|
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. |
The point where Godwin's law and Poe's Law meet, we find Trump.
|
On March 06 2016 06:47 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 06:30 Kyadytim wrote:On March 06 2016 05:23 oBlade wrote:On March 06 2016 04:49 Acrofales wrote:
Is ISIS a problem? Absolutely. And a very real aspect of it is its religious philosophy, which needs to be dealt with. But equating ISIS to all muslims is about as useful to equating the westboro baptists to all Christians. Nobody makes that equivalence. It's a self-serving strawman. Rather, there are problems in the Muslim world, and ISIS represents the combination of just about all the worst of those problems at once. Comparing the WBC to ISIS would be a fair analogy if the WBC did anything besides hold up signs calling soldiers "faggots" which is so common on the internet that I could probably use that fact to paint the WBC as an Xbox Live rather than religious problem and you would lap it up. Radical Islam has a near-monopoly in being the root cause or a factor of terrorism worldwide. I think a large part of that can be attributed to the way that similar acts from radical Christians or Jews are performed as the acts of nations, such as some of Israel's actions with regards to Palestine, or the US drone bombings that have some Pakistani kids scared of blue skies. Support for drone strikes correlates noticeably with belief that the US is fundamentally a Christian nation (we're not) or support for making Christianity the national religion of the US. Implicitly, radical Christians who want to go to war with Islam and exterminate Islam don't have to take independent action that can be labeled as terrorism, because they've got the government doing it for them. Of course, the government could be doing more of it. Thus Donald Trump winning primaries after saying that he'd target the families of terrorists, or Ted Cruz saying that the US shouldn't obey the rules of engagement or talking about bombing ISIS until the sand glows in the dark. By the way, that last bit, the glowing sand? That obliquely references the common but incorrect belief that radioactive sand glows in the dark. Basically, while terrorists acts are horrendous and reprehensible, they're the natural result of asymmetric warfare. The US is killing civilians. The people of the nations we're targeting are killing civilians. Because the US is in a position of strength, our kills, such as bombing a Doctors Without Borders hospital are labeled things like "tragic errors" or "collateral damage" and the other side's kills are labeled "terrorism." To be very clear, I am not defending or justifying the attacks listed on the linked wikipedia article. I am saying that in many ways, government actions of non-Muslims-majority nations against Muslim-majority nations are comparably bad, but whitewashed because they're government actions. The rhetoric used in primary debates in the USA is really just that - candidates who don't get daily briefings in the White House about what's going on are in no position to do anything but blow steam. They sound retarded, but they're not laying out policy proposals when they do that. Donald Trump has said 500 other things getting where he is in the primaries. "Collateral damage" is often criticized for being euphemistic. I'm going to use it because I think it's a fair enough term without making a value judgment about killing civilians, which I think most people would prefer never happened. The reason we differentiate "collateral damage" and "terrorism" is that one is deliberate. The military has systems, and I'll be the first to say I'm sure they could be better, need more whistleblowers, and so on, to punish abuses. What I believe you're ignoring is that most terrorism in the Muslim world is actually not directed towards the West, so what I'm getting at is a framework built on the assumption that violence in the Muslim world is fundamentally our "fault" isn't wise.
Hmm. Two separate thoughts here. First, I brought up the primaries and what the candidates were saying as a way of demonstrating support for what they were saying. The point I was trying to make is that there is a noteworthy number of people who like what Trump and Cruz are saying and would like to see that steam become policy.
Second, while there is a case to be made that actions of Western nations are a direct or indirect cause of terrorism committed by Muslims, I'm not really trying to make that case. It's no longer about who started the fight. The point that is relevant to me now is that the US (and some European nations) are in a defacto state of war against some organizations. It's asymmetric war in that these organizations can't meet the US military in an exchange of blows. Their military powers is extremely inferior compared to that of the US. However, they're not going to roll over and die, so they're going to fight back in the only way possible for people who can't win a direct fight: by trying to make the fight something that isn't worth it for the other side to engage in. It's still reprehensible, in my opinion, but war is pretty awful, and for the people on the weaker side, they're seeing friends and family die against a foe that is literally impossible for them to stop and also seems to want to kill them and everyone they know.
With this in mind, the state of the conflict between the US and European nations and Muslim organizations that the former have troops in or are committing air strikes in basically looks like this: The West can't actually lose the conflict. They just have an overwhelmingly superior military, should they choose to commit it. The Muslim organizations can't actually win the conflict. Under no circumstances can they end the war against them by effectively destroy the US infrastructure or topple the government. They have no viable method of surrender - they either fight to a draw or die(1). Given that the West is fighting to destroy the Muslim organizations and the Muslim organizations are fighting to survive, the victory condition for the Muslims and the loss condition for the West is that the citizenry of the Western nations cease to support the conflict, forcing the governments to withdraw. The West is fighting this by taking the moral high ground of calling the enemy military action aimed at achieving that goal terrorism. That last bit, that the West is trying to take a moral high ground via a pretty transparent labeling, is all that I object to.
I (that is, my Western sensibilities) find the Muslim organizations such as ISIS and Boko Haram to be an affront to civilization in how they treat certain segments of the population in the areas they rule. I also I think that labeling the other side's acts as terrorism works and the Western government should continue doing it. I just think that people who want to have a discussion about the conflict should look at it as an asymmetric conflict based on differing ideology.
The US and its allies are at war with organizations such as ISIS and Boko Haram because we find how they treat powerless people to be so objectionable that it's worth engaging in a conflict with them to put an end to their treatment of the powerless(2). We are supporting the use of our overwhelming military might to deprive these people of their life, their liberty to self govern, and their freedom to follow what they call their religious beliefs(3). What we are calling terrorism is the desperate self defense of a group people we are waging on to annihilate them and their way of life. The goal of the military acts we call terrorism is to push citizens of the US and its allies into deciding that saving the victims of the Muslim organizations we are at war with isn't worth the cost to themselves.
(1) - As a thought experiment, assuming for a moment that the leadership of ISIS did decide to surrender, what are they offering? What are the terms of their surrender? The US has a history of hunting down leaders of the groups they oppose. Even assuming the leadership is granted life in prison, what is going to happen to the areas ruled by ISIS? How long will it take for the rule of some lawful government to affect those areas? What happens to all the soldiers of ISIS? Will they be allowed to live, or will they be executed or lynched by mobs? To arrange for a transition of power from ISIS to a different government is a logistical nightmare that is almost guaranteed to leave a pile of bodies of members of ISIS in its wake.
(2) - The US is pretty terrible about treatment of powerless citizens (the poor and homeless), but it's mostly by neglect rather than outright ill will. It's still sort of hypocritical to fight problems abroad while we have so many at home, and this probably contributes to the popularity of Trump and Sanders.
(3) - The US internally is constantly weighing personal freedoms, including freedom to follow religious beliefs, against the rights of others to not be oppressed. At the very least, we seem to be consistent in that we're generally leaning against religious freedom in favor of freedom from oppression. However, a majority of strongly religious Christians seem to prefer religious freedom over freedom from oppression.
tl;dr:
I have no real problem using terrorism to refer to what you called terrorism in general discourse. I don't think it's useful to use that term when discussing the conflict against ISIS, Boko Haram, etc., because it obscures the nuances and details behind acts we're referring to as terrorism.
Conclusions:
It's probably easier for Muslims who truly believe that they'll reach paradise for it to engage in suicidal attacks than other demographics, but some Christians or atheists would eventually be driven to similar actions when faced with the same overwhelming threat to their existence. Tibetan Buddhists faced with the same pressures elect self-immolation (suicide without killing others), but that's a religion that abhors violence in all of its forms. The common thread is that when people are pressed to the point of breaking, they engage in desperate acts, not that Muslims engage in desperate acts when pressed.
Postscript:
So yeah, anyway, comparing Muslims who are committing terrorist acts to the Westboro Baptist Church isn't the greatest analogy, but comparing them to the not necessarily organized but existing collection of Christians who oppose abortion in all cases, oppose gay marriage (and think gay sex should be a crime), think that Christianity should be the national religion, would like Church attendance on Sundays should be mandatory, want the Biblical creation story taught in public schools alongside (or instead of) evolution, and in general would like to have laws enforcing Christian doctrines is valid. The effective difference is that the Christians in the US are not enough of a majority to have an opportunity to put their desires into practice.
As for other nations, you can read this article about some Christian extremist groups. If you do read it, please consider the parallels between organizations such as the Lord's Resistance Army, the National Liberation Front of Tripura, and Antibalaka and those such as Boko Haram and ISIS. Then consider what would happen if the US was drone bombing these organizations as aggressively as some Muslim ones, and tell me that you can't see the possibility of Christian terrorists who fervently believe that they are becoming martyrs engaging in suicidal attacks on the heathens, heretics, whatever, if the people of these groups were pushed as far as some Muslim organizations have been.
This post has possibly become a bit incoherent as I've been working on writing it for an hour and a half now, but hopefully you can make some sense of it and understand what I'm trying to say.
EDIT: Damn. I forgot to bring up the militia that was in Oregon occupying a federal wildlife refuge. While not overtly Christian, they kind of did have a common thread of religion (I think it was a sort of Mormonism) that they did cite a bit, they were acting because they felt that they had no other choice but to fight, and they were more or less looking to (or at least willing to) spark an armed conflict to achieve their goals.
|
On March 06 2016 08:46 oneofthem wrote:
there is no question about the existence of discrimination but the 'institutional' definition matters, particularly the legal definition. it's too narrow. then the existence of these civil rights legislations suggest to some that equality has been achieved.
Been sort of avoiding the whole institutional racism discussion because of this.
I think the most commonly stated one is crack cocaine vs powder cocaine, but then you look into the history of the law and the harsh punishment for crack cocaine vs powder cocaine. The problem was the crack cocaine epidemic in high crime black neighborhoods, in which the black community leaders were the ones that urged for harsher punishment for crack cocaine, thinking it would minimize the damage it was doing to the community by demonizing crack cocaine.
What ended up happening was similar to the overall war on drugs, which is an epic failure. I doubt any one here is going to argue that those black community leaders were racist for fighting for tougher punishment on crack cocaine, but it was an unfortunate colossal failure that had unintended consequences.
It's almost as if my teacher never said "raise your right hand if you think X", "raise your left hand if you think Y", in order to take a quick poll. Zero context here.
|
United States43222 Posts
ErectedZenith politicians don't explicitly say black people. They say "inner cities". There are code words which we all understand but which have to be used because otherwise you go full Trump and most aren't stupid enough to go full Trump.
|
On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 07:59 WolfintheSheep wrote:
[quote]
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 documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks. You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there.
I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting.
The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental.
And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them.
|
On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
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 documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks. You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them.
No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote.
|
On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:02 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
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 documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks. You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them.
and wikipedia is quoting the guy that defined the term.
Just tell us what you make of the investigations in ferguson for example. Those have been brought up multiple times now. Do you just look at them and think they're made up? Or why don't they count?
|
On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:04 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
How about you show us one line of law that specifically negatively target black people. I gave you links to five studies documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks. You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote.
At this point you are just arguing on semantics.
But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities.
Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves.
You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model.
|
On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:06 kwizach wrote:
[quote]
I gave you links to five studies documenting institutional racism against African Americans. Go address my post instead of pretending it doesn't exist. Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks. You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model.
No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection.
|
Good night fof Cruz, poor night for Trump, terrible night for Rubio.
|
On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:08 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
Unless it is written in laws that specifically target black people negatively, it isn't institutionalized racism in USA. Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means. Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right. But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice. Nobody can open the first three, buster (and they were about Britain).
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks. You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection.
No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.".
Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do.
|
On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:
No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote.
Nobody can open those sources.
And I hear the Nazis held rallies and called themselves socialists - not unlike Bernie Sanders, am I wrong?
|
On March 06 2016 09:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Good night fof Cruz, poor night for Trump, terrible night for Rubio.
I'd upgrade it to terrible night for both Trump and Rubio if Trump only carries 1 state. The media will sense blood in the water after that debate + actually getting < 30% of the votes in at least one state.
|
On March 06 2016 09:17 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:
No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. Nobody can open those sources.
Plenty of people can. You can also read entire sections of the books I gave you, or find them online easily. Can you not open the wikipedia entry on "institutional racism" either? Is it out of reach to you?
|
On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means.
Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right.
But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice.
[quote]
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks. You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do.
not everyone is smart. And some stupid people happen to get screwed over way more than other stupid people.
Noone is talking about your opertunities if you make everything right. Just a couple days ago Kwark made a post in which he explained that he probably did a bunch of stupid shit back in his days as well and he got away with it when other people would not have had anything close to that.
|
On March 06 2016 09:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Good night fof Cruz, poor night for Trump, terrible night for Rubio. I'd upgrade it to terrible night for both Trump and Rubio if Trump only carries 1 state. The media will sense blood in the water after that debate + actually getting < 30% of the votes in at least one state.
Should get two
|
On March 06 2016 09:30 Toadesstern wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:
[quote]
Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups.
So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks.
You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do. not everyone is smart. And some stupid people happen to get screwed over way more than other stupid people. Noone is talking about your opertunities if you make everything right. Just a couple days ago Kwark made a post in which he explained that he probably did a bunch of stupid shit back in his days as well and he got away with it when other people would not have had anything close to that.
100% agree!
|
I wouldn't say a terrible night for trump. I expected Cruz to take Kansas. Maine is only at 9% and Trump is not far behind. Trump will most likely win Kentucky and Louisiana with a chance to take Maine.
|
On March 06 2016 09:29 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:16 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:
Good night fof Cruz, poor night for Trump, terrible night for Rubio. I'd upgrade it to terrible night for both Trump and Rubio if Trump only carries 1 state. The media will sense blood in the water after that debate + actually getting < 30% of the votes in at least one state.
sadly it looks like 2-2. He's on his way to get Kentucky (granted only 4% reporting) and Louisiana is the state that Trump has had the biggest lead in according to what I can see on 538. They have him at 96% winning which surely will go down a lot since the debate happened after the most recent poll but I don't see it dipping enough to actually lose it.
|
On March 06 2016 09:16 ErectedZenith wrote:Show nested quote +On March 06 2016 09:08 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 09:06 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 09:00 kwizach wrote:On March 06 2016 08:55 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:50 Toadesstern wrote:On March 06 2016 08:47 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:41 m4ini wrote:On March 06 2016 08:37 ErectedZenith wrote:On March 06 2016 08:26 m4ini wrote:
[quote]
Dude.. Do everyone a favor, and check what "institutionalized racism" actually means.
Big hint: you got it wrong. Kwizach got it right.
But since i have my helpful 5 minutes, let me help you there. To have "institutionalized racism", you don't need biased laws/laws targeted at specific people. Practices and/or societal patterns already do suffice.
[quote]
It actually doesn't matter what they were about. Or do you think that what's considered institutionalized racism in one country, is totally not institutionalized racism in the US? Institutional racism (also known as institutionalised racism) is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions, as distinct from racism by individuals or informal social groups. So facilities that are political which have rules made by the law which the law doesn't have a line that specifically negatively target black folks. You forgot to quote the rest of wikipedia. Here, let me help you yet again. It is reflected in disparities regarding criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power and education, among other things. Whether implicitly or explicitly expressed, institutional racism occurs when a certain group is targeted and discriminated against based upon race. Institutional racism can go unnoticed as it is not always explicit and can be overlooked. Institutional racism was defined by Sir William Macpherson in the 1999 Lawrence report (UK) as: "The collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes and behaviour which amount to discrimination through unwitting prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people." Sorry for all the bolding, it's just that you left out EVERYTHING when you posted your comment, so.. Yeah. edit: damn, ninja'd by m4ini :-)
Sorry, gonna leave it at that now though - waste of time, really. I don't think you'll get a satisfying answer to your very real point. All of those falls under law which the USA doesn't have a line of negatively targeting black folks. You are reaching pretty far on this one. but it says right there that it's not explicit and does not need to be written out. Which is what you're arguing. That it only counts as institutionalized if there's some kind of order from higher ups / laws resulting in racism, right? There have been enough investigations showing that ferguson and co DID treat black people differently. That's institutionalized racism right there. I mean it is wikipedia you guys are quoting. The point is that unless there is a law in USA that says yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race, its all mental. And the sooner people stop victimizing themselves or spread propaganda for irrational fear of an "oppression law", the better it is for them. No, I referenced five sources which you decided to ignore, then you quoted a wikipedia article which actually proved you wrong, and now you are dismissing your own source as well. No, a law doesn't need to explicitly mention "black people are going to be penalized" for institutional racism to exist. Read the wikipedia article you quoted. Hell, read your own quote. At this point you are just arguing on semantics. But at the end of the day, if there isn't a law that says "yeah you are going to jail/get penalized because of your race", its a mentality that people have to get over with if they truly want to help the minorities. Because telling minorities when there are laws specifically target them for being w/e while w/e they are/are doing isn't a liability, they are going to keep victimizing themselves. You can't keep giving people mental obstacles while claiming to fight for social justice unless that's your business model. No, I'm not. You have invented in your head a definition of institutional racism which is completely disconnected from the real world (and not even consistent with itself) and which you are alone in defending. You're both profoundly ignorant and dishonest, since you're deliberately refusing to acknowledge the evidence you have been presented with. Institutional racism exists, and it is not a mental projection. No the actual smart people look at the law and see there is nothing stopping them from archiving their dreams under the law and they even get AA to propel them forward and say "America is a good place for them.". Only people who have invested interests in perpetuating their ways will rationalize why they keep doing what they do.
Read the wikipedia article on institutional racism. Read it. You're ignorant on the topic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
