US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3406

On March 20 2016 07:21 wei2coolman wrote:

Are you telling me my family never changed their name when they immigrated to America with American names as way to integrate with American society? much less no one has ever done that? (Also, pretty sure my name already has German origins, so I don't think I would actually have to change my name, so you might have a point there).

On March 20 2016 07:34 puerk wrote:
i don't understand the motivation behind the defense of racism. the argument "i managed to fit in with a racist society, so why can't you?" does ring kind of hollow to me.
what is the endgame here? do you want a monolithic white monoculture? is diversity anathema?

On March 20 2016 07:39 wei2coolman wrote:

Because it's not racism.

The saying goes "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."; not "When in Rome, don't do as the Romans do because they're racists".

Racism
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


In what way is conforming your name so you can have better relations with your community, "racism"?

On March 20 2016 07:40 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I can understand what you mean in terms of racial profiling, but what bothers me is:

1. The huge disparity between the treatment of innocent minorities after they've been profiled, checked out, and "excused" (and sometimes just taken into custody or attacked by police for no reason whatsoever) vs. the treatment of innocent white people;

2. The fact that guilty minorities consistently get screwed over by the criminal justice system far worse than guilty white people. Longer sentences for the same crime, much more frequent guilty verdicts, etc.
One of many examples is the issue of marijuana:
"According to a new study from the American Civil Liberties Union, which tracked marijuana arrests by race and county in all 50 states and the District of Columbia, black and white Americans use marijuana at about the same rate. However, blacks were nearly four times as likely than whites to be arrested on charges of marijuana possession in 2010.
In Washington D.C., Iowa, Minnesota and Illinois, blacks were 7.5 to 8.5 times more likely than whites to be arrested for possessing pot." ~ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/03/racial-disparity-in-marijuana-arrests_n_3381725.html

On March 20 2016 07:39 wei2coolman wrote:

Because it's not racism.

The saying goes "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."; not "When in Rome, don't do as the Romans do because they're racists".

Racism
noun
1.
a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human racial groups determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to dominate others or that a particular racial group is inferior to the others.
2.
a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3.
hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.


In what way is conforming your name so you can have better relations with your community, "racism"?

On March 20 2016 06:27 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:


I know you said that about the study. You said the study's conclusions inferred bias against names rather than race, and everyone else (including myself) is pointing out that the obvious reason why those names are favored are unfavored is due to the racial implications of some of those names. Obviously. Some of those names are stereotypically black, while others are seen as white names. That's the whole point of the study.

Here's another one: http://www.chicagobooth.edu/capideas/blog/2014/september/jose-vs-joe-a-case-of-resume-racism
"Jose vs. Joe: A case of resume racism"

FLINT, MI -- Mystery still surrounds an unsolved December break-in at an executive office inside City Hall where Flint water files were kept.

As of Friday, March 18, there were still no suspects in the case, and officials say it may never be known what -- other than a TV -- was taken.

But the city's new police chief Tim Johnson says it's too suspicious that there was a break-in where important documents were kept, just as investigations began heating up and decision makers were beginning to be held accountable.

"It was definitely an inside job. The power cord (to the TV) wasn't even taken. The average drug user knows that you'd need the power cord to be able to pawn it," Johnson said.

The office was not assigned to any city employees at the time of the break-in, city officials have said.

"It was somebody that had knowledge of those documents that really wanted to keep them out of the right hands, out of the hands of someone who was going to tell the real story of what's going on with Flint water," he said.

Flint Mayor Karen Weaver said documents were strewn about the room, and it is impossible to know if any of them were taken.

Weaver wasn't so quick to allege it was an inside job, but did say the situation seemed odd and suspicious to her.

"Well sure (it's suspicious) when they go into a room where all the water files were and they take a TV, but not the cord to make it work, yes," she said.

Although, federal criminal investigations regarding the Flint water crisis were not announced until February, and Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder did not declare a state emergency until January.

On March 20 2016 08:11 darthfoley wrote:
i'm beyond depressed that the photo accompanying this thread is now donald trump. we done fucked up, y'all

On March 20 2016 07:46 puerk wrote:


My point was: america is already diverse, the dominant culture you are alluding to is not the sole american culture... its just the one your racist tendencies prefer. You did not adopt a native american name, which would be following your saying, you just decided the white anglocentric culture was the one you wanted to fit in, and deride all the other legitimate parts of the whole US cultural landscape.

On March 20 2016 08:16 KwarK wrote:
Holy shit wei2coolman is actually arguing that people preferring to hire John over Jamal, even if Jamal is better qualified, shows that people simply must have a dislike of the name which is completely unrelated to any assumptions they're making about the person with that name. After all, Jamal could be a white female grandma and John could be an illiterate member of a cannibal tribe from deep Papua New Guinea whose non English speaking parents came up with the sound John themselves and decided they liked it. These things could be true so how would any employer instead make the assumption that John is probably a white guy and Jamal is probably a black guy and make their decision based on that assumption. The only thing they can know for sure is the name and because humans only act on certainty and do not make assumptions it would be impossible for anything beyond the name to influence them.

wei2coolman, it's not the sound of the name that they dislike. They're making assumptions about the person based upon the name and the subsequent decision not to interview the person reflects their prejudice against the group they believe the person to be a part of.