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 November 12 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote: ....Just damn... Only in racist land is Mizzou students being threatened not to show up or be shot is overblown, and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort.
Thank goodness what's racist isn't determined by racist statement making white people. You all can keep telling yourselves "we don't think it's racist, so it's not".
It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today.
Did you hear that? It was the point whizzing by your head.
and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort
nah, I got it perfectly. The name has precisely zero to do with its humanity or racist quotient.
The name is merely symbolic of the racist action. Your arguing over the name knowing damn well the operation was racist as all hell fits you perfectly.
I know, to hell with all context! You can't just pluck the name out now and try to use it that way. That's disingenuous. I wasn't even arguing about the program itself.
So what's your point? That operation wetback wasn't a racist name at the time so...?
It was racist name at the time, it's racist now, and people looking at it as anything close to an example are being racist too.
On November 12 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote: ....Just damn... Only in racist land is Mizzou students being threatened not to show up or be shot is overblown, and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort.
Thank goodness what's racist isn't determined by racist statement making white people. You all can keep telling yourselves "we don't think it's racist, so it's not".
It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today.
Did you hear that? It was the point whizzing by your head.
and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort
nah, I got it perfectly. The name has precisely zero to do with its humanity or racist quotient.
The name is merely symbolic of the racist action. Your arguing over the name knowing damn well the operation was racist as all hell fits you perfectly.
I know, to hell with all context! You can't just pluck the name out now and try to use it that way. That's disingenuous. I wasn't even arguing about the program itself.
So what's your point? That operation wetback wasn't a racist name at the time so...?
It was racist name at the time, it's racist now, and people looking at it as anything close to an example are being racist too.
You specifically cited it's name as evidence of something that it's not evidence of, that's all.
On November 12 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote: ....Just damn... Only in racist land is Mizzou students being threatened not to show up or be shot is overblown, and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort.
Thank goodness what's racist isn't determined by racist statement making white people. You all can keep telling yourselves "we don't think it's racist, so it's not".
It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today.
Did you hear that? It was the point whizzing by your head.
and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort
nah, I got it perfectly. The name has precisely zero to do with its humanity or racist quotient.
The name is merely symbolic of the racist action. Your arguing over the name knowing damn well the operation was racist as all hell fits you perfectly.
I know, to hell with all context! You can't just pluck the name out now and try to use it that way. That's disingenuous. I wasn't even arguing about the program itself.
So what's your point? That operation wetback wasn't a racist name at the time so...?
It was racist name at the time, it's racist now, and people looking at it as anything close to an example are being racist too.
You specifically cited it's name as evidence of something that it's not evidence of, that's all.
You thinking that and thinking it mattered at all says more than enough.
On November 12 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote: ....Just damn... Only in racist land is Mizzou students being threatened not to show up or be shot is overblown, and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort.
Thank goodness what's racist isn't determined by racist statement making white people. You all can keep telling yourselves "we don't think it's racist, so it's not".
It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today.
Did you hear that? It was the point whizzing by your head.
and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort
nah, I got it perfectly. The name has precisely zero to do with its humanity or racist quotient.
The name is merely symbolic of the racist action. Your arguing over the name knowing damn well the operation was racist as all hell fits you perfectly.
I know, to hell with all context! You can't just pluck the name out now and try to use it that way. That's disingenuous. I wasn't even arguing about the program itself.
So what's your point? That operation wetback wasn't a racist name at the time so...?
It was racist name at the time, it's racist now, and people looking at it as anything close to an example are being racist too.
You specifically cited it's name as evidence of something that it's not evidence of, that's all.
You thinking that and thinking it mattered it all says more than enough.
You specifically using and emphasizing its name says more than enough.
On November 12 2015 13:24 GreenHorizons wrote: ....Just damn... Only in racist land is Mizzou students being threatened not to show up or be shot is overblown, and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort.
Thank goodness what's racist isn't determined by racist statement making white people. You all can keep telling yourselves "we don't think it's racist, so it's not".
It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today.
Did you hear that? It was the point whizzing by your head.
and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort
nah, I got it perfectly. The name has precisely zero to do with its humanity or racist quotient.
The name is merely symbolic of the racist action. Your arguing over the name knowing damn well the operation was racist as all hell fits you perfectly.
I know, to hell with all context! You can't just pluck the name out now and try to use it that way. That's disingenuous. I wasn't even arguing about the program itself.
So what's your point? That operation wetback wasn't a racist name at the time so...?
It was racist name at the time, it's racist now, and people looking at it as anything close to an example are being racist too.
You specifically cited it's name as evidence of something that it's not evidence of, that's all.
You thinking that and thinking it mattered it all says more than enough.
You specifically using and emphasizing its name says more than enough.
You still don't understand that simply because someone of an ethnicity uses a racist term or does a racist thing that it doesn't make it not racist.
There's plenty that made the operation racist, the name should just be peoples first clue. That you are arguing about the name when you know it was racist (name and operation) in the first place, is pathetic.
On November 12 2015 15:25 Introvert wrote: [quote]
It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today.
Did you hear that? It was the point whizzing by your head.
and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort
nah, I got it perfectly. The name has precisely zero to do with its humanity or racist quotient.
The name is merely symbolic of the racist action. Your arguing over the name knowing damn well the operation was racist as all hell fits you perfectly.
I know, to hell with all context! You can't just pluck the name out now and try to use it that way. That's disingenuous. I wasn't even arguing about the program itself.
So what's your point? That operation wetback wasn't a racist name at the time so...?
It was racist name at the time, it's racist now, and people looking at it as anything close to an example are being racist too.
You specifically cited it's name as evidence of something that it's not evidence of, that's all.
You thinking that and thinking it mattered it all says more than enough.
You specifically using and emphasizing its name says more than enough.
You still don't understand that simply because someone of an ethnicity uses a racist term or does a racist thing that it doesn't make it not racist.
There's plenty that made the operation racist, the name should just be peoples first clue. That you are arguing about the name when you know it was racist (name and operation) in the first place, is pathetic.
So far from me missing your point, you missed mine. Awesome.
Edit: Once again doing that thing where you project backwards. You can't do that.
Edit again: It was certainly uh, unkind, for one reason or another, at the time. I'm not saying it was an entirely neutral phrase. It was invented with a particular thing in mind.
Edit final: Nah, my original point still stands. And that point was not that because Chavez used it, it wasn't offensive. He certainly meant it in a derogatory manner. It's that the thought you tried to make with its name was improper.
On November 12 2015 15:27 GreenHorizons wrote: [quote]
Did you hear that? It was the point whizzing by your head.
and something called "operation wetback" considered a humane effort
nah, I got it perfectly. The name has precisely zero to do with its humanity or racist quotient.
The name is merely symbolic of the racist action. Your arguing over the name knowing damn well the operation was racist as all hell fits you perfectly.
I know, to hell with all context! You can't just pluck the name out now and try to use it that way. That's disingenuous. I wasn't even arguing about the program itself.
So what's your point? That operation wetback wasn't a racist name at the time so...?
It was racist name at the time, it's racist now, and people looking at it as anything close to an example are being racist too.
You specifically cited it's name as evidence of something that it's not evidence of, that's all.
You thinking that and thinking it mattered it all says more than enough.
You specifically using and emphasizing its name says more than enough.
You still don't understand that simply because someone of an ethnicity uses a racist term or does a racist thing that it doesn't make it not racist.
There's plenty that made the operation racist, the name should just be peoples first clue. That you are arguing about the name when you know it was racist (name and operation) in the first place, is pathetic.
So far from me missing your point, you missed mine. Awesome.
Your point was that the name was not indicative of the racist nature of the operation. Your point was wrong AND stupid, I didn't miss it at all.
Edit: You're not saying much at all, spin on though.
Edit2: The point I was making is that the name should of been a dead giveaway it was a racist, inhumane, operation. To which you said
It was from the 50s, and Caesar Chavez used that word himself to describe people coming and undermining his strikes. No one would use it today.
US citizen don't know how blessed they are. Sure you have the most stupid candidates ever and sometime your democracy reeks of ignorance, but it is lively. You have almost ten candidates for each parties, even with such an undemocratic way of founding your campaign, and in those candidates nobody actually know for sure who is going to win the investiture : in France our debate are between - at best - five people and that's it, and everybody knows who are the two real contender since the beginning. Just watched the GOP debate, ok there is not much to be said from my point of view, but still there are disagreements, there's some light and some arguments have value. Those people, as stupid as they can be from time to time, are more interesting than what I get to see on television.
On November 12 2015 22:11 WhiteDog wrote: US citizen don't know how blessed they are. Sure you have the most stupid candidates ever and sometime your democracy reeks of ignorance, but it is lively. You have almost ten candidates for each parties, even with such an undemocratic way of founding your campaign, and in those candidates nobody actually know for sure who is going to win the investiture : in France our debate are between - at best - five people and that's it, and everybody knows who are the two real contender since the beginning. Just watched the GOP debate, ok there is not much to be said from my point of view, but still there are disagreements, there's some light and some arguments have value. Those people, as stupid as they can be from time to time, are more interesting than what I get to see on television.
politics is not there to be entertaining, its not suppose to be a freakshow where we point and laugh at monkies.
On November 12 2015 22:33 Gorsameth wrote: politics is not there to be entertaining, its not suppose to be a freakshow where we point and laugh at monkies.
well guess what! It's a entertaining for many people now. It's not even serious because whatever lie they tell us deep inside we already know their promises aren't anything but jokes!
On November 12 2015 14:28 cLutZ wrote: I don't understand your point, possibly.
Here is simply what I am saying: < Means dependent on +.
College Prof. Hiring < Ph.D. Completion < Ph.D. Acceptance < University Completion < University Admission < High School Graduation/ Standardized testing scores. Things prior to that are hard to directly state causally, be we understand that student performance at very low ages is very indicative of all the things we can actually measure well. When you talk about racial inequality in University hiring, what your are actually talking about is things that are several steps outside of their control. And, so long as affirmative action exists at any point in the system, the steps after will face the option of either accepting the best candidates or accepting a racial % ~= to those applying for a position.
I am talking about hiring in general for all positions and professions, to be honest. The increasing diversity should be something aspirational. And tracking to assure their hiring process isn’t biased is one way to do that. There were several articles out of the tech sector talking about increasing the number of women in the field and one of the CEOs said that assuring that his company was hiring a similar % of women to the % that applied is the first step. To find out how many women applied and then figure out how to increase that number if the firm felt it was too low. And if it can’t be increased, why that is. But without that initial data, it is difficult for any industry to make a plan to do anything.
Of course there are greater problems the higher the qualifications necessary for the position, like professorships. But collecting the information provides the schools with more tools and a better ability to address complaints. Then they can say that they received 5 out of 100 applications were from blacks or another minority if that is the case. And then that can lead to a greater discussion so to why that is.
But the current problem is that few schools or firms are being transparent and provides lip service answers like “we are attempting to address diversity”. The whole point of the discussion is to find a process that isn’t quotas or some other dumb metric.
On November 12 2015 22:11 WhiteDog wrote: US citizen don't know how blessed they are. Sure you have the most stupid candidates ever and sometime your democracy reeks of ignorance, but it is lively. You have almost ten candidates for each parties, even with such an undemocratic way of founding your campaign, and in those candidates nobody actually know for sure who is going to win the investiture : in France our debate are between - at best - five people and that's it, and everybody knows who are the two real contender since the beginning. Just watched the GOP debate, ok there is not much to be said from my point of view, but still there are disagreements, there's some light and some arguments have value. Those people, as stupid as they can be from time to time, are more interesting than what I get to see on television.
I far prefer quality over quantity, but maybe it's the whole "grass is always greener on the other side" perspective. Who cares if we have 5 or 30 candidates if the extra 25 are morons who end up just distracting us from real issues?
On November 12 2015 20:20 oneofthem wrote: whats this about students blocking hospital?
Emory is a pretty small campus. One of the main roads is Clifton, and there's Children's Hospital, Winship Cancer Institute and like 2 or 3 branches of Emory Hospital. Students were straight up blocking the road so cars couldn't get through. This is pretty extensive healthcare complex-- we hear dozens of ambulances everyday, and even several helicopters (we have a helipad).
Look, I get the point of protesting. I get that protesters are likely protesting conditions that endanger them, but there is no need to endanger some completely unrelated guy who is trying to get chemo or dialysis, or god forbid is in critical condition and needs immediate surgery. It's shit like this that drains my sympathy for these protests. This sort of stupid extremism is awful. I imagine a lot of the initiatives on the right that we drop our jaws at like deportation of all illegal immigrants and slashing the IRS started off as good causes then got co-opted by crazies.
On November 12 2015 23:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Nope, also because you made this account exactly today, and you made a ridiculous claim with no evidence, and that's the end of this conversation
as you like my friend. There is always a start for everyone that's all i can tell you.
EPT
