|
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 March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:27 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:59 WhiteDog wrote:On March 06 2016 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2016 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On March 06 2016 06:40 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2016 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:What I don't understand is that everyone believe the success of Trump has anything to do with education / discourse (it's the left or the right), and not with reality/the economy. What about the fact that the poor white population is in a bad state and face a significant degradation of its life conditions ? I linked this a few month ago on the increasing death rates of the white men in the US. That those real problems express themselves politically through the caricatural behavior of Trump and xenophobia is sad (and, to be fair, recurrent throughout history). But you can't just wash away Trump by saying his supporters are stupid and that's it. There are people that actually need help and that could welcome another solution, less caricatural and xenophobic than Trump's. So your saying that what (some) Trump supporters really want is to vote for Bernie? No I'm saying some people might have real source of discontent, and that maybe they feel the left do not speak to them. I agree with you that poor people in America (be they white or black) are in a bad state but to change that you need government assistance. Cutting taxes across the board is not going to significantly help these people since the poor already pay very little in taxes. Free Healthcare, cheaper educations, higher min wage are all things that can help improve their lives. The irony is that they all policies of the left, not the right. So why exactly are these people still wanting to vote for Republicans? Why are they rallying to a man who wants to cut taxes on the rich and build a wall to keep out foreigners? edit: Its poor uninsured people with no chance of ever getting coverage because of per-existing conditions protesting against the ACA all over again. its utterly backwards. I'm pretty sure discontent towards immigration is the most important explanation for Trump's success. So there you have why they don't vote for the left : immigration is never discussed except in very manichean terms, and racism (not only of Trump's supporters, but the whole idea of race) is the best way to split people who actually have the same interests in different groups. Now the problem is that the desire of unity and equality despite differences is hardly if not ever supported nowadays - in the left and in the right - at least from where I stand (since I'm not from the US, I watch that from afar). Fighting against ACA is not backwards if you believe in the idea of us (white) against them (black) and that you are sure that the ACA (or even taxation) is a form of redistribution from you to them (see Lee Atwater's interview) - which might even be true from an objective point of view. Rich vs poor is as much an abstraction as white vs black, and imposing one of those two scheme in the mind of people is also at the core of politics. I'm quite certain that if you're trying to narrow down the opinions and views of 100 million people (give or take) into singular, specific points, you are going to be wrong every time. The most important question, before any talks of political points even matter, is figuring out how much people actually care about the political race for the politics. On March 06 2016 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:43 ZeaL. wrote:
There was once a time in my life where I lamented how asians are negatively affected by affirmative action. But now I'm not 16. You're trying to be snarky here, but it's actually a relevant point that mostly gets ignored in these discussions. A young adult entering post-secondary, or entering the work force for the first time, does not care about systemic biases or what supposed privileges they have, when they're competing on an individual level with other people. And someone who is at a secure point in their life will have much more opportunity to care about things on a societal level instead of an individual one. People can't even acknowledge that people are being incarcerated, beaten, and killed while having their constitutional rights trampled. Sorry if well-off Asian kids not getting into their first choice isn't what most people think is the important part of the conversation that's not being absorbed. Should probably note that this is the kind of rhetoric that has made me ignore most of your posts. Sure, there are serious issues in the United States, but if you haven't noticed, this is the Team Liquid forum. A place where people talk politics and trade opinions, even if they don't necessarily do it civilly. Not your personal soap box. That's the point. People talk about stuff with no appreciation for the real human costs. That you're defending the argument that was wiping away systemic racism with a gesture and proclaiming how my rhetoric is worthy of dismissal, is emblematic of what's so amazingly absurd about it. And this is my point. You don't discuss anything. You point at people and say "How dare you discuss this, black people are dying!" Well shit, I'm sorry I think black people dying and being abused takes priority over Asian kids not getting into their first choices when discussing systemic racism. Of course that makes me the absurd one... Again, not sure if you've noticed, but this is the Team Liquid forum, and the "US Politics Mega Thread". If you want to limit your discussions to Black People Dying, go ahead and make a thread for it. Just don't be so shocked when people talk about things you don't want to in something titled "Mega Thread". You seem to be confused about the discussion that was taking place. The reason GreenHorizons was reacting that way wasn't that people were talking about something else than "black people dying", it was that people were actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro.
Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans.
|
And where did anyone actively denied the existence of institutional racism against African Americans.Just curious. Urgh. These Americanisms.
|
On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:27 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:59 WhiteDog wrote:On March 06 2016 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2016 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On March 06 2016 06:40 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
So your saying that what (some) Trump supporters really want is to vote for Bernie? No I'm saying some people might have real source of discontent, and that maybe they feel the left do not speak to them. I agree with you that poor people in America (be they white or black) are in a bad state but to change that you need government assistance. Cutting taxes across the board is not going to significantly help these people since the poor already pay very little in taxes. Free Healthcare, cheaper educations, higher min wage are all things that can help improve their lives. The irony is that they all policies of the left, not the right. So why exactly are these people still wanting to vote for Republicans? Why are they rallying to a man who wants to cut taxes on the rich and build a wall to keep out foreigners? edit: Its poor uninsured people with no chance of ever getting coverage because of per-existing conditions protesting against the ACA all over again. its utterly backwards. I'm pretty sure discontent towards immigration is the most important explanation for Trump's success. So there you have why they don't vote for the left : immigration is never discussed except in very manichean terms, and racism (not only of Trump's supporters, but the whole idea of race) is the best way to split people who actually have the same interests in different groups. Now the problem is that the desire of unity and equality despite differences is hardly if not ever supported nowadays - in the left and in the right - at least from where I stand (since I'm not from the US, I watch that from afar). Fighting against ACA is not backwards if you believe in the idea of us (white) against them (black) and that you are sure that the ACA (or even taxation) is a form of redistribution from you to them (see Lee Atwater's interview) - which might even be true from an objective point of view. Rich vs poor is as much an abstraction as white vs black, and imposing one of those two scheme in the mind of people is also at the core of politics. I'm quite certain that if you're trying to narrow down the opinions and views of 100 million people (give or take) into singular, specific points, you are going to be wrong every time. The most important question, before any talks of political points even matter, is figuring out how much people actually care about the political race for the politics. On March 06 2016 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
You're trying to be snarky here, but it's actually a relevant point that mostly gets ignored in these discussions.
A young adult entering post-secondary, or entering the work force for the first time, does not care about systemic biases or what supposed privileges they have, when they're competing on an individual level with other people.
And someone who is at a secure point in their life will have much more opportunity to care about things on a societal level instead of an individual one. People can't even acknowledge that people are being incarcerated, beaten, and killed while having their constitutional rights trampled. Sorry if well-off Asian kids not getting into their first choice isn't what most people think is the important part of the conversation that's not being absorbed. Should probably note that this is the kind of rhetoric that has made me ignore most of your posts. Sure, there are serious issues in the United States, but if you haven't noticed, this is the Team Liquid forum. A place where people talk politics and trade opinions, even if they don't necessarily do it civilly. Not your personal soap box. That's the point. People talk about stuff with no appreciation for the real human costs. That you're defending the argument that was wiping away systemic racism with a gesture and proclaiming how my rhetoric is worthy of dismissal, is emblematic of what's so amazingly absurd about it. And this is my point. You don't discuss anything. You point at people and say "How dare you discuss this, black people are dying!" Well shit, I'm sorry I think black people dying and being abused takes priority over Asian kids not getting into their first choices when discussing systemic racism. Of course that makes me the absurd one... Again, not sure if you've noticed, but this is the Team Liquid forum, and the "US Politics Mega Thread". If you want to limit your discussions to Black People Dying, go ahead and make a thread for it. Just don't be so shocked when people talk about things you don't want to in something titled "Mega Thread". You seem to be confused about the discussion that was taking place. The reason GreenHorizons was reacting that way wasn't that people were talking about something else than "black people dying", it was that people were actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro. Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans.
Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...?
Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street.
|
On March 06 2016 07:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
And where did anyone actively denied the existence of institutional racism against African Americans.Just curious. Urgh. These Americanisms.
here:
On March 06 2016 06:08 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 06:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 05:38 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 05:17 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:56 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Such an assertion is not part of my original post explaining why the right is responsible for Trump's rise, so try again. He is clearly sexist though, and has made more than enough statements with heavily racist/xenophobic undertones (and more than that) to justify criticizing him on that front.
edit: also, notice how wei2coolman is carefully ignoring my two replies to him in which I cite polls showing Trump has more racist and bigoted supporters than the other candidates. Predictable. Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite. If their business model relies on having distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear, then absolutely. Their "business model"? That's a very cynical way of approaching people who are legitimately trying to make the world a better place. That's like saying that tutors don't want to actually help educate students- and in fact, will try to make them dumber- because that way, the tutors won't become obsolete and unemployed. It's partially paradoxical from a self-interest perspective, but it's not a matter of financial gain. Civil rights activists, much like educators, are pursuing their passion and vocation and expressing a purity of motive (barring the occasional nutjob or extremist that exists with any group of people). MLK Jr. wasn't fighting for civil rights because he was secretly in cahoots with screwing over blacks and profiting off it. You can also look at the kinds of people who are successful (financially, politically, etc.) by spreading messages of fear and hate. Donald Trump, for example, is pretty much the opposite of a sincere advocate for social justice, and his message is all about "distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear" and "more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them". Call it cynical but that's what a lot of people are doing these days. And if they can get away with it, then good for them to figure out a way to make money out of people's fear. Difference between Donald Trump's message on figuring out what the fuck is going on in the middle east before doing any extreme importation is actually based upon evidence that it is indeed a clusterfuck in the middle east and it probably isn't a smart idea to even think to take an action that might pollute USA. While there are plenty of people like BLM that says institutionalized racism for blacks exist while there are affirmative action for them or feminists freaks who yells about wage gap without studying how economics work.But I view them the same light as I view the hardcore religious folks. Somehow all these groups have figured a way to make money out of irrational fears. First of all, institutionalized racism does exist, and the wage gap does exist. At least, in the United States they do. Second, there is a big difference between social justice warriors going over the top and opportunists hoping that prejudice is perpetuated so that they can benefit financially. You were claiming that the latter occurs regularly, whereas at least SJWs have a purity of motive. Yeah institutional racism exists but not for black people. Its for Asians that have to get higher GPA than blacks to go into the same program/school. But ain't nobody protesting about that. Not for BLM, these people are violent as fuck. And wage gap only exists if you add up the income of both male and female and count it that way instead of dividing it up by sector/hrs/jobs. But ofc in that case women will make less money because most of them need to take care of their kids instead of working. So wage gap exists in a complete fair fashion. Nothing to protest there. The people protesting these things are either trolls that wants sane people to explain these concepts or they are in this for the money because many of these things can be easily researched.
on unrelated, but thread-related news: Cruz also winning Maine.
|
On March 06 2016 07:42 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
And where did anyone actively denied the existence of institutional racism against African Americans.Just curious. Urgh. These Americanisms. here: Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 06:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 06:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 05:38 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 05:17 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite. If their business model relies on having distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear, then absolutely. Their "business model"? That's a very cynical way of approaching people who are legitimately trying to make the world a better place. That's like saying that tutors don't want to actually help educate students- and in fact, will try to make them dumber- because that way, the tutors won't become obsolete and unemployed. It's partially paradoxical from a self-interest perspective, but it's not a matter of financial gain. Civil rights activists, much like educators, are pursuing their passion and vocation and expressing a purity of motive (barring the occasional nutjob or extremist that exists with any group of people). MLK Jr. wasn't fighting for civil rights because he was secretly in cahoots with screwing over blacks and profiting off it. You can also look at the kinds of people who are successful (financially, politically, etc.) by spreading messages of fear and hate. Donald Trump, for example, is pretty much the opposite of a sincere advocate for social justice, and his message is all about "distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear" and "more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them". Call it cynical but that's what a lot of people are doing these days. And if they can get away with it, then good for them to figure out a way to make money out of people's fear. Difference between Donald Trump's message on figuring out what the fuck is going on in the middle east before doing any extreme importation is actually based upon evidence that it is indeed a clusterfuck in the middle east and it probably isn't a smart idea to even think to take an action that might pollute USA. While there are plenty of people like BLM that says institutionalized racism for blacks exist while there are affirmative action for them or feminists freaks who yells about wage gap without studying how economics work.But I view them the same light as I view the hardcore religious folks. Somehow all these groups have figured a way to make money out of irrational fears. First of all, institutionalized racism does exist, and the wage gap does exist. At least, in the United States they do. Second, there is a big difference between social justice warriors going over the top and opportunists hoping that prejudice is perpetuated so that they can benefit financially. You were claiming that the latter occurs regularly, whereas at least SJWs have a purity of motive. Yeah institutional racism exists but not for black people. Its for Asians that have to get higher GPA than blacks to go into the same program/school. But ain't nobody protesting about that. Not for BLM, these people are violent as fuck. And wage gap only exists if you add up the income of both male and female and count it that way instead of dividing it up by sector/hrs/jobs. But ofc in that case women will make less money because most of them need to take care of their kids instead of working. So wage gap exists in a complete fair fashion. Nothing to protest there. The people protesting these things are either trolls that wants sane people to explain these concepts or they are in this for the money because many of these things can be easily researched.
Now, maybe he's being obtuse or something, but it's fairly clear he's talking about "institutional" as in, well, "institutions".
|
On March 06 2016 07:42 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
And where did anyone actively denied the existence of institutional racism against African Americans.Just curious. Urgh. These Americanisms. here: Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 06:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 06:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 05:38 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 05:17 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite. If their business model relies on having distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear, then absolutely. Their "business model"? That's a very cynical way of approaching people who are legitimately trying to make the world a better place. That's like saying that tutors don't want to actually help educate students- and in fact, will try to make them dumber- because that way, the tutors won't become obsolete and unemployed. It's partially paradoxical from a self-interest perspective, but it's not a matter of financial gain. Civil rights activists, much like educators, are pursuing their passion and vocation and expressing a purity of motive (barring the occasional nutjob or extremist that exists with any group of people). MLK Jr. wasn't fighting for civil rights because he was secretly in cahoots with screwing over blacks and profiting off it. You can also look at the kinds of people who are successful (financially, politically, etc.) by spreading messages of fear and hate. Donald Trump, for example, is pretty much the opposite of a sincere advocate for social justice, and his message is all about "distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear" and "more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them". Call it cynical but that's what a lot of people are doing these days. And if they can get away with it, then good for them to figure out a way to make money out of people's fear. Difference between Donald Trump's message on figuring out what the fuck is going on in the middle east before doing any extreme importation is actually based upon evidence that it is indeed a clusterfuck in the middle east and it probably isn't a smart idea to even think to take an action that might pollute USA. While there are plenty of people like BLM that says institutionalized racism for blacks exist while there are affirmative action for them or feminists freaks who yells about wage gap without studying how economics work.But I view them the same light as I view the hardcore religious folks. Somehow all these groups have figured a way to make money out of irrational fears. First of all, institutionalized racism does exist, and the wage gap does exist. At least, in the United States they do. Second, there is a big difference between social justice warriors going over the top and opportunists hoping that prejudice is perpetuated so that they can benefit financially. You were claiming that the latter occurs regularly, whereas at least SJWs have a purity of motive. Yeah institutional racism exists but not for black people. Its for Asians that have to get higher GPA than blacks to go into the same program/school. But ain't nobody protesting about that. Not for BLM, these people are violent as fuck. And wage gap only exists if you add up the income of both male and female and count it that way instead of dividing it up by sector/hrs/jobs. But ofc in that case women will make less money because most of them need to take care of their kids instead of working. So wage gap exists in a complete fair fashion. Nothing to protest there. The people protesting these things are either trolls that wants sane people to explain these concepts or they are in this for the money because many of these things can be easily researched. on unrelated, but thread-related news: Cruz also winning Maine.
This is only talking about the current situation, there are no law that specifically bar black peeps from anything.
Therefore no institutionalized racism.
|
On March 06 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:59 WhiteDog wrote:On March 06 2016 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2016 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:On March 06 2016 06:40 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2016 06:36 WhiteDog wrote:What I don't understand is that everyone believe the success of Trump has anything to do with education / discourse (it's the left or the right), and not with reality/the economy. What about the fact that the poor white population is in a bad state and face a significant degradation of its life conditions ? I linked this a few month ago on the increasing death rates of the white men in the US. That those real problems express themselves politically through the caricatural behavior of Trump and xenophobia is sad (and, to be fair, recurrent throughout history). But you can't just wash away Trump by saying his supporters are stupid and that's it. There are people that actually need help and that could welcome another solution, less caricatural and xenophobic than Trump's. So your saying that what (some) Trump supporters really want is to vote for Bernie? No I'm saying some people might have real source of discontent, and that maybe they feel the left do not speak to them. I agree with you that poor people in America (be they white or black) are in a bad state but to change that you need government assistance. Cutting taxes across the board is not going to significantly help these people since the poor already pay very little in taxes. Free Healthcare, cheaper educations, higher min wage are all things that can help improve their lives. The irony is that they all policies of the left, not the right. So why exactly are these people still wanting to vote for Republicans? Why are they rallying to a man who wants to cut taxes on the rich and build a wall to keep out foreigners? edit: Its poor uninsured people with no chance of ever getting coverage because of per-existing conditions protesting against the ACA all over again. its utterly backwards. I'm pretty sure discontent towards immigration is the most important explanation for Trump's success. So there you have why they don't vote for the left : immigration is never discussed except in very manichean terms, and racism (not only of Trump's supporters, but the whole idea of race) is the best way to split people who actually have the same interests in different groups. Now the problem is that the desire of unity and equality despite differences is hardly if not ever supported nowadays - in the left and in the right - at least from where I stand (since I'm not from the US, I watch that from afar). Fighting against ACA is not backwards if you believe in the idea of us (white) against them (black) and that you are sure that the ACA (or even taxation) is a form of redistribution from you to them (see Lee Atwater's interview) - which might even be true from an objective point of view. Rich vs poor is as much an abstraction as white vs black, and imposing one of those two scheme in the mind of people is also at the core of politics. I'm quite certain that if you're trying to narrow down the opinions and views of 100 million people (give or take) into singular, specific points, you are going to be wrong every time. The most important question, before any talks of political points even matter, is figuring out how much people actually care about the political race for the politics. On March 06 2016 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 06:54 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:43 ZeaL. wrote:
There was once a time in my life where I lamented how asians are negatively affected by affirmative action. But now I'm not 16. You're trying to be snarky here, but it's actually a relevant point that mostly gets ignored in these discussions. A young adult entering post-secondary, or entering the work force for the first time, does not care about systemic biases or what supposed privileges they have, when they're competing on an individual level with other people. And someone who is at a secure point in their life will have much more opportunity to care about things on a societal level instead of an individual one. People can't even acknowledge that people are being incarcerated, beaten, and killed while having their constitutional rights trampled. Sorry if well-off Asian kids not getting into their first choice isn't what most people think is the important part of the conversation that's not being absorbed. Should probably note that this is the kind of rhetoric that has made me ignore most of your posts. Sure, there are serious issues in the United States, but if you haven't noticed, this is the Team Liquid forum. A place where people talk politics and trade opinions, even if they don't necessarily do it civilly. Not your personal soap box. That's the point. People talk about stuff with no appreciation for the real human costs. That you're defending the argument that was wiping away systemic racism with a gesture and proclaiming how my rhetoric is worthy of dismissal, is emblematic of what's so amazingly absurd about it. And this is my point. You don't discuss anything. You point at people and say "How dare you discuss this, black people are dying!" Well shit, I'm sorry I think black people dying and being abused takes priority over Asian kids not getting into their first choices when discussing systemic racism. Of course that makes me the absurd one...
Excuse me, I think it's extremely far from obvious that supporting discrimination against a group of people because you perceive them to be "better off" is a fair or just thing to do. Asians (which is a word so broad as to include ethnicities from the subcontinent as well as the Middle East) are not universally well-off and it's slim comfort to the unspecific poor (financially) Asian who's being held to a higher standard pursuing their education that it's supposed to be a fair price to balance out the fact that an unspecific poor black person died at the hands of police.
|
On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:27 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:59 WhiteDog wrote:On March 06 2016 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:On March 06 2016 06:41 WhiteDog wrote:
[quote]
No I'm saying some people might have real source of discontent, and that maybe they feel the left do not speak to them. I agree with you that poor people in America (be they white or black) are in a bad state but to change that you need government assistance. Cutting taxes across the board is not going to significantly help these people since the poor already pay very little in taxes. Free Healthcare, cheaper educations, higher min wage are all things that can help improve their lives. The irony is that they all policies of the left, not the right. So why exactly are these people still wanting to vote for Republicans? Why are they rallying to a man who wants to cut taxes on the rich and build a wall to keep out foreigners? edit: Its poor uninsured people with no chance of ever getting coverage because of per-existing conditions protesting against the ACA all over again. its utterly backwards. I'm pretty sure discontent towards immigration is the most important explanation for Trump's success. So there you have why they don't vote for the left : immigration is never discussed except in very manichean terms, and racism (not only of Trump's supporters, but the whole idea of race) is the best way to split people who actually have the same interests in different groups. Now the problem is that the desire of unity and equality despite differences is hardly if not ever supported nowadays - in the left and in the right - at least from where I stand (since I'm not from the US, I watch that from afar). Fighting against ACA is not backwards if you believe in the idea of us (white) against them (black) and that you are sure that the ACA (or even taxation) is a form of redistribution from you to them (see Lee Atwater's interview) - which might even be true from an objective point of view. Rich vs poor is as much an abstraction as white vs black, and imposing one of those two scheme in the mind of people is also at the core of politics. I'm quite certain that if you're trying to narrow down the opinions and views of 100 million people (give or take) into singular, specific points, you are going to be wrong every time. The most important question, before any talks of political points even matter, is figuring out how much people actually care about the political race for the politics. On March 06 2016 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:58 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
People can't even acknowledge that people are being incarcerated, beaten, and killed while having their constitutional rights trampled. Sorry if well-off Asian kids not getting into their first choice isn't what most people think is the important part of the conversation that's not being absorbed. Should probably note that this is the kind of rhetoric that has made me ignore most of your posts. Sure, there are serious issues in the United States, but if you haven't noticed, this is the Team Liquid forum. A place where people talk politics and trade opinions, even if they don't necessarily do it civilly. Not your personal soap box. That's the point. People talk about stuff with no appreciation for the real human costs. That you're defending the argument that was wiping away systemic racism with a gesture and proclaiming how my rhetoric is worthy of dismissal, is emblematic of what's so amazingly absurd about it. And this is my point. You don't discuss anything. You point at people and say "How dare you discuss this, black people are dying!" Well shit, I'm sorry I think black people dying and being abused takes priority over Asian kids not getting into their first choices when discussing systemic racism. Of course that makes me the absurd one... Again, not sure if you've noticed, but this is the Team Liquid forum, and the "US Politics Mega Thread". If you want to limit your discussions to Black People Dying, go ahead and make a thread for it. Just don't be so shocked when people talk about things you don't want to in something titled "Mega Thread". You seem to be confused about the discussion that was taking place. The reason GreenHorizons was reacting that way wasn't that people were talking about something else than "black people dying", it was that people were actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro. Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street.
ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold.
You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH.
|
United States43221 Posts
On March 05 2016 23:01 Atreides wrote:Show nested quote +On March 05 2016 22:39 puerk wrote:On March 05 2016 22:29 Atreides wrote:
Also for the record I kind of just expect the ACA to die on its own because it doesnt actually work. I am well aware that Trump actually doesn't care about it and anyways as far as I can tell his platform doesn't actually have ANY priorities. :D weren't you the one complaining there is no police that works for him so you rather pay the penalty and then 2 people found insurances that were cheaper than your penalty and had good coverage.... maybe repeating "it does not work" over and over again and closing your eyes to evidence is part of the problem? A whole bunch of people demonstrated that they have never in their entire lives had to buy health insurance for themselves. rofl. And certainly not pre- and post- ACA. Which is fine I guess, either still on parents, or went straight from parents to employer provided plans, or taxpayer pays for it. But spending 5 mins on google and telling me I could get insurance for 89$ a month is utterly hilarious. The ACA really does not work for anyone who would have to buy their own insurance under it. This is trivially obvious as the whole reason to force those people to do it is to pay for deficits in the system. It happens to be particularly bad because of the ability to isolate populations by state, and that really screws Alaska. In fact the only insurance available that I could buy is so expensive I got out of the penalty anyways as it turned out. But yeh, its a personal sore point with me, and sure this is a relatively small percentage of the population that gets utterly screwed. So what, everyone has their issues they care about. I'm not gonna try to discuss it though, I happened to be really pissed about it that day because I was working on my taxes and I just wanted to fuel my indignation some by confirming what I already knew about people who post in this thread.
The policies I found to prove a point were available in Alaska. I really don't know how you're not getting this. But you'd rather be willfully ignorant and force the rest of us to pay for your dumb ass if you got a hospital bill you couldn't afford than admit your error and pay your own way in society. Prove me wrong, if you get into a serious accident refuse treatment. I'll fly out to Alaska and speak at your funeral and say "he was right on the internet". Or, if you're unwilling to refuse treatment you can't afford and unwilling to buy the insurance that will get you that treatment, at least own up that you're a parasite leeching off a society too noble to let you pay for your own stupidity.
|
On March 06 2016 07:42 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:40 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
And where did anyone actively denied the existence of institutional racism against African Americans.Just curious. Urgh. These Americanisms. here: Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 06:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 06:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 05:38 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 05:29 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 05:17 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 05:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 04:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On March 06 2016 04:21 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
Xenophobic != racist. I think that most people consider race to be based on location/ nationality, and xenophobia is a dislike of people from outside countries. Barring a slight semantics argument at best, they're basically the same... And they're certainly both under the umbrella term of bigotry. I think most of the people are just scared of people blindly following books with unreasonable demands. But people that are big about "social justice" loves them because more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them. What's wrong with being an advocate for social justice? You make it sound like people who want equal and fair treatment for everyone are secretly hoping for the opposite. If their business model relies on having distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear, then absolutely. Their "business model"? That's a very cynical way of approaching people who are legitimately trying to make the world a better place. That's like saying that tutors don't want to actually help educate students- and in fact, will try to make them dumber- because that way, the tutors won't become obsolete and unemployed. It's partially paradoxical from a self-interest perspective, but it's not a matter of financial gain. Civil rights activists, much like educators, are pursuing their passion and vocation and expressing a purity of motive (barring the occasional nutjob or extremist that exists with any group of people). MLK Jr. wasn't fighting for civil rights because he was secretly in cahoots with screwing over blacks and profiting off it. You can also look at the kinds of people who are successful (financially, politically, etc.) by spreading messages of fear and hate. Donald Trump, for example, is pretty much the opposite of a sincere advocate for social justice, and his message is all about "distrust among people so they can make money from people's fear" and "more diversity = more problems among people = more business for them". Call it cynical but that's what a lot of people are doing these days. And if they can get away with it, then good for them to figure out a way to make money out of people's fear. Difference between Donald Trump's message on figuring out what the fuck is going on in the middle east before doing any extreme importation is actually based upon evidence that it is indeed a clusterfuck in the middle east and it probably isn't a smart idea to even think to take an action that might pollute USA. While there are plenty of people like BLM that says institutionalized racism for blacks exist while there are affirmative action for them or feminists freaks who yells about wage gap without studying how economics work.But I view them the same light as I view the hardcore religious folks. Somehow all these groups have figured a way to make money out of irrational fears. First of all, institutionalized racism does exist, and the wage gap does exist. At least, in the United States they do. Second, there is a big difference between social justice warriors going over the top and opportunists hoping that prejudice is perpetuated so that they can benefit financially. You were claiming that the latter occurs regularly, whereas at least SJWs have a purity of motive. Yeah institutional racism exists but not for black people. Its for Asians that have to get higher GPA than blacks to go into the same program/school. But ain't nobody protesting about that. Not for BLM, these people are violent as fuck. And wage gap only exists if you add up the income of both male and female and count it that way instead of dividing it up by sector/hrs/jobs. But ofc in that case women will make less money because most of them need to take care of their kids instead of working. So wage gap exists in a complete fair fashion. Nothing to protest there. The people protesting these things are either trolls that wants sane people to explain these concepts or they are in this for the money because many of these things can be easily researched. on unrelated, but thread-related news: Cruz also winning Maine.
But we won't be at winner-take-all states until March 15th so Trump won't be hurt as much if Cruz gains a little ground.
|
On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:27 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:59 WhiteDog wrote:On March 06 2016 06:48 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
I agree with you that poor people in America (be they white or black) are in a bad state but to change that you need government assistance. Cutting taxes across the board is not going to significantly help these people since the poor already pay very little in taxes.
Free Healthcare, cheaper educations, higher min wage are all things that can help improve their lives. The irony is that they all policies of the left, not the right. So why exactly are these people still wanting to vote for Republicans? Why are they rallying to a man who wants to cut taxes on the rich and build a wall to keep out foreigners?
edit: Its poor uninsured people with no chance of ever getting coverage because of per-existing conditions protesting against the ACA all over again. its utterly backwards. I'm pretty sure discontent towards immigration is the most important explanation for Trump's success. So there you have why they don't vote for the left : immigration is never discussed except in very manichean terms, and racism (not only of Trump's supporters, but the whole idea of race) is the best way to split people who actually have the same interests in different groups. Now the problem is that the desire of unity and equality despite differences is hardly if not ever supported nowadays - in the left and in the right - at least from where I stand (since I'm not from the US, I watch that from afar). Fighting against ACA is not backwards if you believe in the idea of us (white) against them (black) and that you are sure that the ACA (or even taxation) is a form of redistribution from you to them (see Lee Atwater's interview) - which might even be true from an objective point of view. Rich vs poor is as much an abstraction as white vs black, and imposing one of those two scheme in the mind of people is also at the core of politics. I'm quite certain that if you're trying to narrow down the opinions and views of 100 million people (give or take) into singular, specific points, you are going to be wrong every time. The most important question, before any talks of political points even matter, is figuring out how much people actually care about the political race for the politics. On March 06 2016 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 07:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Should probably note that this is the kind of rhetoric that has made me ignore most of your posts.
Sure, there are serious issues in the United States, but if you haven't noticed, this is the Team Liquid forum. A place where people talk politics and trade opinions, even if they don't necessarily do it civilly. Not your personal soap box. That's the point. People talk about stuff with no appreciation for the real human costs. That you're defending the argument that was wiping away systemic racism with a gesture and proclaiming how my rhetoric is worthy of dismissal, is emblematic of what's so amazingly absurd about it. And this is my point. You don't discuss anything. You point at people and say "How dare you discuss this, black people are dying!" Well shit, I'm sorry I think black people dying and being abused takes priority over Asian kids not getting into their first choices when discussing systemic racism. Of course that makes me the absurd one... Again, not sure if you've noticed, but this is the Team Liquid forum, and the "US Politics Mega Thread". If you want to limit your discussions to Black People Dying, go ahead and make a thread for it. Just don't be so shocked when people talk about things you don't want to in something titled "Mega Thread". You seem to be confused about the discussion that was taking place. The reason GreenHorizons was reacting that way wasn't that people were talking about something else than "black people dying", it was that people were actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro. Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH.
Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point...
|
It's POC that hold themselves back with their own culture. If someone is born in inner city Baltimore are they more likely to not succeed? Probably. How is that the fault of the white man though? We give massive scholarships and acceptance rates for African Americans to get into college and grad schools. Just look at medical school for example, an African American student can get in with an mcat of a 25 while an Asian person likely needs to score mid 30's.
This "institutional racism" is a sham, there are some unpleasant truths people don't want to accept, and of course abdicating responsibility for your own actions is far easier. Don't even get me started on this BLM stuff.
|
On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:27 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 06:59 WhiteDog wrote:[quote] I'm pretty sure discontent towards immigration is the most important explanation for Trump's success. So there you have why they don't vote for the left : immigration is never discussed except in very manichean terms, and racism (not only of Trump's supporters, but the whole idea of race) is the best way to split people who actually have the same interests in different groups. Now the problem is that the desire of unity and equality despite differences is hardly if not ever supported nowadays - in the left and in the right - at least from where I stand (since I'm not from the US, I watch that from afar). Fighting against ACA is not backwards if you believe in the idea of us (white) against them (black) and that you are sure that the ACA (or even taxation) is a form of redistribution from you to them (see Lee Atwater's interview) - which might even be true from an objective point of view. Rich vs poor is as much an abstraction as white vs black, and imposing one of those two scheme in the mind of people is also at the core of politics. I'm quite certain that if you're trying to narrow down the opinions and views of 100 million people (give or take) into singular, specific points, you are going to be wrong every time. The most important question, before any talks of political points even matter, is figuring out how much people actually care about the political race for the politics. On March 06 2016 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
That's the point. People talk about stuff with no appreciation for the real human costs. That you're defending the argument that was wiping away systemic racism with a gesture and proclaiming how my rhetoric is worthy of dismissal, is emblematic of what's so amazingly absurd about it. And this is my point. You don't discuss anything. You point at people and say "How dare you discuss this, black people are dying!" Well shit, I'm sorry I think black people dying and being abused takes priority over Asian kids not getting into their first choices when discussing systemic racism. Of course that makes me the absurd one... Again, not sure if you've noticed, but this is the Team Liquid forum, and the "US Politics Mega Thread". If you want to limit your discussions to Black People Dying, go ahead and make a thread for it. Just don't be so shocked when people talk about things you don't want to in something titled "Mega Thread". You seem to be confused about the discussion that was taking place. The reason GreenHorizons was reacting that way wasn't that people were talking about something else than "black people dying", it was that people were actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro. Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point...
Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold?
|
On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:27 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 06 2016 07:13 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
I'm quite certain that if you're trying to narrow down the opinions and views of 100 million people (give or take) into singular, specific points, you are going to be wrong every time.
The most important question, before any talks of political points even matter, is figuring out how much people actually care about the political race for the politics.
[quote]
And this is my point. You don't discuss anything. You point at people and say "How dare you discuss this, black people are dying!" Well shit, I'm sorry I think black people dying and being abused takes priority over Asian kids not getting into their first choices when discussing systemic racism. Of course that makes me the absurd one... Again, not sure if you've noticed, but this is the Team Liquid forum, and the "US Politics Mega Thread". If you want to limit your discussions to Black People Dying, go ahead and make a thread for it. Just don't be so shocked when people talk about things you don't want to in something titled "Mega Thread". You seem to be confused about the discussion that was taking place. The reason GreenHorizons was reacting that way wasn't that people were talking about something else than "black people dying", it was that people were actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro. Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold?
And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf.
I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people".
|
On March 06 2016 03:50 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:42 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 02:41 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 01:09 kwizach wrote:On March 05 2016 20:53 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
[quote]
Having a difference of opinion should not be offensive, yet it is to leftists especially the ones at university.This is the generation who demands "safe spaces" and "trigger warnings".Instead of debating ideas on their merits the left increasingly focuses on the race, gender, sexuality of who spouts those ideas.It is a worrying trend.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction.
The left created Trump. Posts like this are really rich because they clearly display the massive dishonesty and hypocrisy displayed by many on the right when it comes to responsibility. They will be harping about "personal responsibility" all the time, but when it comes to the actual responsibility of the right/Republican party for literally anything, they'll always weasel their way into finding someone else to blame ("Thanks, Obama."). The left did not create Trump. At all. The right created two things, which allowed for Trump's rise: 1. With regards to the whole debate on political correctness, the right took an epiphenomenon (yes, there have been some issues here and there on campuses with protests preventing some speakers from holding their conferences) and turned it into a giant caricature in order to have something to rally against. Cries about "political correctness" are usually cries about not being able to openly state racist and sexist views that are no longer deemed acceptable, because society has become more critical of bigots and the different routes through which bigotry is expressed and acted upon. Many people on the right have made this into a huge issue precisely because they would like to be seen as victims (another hilarious hypocrisy -- blaming people on the left who supposedly play the "victim card", when they're doing it all the time) instead of bigots, and because it's a useful tool to rile up and mobilize their base. When someone seen as a fierce opponent of "political correctness" therefore becomes popular notably due to that trait, you can blame the right for how prominent the issue has become as a caricature, not the left. 2. More importantly and fundamentally, the right is responsible for creating a climate of fear regarding pretty much all of the buttons that Trump is pushing: the idea that the U.S. is in a terrible state (not true), the idea that all other states walk over the U.S. on the international stage (not true), the idea that immigrants have a negative impact on the economy (not true), the idea that the U.S. would be better off without Obama's stimulus and its contribution to the debt (not true), the idea that there are easy solutions to ISIS that Obama is not pursuing (not true), the idea that Obama is a president who doesn't love the U.S. (not true), etc. etc. The right is entirely responsible for the bogeymen they've constructed about Obama, his policies, and the state of the U.S. for the last eight years, it is responsible for the inflammatory rhetoric they've employed on these topics, and it is responsible for the despicable tolerance it has shown towards extreme ideas and individuals in its ranks (did the left encourage Trump in his xenophobic insistence that Obama may not be an American? Or was that the right, as usual?). The idea that the left created Trump is both factually false and a perfect example of the hypocrisy coming from the right on these issues. It'd be laughable if it wasn't a terrible sign regarding the state of American politics. Both the left and the right created current state of Trump. Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources. The right is too much of coward to go after Trump like the last Fox debate initially, now its too late. False equivalence. I refer you to the post to which you replied. It isn't making equivalence of anything. Its fact. Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Yeah.. you're just mad because you have blood coming out of your whatever... User was warned for this post
I just wanted to point out that even with the state of this thread, TL STILL holds it to a higher standard than the US political debate. Reflect on that while you discuss whether or not institutionalized racism exists in the US.
|
On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:27 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Well shit, I'm sorry I think black people dying and being abused takes priority over Asian kids not getting into their first choices when discussing systemic racism. Of course that makes me the absurd one... Again, not sure if you've noticed, but this is the Team Liquid forum, and the "US Politics Mega Thread". If you want to limit your discussions to Black People Dying, go ahead and make a thread for it. Just don't be so shocked when people talk about things you don't want to in something titled "Mega Thread". You seem to be confused about the discussion that was taking place. The reason GreenHorizons was reacting that way wasn't that people were talking about something else than "black people dying", it was that people were actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro. Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people".
What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue.
|
On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:27 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Again, not sure if you've noticed, but this is the Team Liquid forum, and the "US Politics Mega Thread". If you want to limit your discussions to Black People Dying, go ahead and make a thread for it. Just don't be so shocked when people talk about things you don't want to in something titled "Mega Thread". You seem to be confused about the discussion that was taking place. The reason GreenHorizons was reacting that way wasn't that people were talking about something else than "black people dying", it was that people were actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro. Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue.
How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people.
|
On March 06 2016 08:02 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 03:50 Acrofales wrote:On March 06 2016 03:48 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:36 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 03:34 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 03:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:42 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 02:41 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 02:35 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 01:09 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
Posts like this are really rich because they clearly display the massive dishonesty and hypocrisy displayed by many on the right when it comes to responsibility. They will be harping about "personal responsibility" all the time, but when it comes to the actual responsibility of the right/Republican party for literally anything, they'll always weasel their way into finding someone else to blame ("Thanks, Obama.").
The left did not create Trump. At all. The right created two things, which allowed for Trump's rise:
1. With regards to the whole debate on political correctness, the right took an epiphenomenon (yes, there have been some issues here and there on campuses with protests preventing some speakers from holding their conferences) and turned it into a giant caricature in order to have something to rally against. Cries about "political correctness" are usually cries about not being able to openly state racist and sexist views that are no longer deemed acceptable, because society has become more critical of bigots and the different routes through which bigotry is expressed and acted upon. Many people on the right have made this into a huge issue precisely because they would like to be seen as victims (another hilarious hypocrisy -- blaming people on the left who supposedly play the "victim card", when they're doing it all the time) instead of bigots, and because it's a useful tool to rile up and mobilize their base. When someone seen as a fierce opponent of "political correctness" therefore becomes popular notably due to that trait, you can blame the right for how prominent the issue has become as a caricature, not the left.
2. More importantly and fundamentally, the right is responsible for creating a climate of fear regarding pretty much all of the buttons that Trump is pushing: the idea that the U.S. is in a terrible state (not true), the idea that all other states walk over the U.S. on the international stage (not true), the idea that immigrants have a negative impact on the economy (not true), the idea that the U.S. would be better off without Obama's stimulus and its contribution to the debt (not true), the idea that there are easy solutions to ISIS that Obama is not pursuing (not true), the idea that Obama is a president who doesn't love the U.S. (not true), etc. etc. The right is entirely responsible for the bogeymen they've constructed about Obama, his policies, and the state of the U.S. for the last eight years, it is responsible for the inflammatory rhetoric they've employed on these topics, and it is responsible for the despicable tolerance it has shown towards extreme ideas and individuals in its ranks (did the left encourage Trump in his xenophobic insistence that Obama may not be an American? Or was that the right, as usual?).
The idea that the left created Trump is both factually false and a perfect example of the hypocrisy coming from the right on these issues. It'd be laughable if it wasn't a terrible sign regarding the state of American politics. Both the left and the right created current state of Trump. Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources. The right is too much of coward to go after Trump like the last Fox debate initially, now its too late. False equivalence. I refer you to the post to which you replied. It isn't making equivalence of anything. Its fact. Did you read your own post? You are portraying the right and the left has having equivalently contributed to the rise of Trump. "Left is too fiscally wasteful on how they want to spent the country's resources" is also not a fact. It's an opinion, and a simplistic and largely wrong one at that. Again, I refer you to my original post as to why the right is very much to blame for the rise of Trump. I didn't say they equivalenty contributed rise of Trump. It wasn't equally contributed at all. The Left have done much more to the rise of Trump much more than the Right. I refuted that idea in my original post. You're wrong, not much more to add. There is zero substance to support that ridiculous assertion of yours. You are assuming that he is a racist/sexist, which is a ridiculous assertion just by itself. Yeah.. you're just mad because you have blood coming out of your whatever... User was warned for this post I just wanted to point out that even with the state of this thread, TL STILL holds it to a higher standard than the US political debate. Reflect on that while you discuss whether or not institutionalized racism exists in the US.
It is mind-blowing that you get warned for a tongue-in-cheek post ironically pointing to the fact that Trump has made sexist statements, while there are posters actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans who are not even getting warned.
|
On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:27 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
You seem to be confused about the discussion that was taking place. The reason GreenHorizons was reacting that way wasn't that people were talking about something else than "black people dying", it was that people were actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro. Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue. How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people.
I gave you links to five studies/publications documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist.
|
On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:57 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:53 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:48 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:40 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:33 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:30 WolfintheSheep wrote:On March 06 2016 07:27 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:23 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
Again, not sure if you've noticed, but this is the Team Liquid forum, and the "US Politics Mega Thread". If you want to limit your discussions to Black People Dying, go ahead and make a thread for it. Just don't be so shocked when people talk about things you don't want to in something titled "Mega Thread". You seem to be confused about the discussion that was taking place. The reason GreenHorizons was reacting that way wasn't that people were talking about something else than "black people dying", it was that people were actively denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Again, as I said like two pages back, these kind of discussions devolve into jargon definitions more than they do the points. For example, what two people actually mean when they use the term "institutional racism", especially when one individual is arguing on a micro scale and the other jumps in with macro. Please explain which definition would allow anyone to deny the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. Please show you understood the use of the words micro and macro...? Maybe ErectedZenith has a long posting history that I'm not aware of. In which case, my bad. But all I really see here is two different conversations happening, with GH attempting to reduce it to the most base level of dead people on the street. ErectedZenith was denying the existence of institutional racism against African Americans. You said GH and him might have been discussing different levels of analysis. Again, please explain with which definition and level of analysis ErectedZenith's assertion is supposed to hold. You seem to have completely misunderstood the discussion, perhaps because you jumped in the middle of it without reading what was posted prior. That's on you, not GH. Well, I think the few previous posts have shown there is a large difference in the usage of "institutional", so, right back to my point... Then again, since you are still not answering my question, with which definition of "institutional racism" does ErectedZenith's assertion that African Americans do not suffer from it hold? And again you're still missing my point, which is if you want to argue the points then argue the points. I'm certainly not going to argue on his behalf. I am going to call out you, and GH, if your argument consists of "dead black people". What the hell is that even supposed to mean? We've been calling out ErectedZenith for his statement, and I have provided links to several studies proving him wrong. You then decided to jump into the discussion, and you declared that the issue was perhaps that people were using different levels of analysis or definitions. The point is that no accepted definition of institutional racism makes ErectedZenith's statement true. If you're going to claim the opposite, then provide one such definition, otherwise the issue is not, as you claimed, that people were using "different definitions", but simply that ErectedZenith was utterly wrong, as should be fucking obvious to anyone even remotely educated on the issue.
he misunderstands the word and doesn't know what "institutional racism" means.
Granted I'm from germany so my take on it that "police treating a group of people worse" (for a lack of better word and not having to write a wall-of-text) being included could be wrong but he is apparently of the opinion that that only counts as "institutional racism" if there's a clear, written out (!) order for that... I think...
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
