are someone who plays a lot of video games you are going to take issue with that and interpret it as an attack on you. That's a natural human reaction, to identify heavily with the things, concepts, and practices we surround ourselves with.
I would argue that the world would be a much better place without any religion, but I realize that is not likely or realistic. But I won't lie and say I'm not reassured when I hear that young people are finding they do not need religion to live fulfilling lives.
|
On May 13 2015 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 03:40 Chocolate wrote:The way elections work in this country ensure that the majority of the population (if this majority is rather ubiquitious, like with % of people that are religious) will be overrepresented in government. I don't think you should antagonize Republicans for their demographics, they represent their electorate decently well (other than in terms of gender, but they tend to be more religious/conservative and so women may not even want to run). Then we'll have commentators asking what's wrong with the white community that even after hundreds of years of oppressing everyone else they still have so many poor people who often turn to a life of crime. How almost 40 exclusively white administrations couldn't help with so much white poverty and crime.
How even when white people controlled everything there has always been more white people on government aid than any other group.
Oh fuck off, maybe it's because when white people are in government they don't exclusively focus on the needs of white people? And this is a bad thing? lol, you realize every time anything racial comes up that line (or some variation) is trotted out about Obama and the black community. It's pretty funny that it would upset you, and suddenly the non-sensible nature of the comment becomes readily apparent. Even though 40 administrations is a long time and many of them certainly did focus exclusively on white issues. For several administrations black people weren't even considered people,let alone constituents or Americans. If black people don't have an excuse for poverty and crime related to historical transgressions than white people have even less of an excuse for all the poverty and crime we see in their communities. They were practically the only ones legally able to own land when the government was handing it out for free, yet there are still sooo many impoverished white folk, what's wrong with their communities that even after hundreds of years of oppressing their competition so many white folk are still so poor? Why after dozens of white administrations do white people still suck up the majority of government aid. What is wrong with the white community that they still aren't on their feet? Whites were never property in the United States, they never had laws that deprived their right to own land because they were white? Whites have had every opportunity to pick themselves up or just take one of countless hand-out/ups from the government like free land, 0% minority representation, slave labor, etc... Yet with all of that and more white people still suck up more government aid than any other group.
There are white community subgroups that have been disadvantaged historically. If you want to draw a comparison that doesn't rely on painting in very broad strokes along racial lines, you could start there.
|
On May 13 2015 03:58 KwarK wrote:
Also sorry for singling you out and doing the whole "hey, you're black, speak for your people" thing.
I appreciate the thought.
It's really weird. For all the imitation of black culture that happens in America people are largely clueless about black culture.
Obama does share a common experience for black folk in that it doesn't matter how white he dresses, talks, or acts he's still black. Evidenced by the large swath of the Republican party that still to this day thinks he's part of some massive conspiracy involving every branch of military and government to cover up that he's Kenyan.
Obama and I share a unique commonality in that we are technically biracial, but that just means you are black with something else mixed in. People have no problem calling him black because he is half black, but no one calls Obama a white president when he is equally that (maternally speaking).
In reality Obama (and myself) are a minority within a minority. Too black (of skin) to be white, too white (of language) to be black. So I personally feel a connection with Obama that many black people don't.
Those of us who are mixed and or have diverse friends are familiar with the struggles that situation forces you to confront. Something as simple as how you say hello has to be modified from one person to the next, how you shake hands, the language (oral and body), your attire, etc... It's exhausting yet necessary. If I don't change those things to make others feel comfortable there is a noticeable tension that is formed.
Cuz mane I could be spittin at you guys the way I chop it up wit mah soldiers but most of y'all would be off before the needle hit the table.
So while Obama has only a minimal experience as a black American he still understands it exponentially more than any well known republican and any other previous serious presidential contender.
Keep in mind there is 0 chance for someone more familiar than he is with the black American experience (as separated from it as he was) to run/win from either party. So yeah it sucks having "THE" black leader be so separated from the black American experience but he is still far more familiar than any president we've had or one we have coming.
On May 13 2015 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 03:40 Chocolate wrote:The way elections work in this country ensure that the majority of the population (if this majority is rather ubiquitious, like with % of people that are religious) will be overrepresented in government. I don't think you should antagonize Republicans for their demographics, they represent their electorate decently well (other than in terms of gender, but they tend to be more religious/conservative and so women may not even want to run). Then we'll have commentators asking what's wrong with the white community that even after hundreds of years of oppressing everyone else they still have so many poor people who often turn to a life of crime. How almost 40 exclusively white administrations couldn't help with so much white poverty and crime.
How even when white people controlled everything there has always been more white people on government aid than any other group.
Oh fuck off, maybe it's because when white people are in government they don't exclusively focus on the needs of white people? And this is a bad thing? lol, you realize every time anything racial comes up that line (or some variation) is trotted out about Obama and the black community. It's pretty funny that it would upset you, and suddenly the non-sensible nature of the comment becomes readily apparent. Even though 40 administrations is a long time and many of them certainly did focus exclusively on white issues. For several administrations black people weren't even considered people,let alone constituents or Americans. If black people don't have an excuse for poverty and crime related to historical transgressions than white people have even less of an excuse for all the poverty and crime we see in their communities. They were practically the only ones legally able to own land when the government was handing it out for free, yet there are still sooo many impoverished white folk, what's wrong with their communities that even after hundreds of years of oppressing their competition so many white folk are still so poor? Why after dozens of white administrations do white people still suck up the majority of government aid. What is wrong with the white community that they still aren't on their feet? Whites were never property in the United States, they never had laws that deprived their right to own land because they were white? Whites have had every opportunity to pick themselves up or just take one of countless hand-out/ups from the government like free land, 0% minority representation, slave labor, etc... Yet with all of that and more white people still suck up more government aid than any other group. There are white community subgroups that have been disadvantaged historically. If you want to draw a comparison that doesn't rely on painting in very broad strokes along racial lines, you could start there.
Did you hear that Jonny?... That was my point going right over your head...
|
On May 13 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 03:58 KwarK wrote:
Also sorry for singling you out and doing the whole "hey, you're black, speak for your people" thing. I appreciate the thought. It's really weird. For all the imitation of black culture that happens in America people are largely clueless about black culture. Obama does share a common experience for black folk in that it doesn't matter how white he dresses, talks, or acts he's still black. Evidenced by the large swath of the Republican party that still to this day thinks he's part of some massive conspiracy involving every branch of military and government to cover up that he's Kenyan. Obama and I share a unique commonality in that we are technically biracial, but that just means you are black with something else mixed in. People have no problem calling him black because he is half black, but no one calls Obama a white president when he is equally that (maternally speaking). In reality Obama (and myself) are a minority within a minority. Too black (of skin) to be white, too white (of language) to be black. So I personally feel a connection with Obama that many black people don't. Those of us who are mixed and or have diverse friends are familiar with the struggles that situation forces you to confront. Something as simple as how you say hello has to be modified from one person to the next, how you shake hands, the language (oral and body), your attire, etc... It's exhausting yet necessary. If I don't change those things to make others feel comfortable there is a noticeable tension that is formed. Cuz mane I could be spittin at you guys the way I chop it up wit mah soldiers but most of y'all would be off before the needle hit the table. So while Obama has only a minimal experience as a black American he still understands it exponentially more than any well known republican and any other previous serious presidential contender. Keep in mind there is 0 chance for someone more familiar than he is with the black American experience (as separated from it as he was) to run/win from either party. So yeah it sucks having "THE" black leader be so separated from the black American experience but he is still far more familiar than any president we've had or one we have coming. Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 03:40 Chocolate wrote:The way elections work in this country ensure that the majority of the population (if this majority is rather ubiquitious, like with % of people that are religious) will be overrepresented in government. I don't think you should antagonize Republicans for their demographics, they represent their electorate decently well (other than in terms of gender, but they tend to be more religious/conservative and so women may not even want to run). Then we'll have commentators asking what's wrong with the white community that even after hundreds of years of oppressing everyone else they still have so many poor people who often turn to a life of crime. How almost 40 exclusively white administrations couldn't help with so much white poverty and crime.
How even when white people controlled everything there has always been more white people on government aid than any other group.
Oh fuck off, maybe it's because when white people are in government they don't exclusively focus on the needs of white people? And this is a bad thing? lol, you realize every time anything racial comes up that line (or some variation) is trotted out about Obama and the black community. It's pretty funny that it would upset you, and suddenly the non-sensible nature of the comment becomes readily apparent. Even though 40 administrations is a long time and many of them certainly did focus exclusively on white issues. For several administrations black people weren't even considered people,let alone constituents or Americans. If black people don't have an excuse for poverty and crime related to historical transgressions than white people have even less of an excuse for all the poverty and crime we see in their communities. They were practically the only ones legally able to own land when the government was handing it out for free, yet there are still sooo many impoverished white folk, what's wrong with their communities that even after hundreds of years of oppressing their competition so many white folk are still so poor? Why after dozens of white administrations do white people still suck up the majority of government aid. What is wrong with the white community that they still aren't on their feet? Whites were never property in the United States, they never had laws that deprived their right to own land because they were white? Whites have had every opportunity to pick themselves up or just take one of countless hand-out/ups from the government like free land, 0% minority representation, slave labor, etc... Yet with all of that and more white people still suck up more government aid than any other group. There are white community subgroups that have been disadvantaged historically. If you want to draw a comparison that doesn't rely on painting in very broad strokes along racial lines, you could start there. Did you hear that Jonny?... That was my point going right over your head...
Did you hear that GH? ... That was my point going right over your head...
Edit: you're making posts that are very hostile towards white people as a whole. You may want to show more of a willingness to expand upon and clarify your points.
|
On May 13 2015 04:35 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 04:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 03:58 KwarK wrote:
Also sorry for singling you out and doing the whole "hey, you're black, speak for your people" thing. I appreciate the thought. It's really weird. For all the imitation of black culture that happens in America people are largely clueless about black culture. Obama does share a common experience for black folk in that it doesn't matter how white he dresses, talks, or acts he's still black. Evidenced by the large swath of the Republican party that still to this day thinks he's part of some massive conspiracy involving every branch of military and government to cover up that he's Kenyan. Obama and I share a unique commonality in that we are technically biracial, but that just means you are black with something else mixed in. People have no problem calling him black because he is half black, but no one calls Obama a white president when he is equally that (maternally speaking). In reality Obama (and myself) are a minority within a minority. Too black (of skin) to be white, too white (of language) to be black. So I personally feel a connection with Obama that many black people don't. Those of us who are mixed and or have diverse friends are familiar with the struggles that situation forces you to confront. Something as simple as how you say hello has to be modified from one person to the next, how you shake hands, the language (oral and body), your attire, etc... It's exhausting yet necessary. If I don't change those things to make others feel comfortable there is a noticeable tension that is formed. Cuz mane I could be spittin at you guys the way I chop it up wit mah soldiers but most of y'all would be off before the needle hit the table. So while Obama has only a minimal experience as a black American he still understands it exponentially more than any well known republican and any other previous serious presidential contender. Keep in mind there is 0 chance for someone more familiar than he is with the black American experience (as separated from it as he was) to run/win from either party. So yeah it sucks having "THE" black leader be so separated from the black American experience but he is still far more familiar than any president we've had or one we have coming. On May 13 2015 04:22 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 03:40 Chocolate wrote:The way elections work in this country ensure that the majority of the population (if this majority is rather ubiquitious, like with % of people that are religious) will be overrepresented in government. I don't think you should antagonize Republicans for their demographics, they represent their electorate decently well (other than in terms of gender, but they tend to be more religious/conservative and so women may not even want to run). Then we'll have commentators asking what's wrong with the white community that even after hundreds of years of oppressing everyone else they still have so many poor people who often turn to a life of crime. How almost 40 exclusively white administrations couldn't help with so much white poverty and crime.
How even when white people controlled everything there has always been more white people on government aid than any other group.
Oh fuck off, maybe it's because when white people are in government they don't exclusively focus on the needs of white people? And this is a bad thing? lol, you realize every time anything racial comes up that line (or some variation) is trotted out about Obama and the black community. It's pretty funny that it would upset you, and suddenly the non-sensible nature of the comment becomes readily apparent. Even though 40 administrations is a long time and many of them certainly did focus exclusively on white issues. For several administrations black people weren't even considered people,let alone constituents or Americans. If black people don't have an excuse for poverty and crime related to historical transgressions than white people have even less of an excuse for all the poverty and crime we see in their communities. They were practically the only ones legally able to own land when the government was handing it out for free, yet there are still sooo many impoverished white folk, what's wrong with their communities that even after hundreds of years of oppressing their competition so many white folk are still so poor? Why after dozens of white administrations do white people still suck up the majority of government aid. What is wrong with the white community that they still aren't on their feet? Whites were never property in the United States, they never had laws that deprived their right to own land because they were white? Whites have had every opportunity to pick themselves up or just take one of countless hand-out/ups from the government like free land, 0% minority representation, slave labor, etc... Yet with all of that and more white people still suck up more government aid than any other group. There are white community subgroups that have been disadvantaged historically. If you want to draw a comparison that doesn't rely on painting in very broad strokes along racial lines, you could start there. Did you hear that Jonny?... That was my point going right over your head... Did you hear that GH? ... That was my point going right over your head... Edit: you're making posts that are very hostile towards white people as a whole. You may want to show more of a willingness to expand upon and clarify your points.
Don't you ever get tired of trolling me? Can we skip to the part when you just call me a white hating shitlord and move on please?
@EDIT: rofl so clueless.
|
On May 13 2015 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 03:40 Chocolate wrote:The way elections work in this country ensure that the majority of the population (if this majority is rather ubiquitious, like with % of people that are religious) will be overrepresented in government. I don't think you should antagonize Republicans for their demographics, they represent their electorate decently well (other than in terms of gender, but they tend to be more religious/conservative and so women may not even want to run). Then we'll have commentators asking what's wrong with the white community that even after hundreds of years of oppressing everyone else they still have so many poor people who often turn to a life of crime. How almost 40 exclusively white administrations couldn't help with so much white poverty and crime.
How even when white people controlled everything there has always been more white people on government aid than any other group.
Oh fuck off, maybe it's because when white people are in government they don't exclusively focus on the needs of white people? And this is a bad thing? lol, you realize every time anything racial comes up that line (or some variation) is trotted out about Obama and the black community. It's pretty funny that it would upset you, and suddenly the non-sensible nature of the comment becomes readily apparent. Even though 40 administrations is a long time and many of them certainly did focus exclusively on white issues. For several administrations black people weren't even considered people,let alone constituents or Americans. If black people don't have an excuse for poverty and crime related to historical transgressions than white people have even less of an excuse for all the poverty and crime we see in their communities. They were practically the only ones legally able to own land when the government was handing it out for free, yet there are still sooo many impoverished white folk, what's wrong with their communities that even after hundreds of years of oppressing their competition so many white folk are still so poor? Why after dozens of white administrations do white people still suck up the majority of government aid. What is wrong with the white community that they still aren't on their feet? Whites were never property in the United States, they never had laws that deprived their right to own land because they were white? Whites have had every opportunity to pick themselves up or just take one of countless hand-out/ups from the government like free land, 0% minority representation, slave labor, etc... Yet with all of that and more white people still suck up more government aid than any other group.
Are you being sarcastic like that surfer riot video? Because I'm really not sure. You seem to be thinking that race has no impact on hard done by people in the current day.
|
On May 13 2015 05:02 Wolfstan wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 03:40 Chocolate wrote:The way elections work in this country ensure that the majority of the population (if this majority is rather ubiquitious, like with % of people that are religious) will be overrepresented in government. I don't think you should antagonize Republicans for their demographics, they represent their electorate decently well (other than in terms of gender, but they tend to be more religious/conservative and so women may not even want to run). Then we'll have commentators asking what's wrong with the white community that even after hundreds of years of oppressing everyone else they still have so many poor people who often turn to a life of crime. How almost 40 exclusively white administrations couldn't help with so much white poverty and crime.
How even when white people controlled everything there has always been more white people on government aid than any other group.
Oh fuck off, maybe it's because when white people are in government they don't exclusively focus on the needs of white people? And this is a bad thing? lol, you realize every time anything racial comes up that line (or some variation) is trotted out about Obama and the black community. It's pretty funny that it would upset you, and suddenly the non-sensible nature of the comment becomes readily apparent. Even though 40 administrations is a long time and many of them certainly did focus exclusively on white issues. For several administrations black people weren't even considered people,let alone constituents or Americans. If black people don't have an excuse for poverty and crime related to historical transgressions than white people have even less of an excuse for all the poverty and crime we see in their communities. They were practically the only ones legally able to own land when the government was handing it out for free, yet there are still sooo many impoverished white folk, what's wrong with their communities that even after hundreds of years of oppressing their competition so many white folk are still so poor? Why after dozens of white administrations do white people still suck up the majority of government aid. What is wrong with the white community that they still aren't on their feet? Whites were never property in the United States, they never had laws that deprived their right to own land because they were white? Whites have had every opportunity to pick themselves up or just take one of countless hand-out/ups from the government like free land, 0% minority representation, slave labor, etc... Yet with all of that and more white people still suck up more government aid than any other group. Are you being sarcastic like that surfer riot video? Because I'm really not sure.
The tone? Yes a bit, I am mimicking the standard talking points/rhetoric used when racial injustice issues come up. The facts are the facts though. Almost 70% of government benefits go to white people. White people have had every opportunity everyone else has and then some in America. If the problems black people face are supposed to be primarily of their own making surely the heavy burden white people put on the government and hard working Americans who pay for those benefits white people overwhelmingly receive is also of their own making?
Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.
White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share.
Source
|
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective.
|
On May 13 2015 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 05:02 Wolfstan wrote:On May 13 2015 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 03:40 Chocolate wrote:The way elections work in this country ensure that the majority of the population (if this majority is rather ubiquitious, like with % of people that are religious) will be overrepresented in government. I don't think you should antagonize Republicans for their demographics, they represent their electorate decently well (other than in terms of gender, but they tend to be more religious/conservative and so women may not even want to run). Then we'll have commentators asking what's wrong with the white community that even after hundreds of years of oppressing everyone else they still have so many poor people who often turn to a life of crime. How almost 40 exclusively white administrations couldn't help with so much white poverty and crime.
How even when white people controlled everything there has always been more white people on government aid than any other group.
Oh fuck off, maybe it's because when white people are in government they don't exclusively focus on the needs of white people? And this is a bad thing? lol, you realize every time anything racial comes up that line (or some variation) is trotted out about Obama and the black community. It's pretty funny that it would upset you, and suddenly the non-sensible nature of the comment becomes readily apparent. Even though 40 administrations is a long time and many of them certainly did focus exclusively on white issues. For several administrations black people weren't even considered people,let alone constituents or Americans. If black people don't have an excuse for poverty and crime related to historical transgressions than white people have even less of an excuse for all the poverty and crime we see in their communities. They were practically the only ones legally able to own land when the government was handing it out for free, yet there are still sooo many impoverished white folk, what's wrong with their communities that even after hundreds of years of oppressing their competition so many white folk are still so poor? Why after dozens of white administrations do white people still suck up the majority of government aid. What is wrong with the white community that they still aren't on their feet? Whites were never property in the United States, they never had laws that deprived their right to own land because they were white? Whites have had every opportunity to pick themselves up or just take one of countless hand-out/ups from the government like free land, 0% minority representation, slave labor, etc... Yet with all of that and more white people still suck up more government aid than any other group. Are you being sarcastic like that surfer riot video? Because I'm really not sure. The tone? Yes a bit, I am mimicking the standard talking points/rhetoric used when racial injustice issues come up. The facts are the facts though. Almost 70% of government benefits go to white people. White people have had every opportunity everyone else has and then some in America. If the problems black people face are supposed to be primarily of their own making surely the heavy burden white people put on the government and hard working Americans who pay for those benefits white people overwhelmingly receive is also of their own making? Show nested quote +Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.
White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share. Source
According to your data table white are mainly receiving benefits tied to their contributions (social security) while blacks and hispanics are receiving benefits tied to their economic circumstances (poor / unemployed). The benefits to blacks would be dis-proportionally paid for by whites, which would make the whole system re-distributive from whites to blacks and hispanics.
|
On May 13 2015 06:06 Anesthetic wrote:
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective.
Blacks can't be racist, they don't have the institutional power to be racist. They can act on prejudices but they lack the institutionalized power to make those prejudices standard practice.
If one refuses to accept the delineation and difference between acting on prejudices and racism than sure black people can be racist too. Of course such an understanding betrays a woeful lack of understanding of what prejudice and racism actually are.
On May 13 2015 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 05:02 Wolfstan wrote:On May 13 2015 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 03:40 Chocolate wrote:The way elections work in this country ensure that the majority of the population (if this majority is rather ubiquitious, like with % of people that are religious) will be overrepresented in government. I don't think you should antagonize Republicans for their demographics, they represent their electorate decently well (other than in terms of gender, but they tend to be more religious/conservative and so women may not even want to run). Then we'll have commentators asking what's wrong with the white community that even after hundreds of years of oppressing everyone else they still have so many poor people who often turn to a life of crime. How almost 40 exclusively white administrations couldn't help with so much white poverty and crime.
How even when white people controlled everything there has always been more white people on government aid than any other group.
Oh fuck off, maybe it's because when white people are in government they don't exclusively focus on the needs of white people? And this is a bad thing? lol, you realize every time anything racial comes up that line (or some variation) is trotted out about Obama and the black community. It's pretty funny that it would upset you, and suddenly the non-sensible nature of the comment becomes readily apparent. Even though 40 administrations is a long time and many of them certainly did focus exclusively on white issues. For several administrations black people weren't even considered people,let alone constituents or Americans. If black people don't have an excuse for poverty and crime related to historical transgressions than white people have even less of an excuse for all the poverty and crime we see in their communities. They were practically the only ones legally able to own land when the government was handing it out for free, yet there are still sooo many impoverished white folk, what's wrong with their communities that even after hundreds of years of oppressing their competition so many white folk are still so poor? Why after dozens of white administrations do white people still suck up the majority of government aid. What is wrong with the white community that they still aren't on their feet? Whites were never property in the United States, they never had laws that deprived their right to own land because they were white? Whites have had every opportunity to pick themselves up or just take one of countless hand-out/ups from the government like free land, 0% minority representation, slave labor, etc... Yet with all of that and more white people still suck up more government aid than any other group. Are you being sarcastic like that surfer riot video? Because I'm really not sure. The tone? Yes a bit, I am mimicking the standard talking points/rhetoric used when racial injustice issues come up. The facts are the facts though. Almost 70% of government benefits go to white people. White people have had every opportunity everyone else has and then some in America. If the problems black people face are supposed to be primarily of their own making surely the heavy burden white people put on the government and hard working Americans who pay for those benefits white people overwhelmingly receive is also of their own making? Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.
White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share. Source According to your data table white are mainly receiving benefits tied to their contributions (social security) while blacks and hispanics are receiving benefits tied to their economic circumstances (poor / unemployed). The benefits to blacks would be dis-proportionally paid for by whites, which would make the whole system re-distributive from whites to blacks and hispanics.
Seriously, just skip to the personal insults and move on to someone/something else. We are both well aware we can't engage in productive discussion with each other.
|
Quick: List the first four words that pop into your mind when you hear NASA.
If you are like most folks, you hit some mix of astronauts, moon landings, space telescopes and Mars probes. Those are pretty positive images representing accomplishments we can all feel proud about.
Astronauts are, after all, great American heroes. And space telescopes are reminders of just how smart — and insanely capable — Americans can be. Put it all together and you can see why NASA does superhero stuff in the eyes of most people.
It's also stuff that's universally recognized to be the kind where you absolutely, positively can't afford to be wrong. And that is why NASA is a real problem for climate denialism.
If you are intent on convincing people there is no climate change, then the last thing you want is NASA — with all its heroism and accuracy — telling folks climate change is real. So, faced with this dilemma, climate denialist's have come up with a clever solution: Get NASA out of climate change science.
As has been widely reported, the House Science, Space and Technology Committee recently approved a bill that would cut at least $300 million from NASA's earth-science budget. This comes after the head of the Senate committee overseeing NASA claimed the agency should stop doing earth-science and focus only on space exploration.
Both these moves are part of a broader effort to hobble American science from doing its job in exploring the planet's climate. As reported by Elizabeth Kolbert in the New Yorker:
"The vote on the NASA bill came just a week after the same House committee approved major funding cuts to the National Science Foundation's [NSF] geosciences program, as well as cuts to Department of Energy programs that support research into new energy sources."
But even with the broader effort, the emphasis on NASA seems particularly pointed. How many people even know what the NSF stands for — or what the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) does all day?
But NASA is different. Every kid knows NASA. Every parent knows NASA. NASA is cool. NASA is Superman.
So, when NASA tells us that Earth's climate is changing because of human activity, it carries a lot weight. It's a weight climate denialists have a hard time bearing up under.
Source
|
Show nested quote +On May 13 2015 06:14 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On May 13 2015 05:19 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 05:02 Wolfstan wrote:On May 13 2015 03:43 GreenHorizons wrote:On May 13 2015 03:40 Chocolate wrote:The way elections work in this country ensure that the majority of the population (if this majority is rather ubiquitious, like with % of people that are religious) will be overrepresented in government. I don't think you should antagonize Republicans for their demographics, they represent their electorate decently well (other than in terms of gender, but they tend to be more religious/conservative and so women may not even want to run). Then we'll have commentators asking what's wrong with the white community that even after hundreds of years of oppressing everyone else they still have so many poor people who often turn to a life of crime. How almost 40 exclusively white administrations couldn't help with so much white poverty and crime.
How even when white people controlled everything there has always been more white people on government aid than any other group.
Oh fuck off, maybe it's because when white people are in government they don't exclusively focus on the needs of white people? And this is a bad thing? lol, you realize every time anything racial comes up that line (or some variation) is trotted out about Obama and the black community. It's pretty funny that it would upset you, and suddenly the non-sensible nature of the comment becomes readily apparent. Even though 40 administrations is a long time and many of them certainly did focus exclusively on white issues. For several administrations black people weren't even considered people,let alone constituents or Americans. If black people don't have an excuse for poverty and crime related to historical transgressions than white people have even less of an excuse for all the poverty and crime we see in their communities. They were practically the only ones legally able to own land when the government was handing it out for free, yet there are still sooo many impoverished white folk, what's wrong with their communities that even after hundreds of years of oppressing their competition so many white folk are still so poor? Why after dozens of white administrations do white people still suck up the majority of government aid. What is wrong with the white community that they still aren't on their feet? Whites were never property in the United States, they never had laws that deprived their right to own land because they were white? Whites have had every opportunity to pick themselves up or just take one of countless hand-out/ups from the government like free land, 0% minority representation, slave labor, etc... Yet with all of that and more white people still suck up more government aid than any other group. Are you being sarcastic like that surfer riot video? Because I'm really not sure. The tone? Yes a bit, I am mimicking the standard talking points/rhetoric used when racial injustice issues come up. The facts are the facts though. Almost 70% of government benefits go to white people. White people have had every opportunity everyone else has and then some in America. If the problems black people face are supposed to be primarily of their own making surely the heavy burden white people put on the government and hard working Americans who pay for those benefits white people overwhelmingly receive is also of their own making? Another finding of the study is that the distribution of benefits no longer aligns with the demography of poverty. African-Americans, who make up 22 percent of the poor, receive 14 percent of government benefits, close to their 12 percent population share.
White non-Hispanics, who make up 42 percent of the poor, receive 69 percent of government benefits – again, much closer to their 64 percent population share. Source According to your data table white are mainly receiving benefits tied to their contributions (social security) while blacks and hispanics are receiving benefits tied to their economic circumstances (poor / unemployed). The benefits to blacks would be dis-proportionally paid for by whites, which would make the whole system re-distributive from whites to blacks and hispanics. Seriously, just skip to the personal insults and move on to someone/something else. We are both well aware we can't engage in productive discussion with each other.
I didn't mean any ill will. If you post what I consider to be bad information on a public forum I'm going to publicly note it. You are welcome to ignore my post, rather than engage, if you prefer.
|
On May 13 2015 06:06 Anesthetic wrote:
@GreenHorizons
I think your on a thin line here, while I understand your points about blacks having unique problems that whites can't understand, at the very same time this can so easily turn into the "Blacks can't be racist" type of thoughts that are just so incredibly dumb.
Things have to be taken in an objective manner and thats quite a big problem with the Social Justice Movement, because even though YOU are using proper arguments/logic, a lot of those movements prefer to just act like nobody except blacks can comment on black issues, even if they have much stronger evidence. While I completely understand that whites will never know what its like to be a minority in this country(I am Mexican myself), there always have to be an effort to remain objective.
That's not true. I'm a white minority at my current residence (Hawai'i). I'm well aware of the effects of racism, but it's a card that gets trumpeted way too much especially by the slavery still has lingering effect crowds especially when it is concerning northern states like Michigan, Maryland, New York, etc.
Inter-generational poverty is not exclusively a black problem - just look at Appalachia. So to say it's only about race completely discounts the economic and cultural influences that contribute to these sorts of areas. Being as I am half-Cherokee as well, if there is anyone who hardly gets any attention and yet are in the most dire of straights in this country in most if not all data-points are the Native Americans especially those trapped in the death camps...sorry, reservations.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/the-hard-lives--and-high-suicide-rate--of-native-american-children/2014/03/09/6e0ad9b2-9f03-11e3-b8d8-94577ff66b28_story.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
