| Forum Index > Closed |
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. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 18 2016 22:11 Velr wrote: So, your the guy that still reads Testies posts? :D I think it was very telling when GH, a guy who is always willing to talk about racism in the US, was like “Nah, I’m good with this. This debate will not improve my life” when it came to testie’s posts. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46200 Posts
On May 18 2016 22:11 Velr wrote: So, your the guy that still reads Testies posts? :D I'm masochistic, I guess  | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46200 Posts
On May 18 2016 20:58 Incognoto wrote: Isn't appealing to white or black voters a form of instituionalized racism, lol? I can't think of any government policy which legitimately favors white people or black people? E: the discussion was a few pages back, maybe i'm too late I think technically that might be racist, but I'm not sure if this specific focusing on one race over another during a campaign deserves the level of negative connotation commonly associated with more quintessential examples of racism. In politics, the way you win more votes is by appealing to those on the fence who could be swayed either way. If you're already popular with a certain demographic of voters, and a different demographic is sitting on the fence, it makes sense to adjust your rhetoric so that it may be aimed more towards the group on the fence. Is that racism? Ehhhhhhh maybe? | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands22452 Posts
By what insanity is overtime linked to your wage? Overtime is hours worked outside of your contracted hours Oo | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 18 2016 22:34 Gorsameth wrote: By what insanity is overtime linked to your wage? Overtime is hours worked outside of your contracted hours Oo To be fair, most business pay overtime, even if you made more than 24K a year. It just wasn’t mandated nationally. Many state laws also address it. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
I think you guys are just judging him as ignorant/bigot or whatever instead of understanding that he is just questioning the status quo. I think it is important to have an honest discussion about these issues and allow a back and forth exchange of ideas. Practice what that narcas guy preached a few pages back. I think his post was pretty insightful. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On May 18 2016 22:38 Plansix wrote: To be fair, most business pay overtime, even if you made more than 24K a year. It just wasn’t mandated nationally. Many state laws also address it. Most lower paying jobs tend to be the ones with overtime. I work a white collar job, make a pretty good salary but I don't think I've ever worked only 40 hours a week. No overtime. | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
| ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On May 18 2016 22:53 SK.Testie wrote: When I was banned I had to read about them wanting to dismantle the patriarchy and no one was here to challenge them... I swear I saw one perpetuate the completely debunked wage gap myth. It was truly horrifying. First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. (see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). A difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And with regards to STEM jobs specifically, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, the existence of statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 18 2016 22:39 SolaR- wrote: I'm often in the position of understanding both sides of an arguement which always leads me to an uncomfortable position of uncertainty. Testie is thinking about these issues and they are supported by logic. Whether you agree with him or not, he at least provides some interesting discourse instead of the same circle jerk of ideas presented here. He adds flavor if you will. I think you guys are just judging him as ignorant/bigot or whatever instead of understanding that he is just questioning the status quo. I think it is important to have an honest discussion about these issues and allow a back and forth exchange of ideas. Practice what that narcas guy preached a few pages back. I think his post was pretty insightful. It is a matter of information and how willing people are to engage well debated subjects. Anyone who has read up on the last 50 years of US politics would know why democrats pull in 90% of the black vote in national elections. Having to teach that to prove black voters did not vote for Obama simply because he is black is something people were willing to do, but it more of a history lesson than a debate. Though it was interesting for some folks who are not from the US, I guess. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On May 18 2016 22:33 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: I think technically that might be racist, but I'm not sure if this specific focusing on one race over another during a campaign deserves the level of negative connotation commonly associated with more quintessential examples of racism. In politics, the way you win more votes is by appealing to those on the fence who could be swayed either way. If you're already popular with a certain demographic of voters, and a different demographic is sitting on the fence, it makes sense to adjust your rhetoric so that it may be aimed more towards the group on the fence. Is that racism? Ehhhhhhh maybe? If it's racist, then how is it even remotely acceptable? Especially if it's rhetoric. Rhetoric being defined as (in the context I'm using it in, maybe this is the wrong definition) language which is used to influence people in a way which may or may not be reasonable. Rhetoric should be frowned upon, in fact many posters in this thread were actively denouncing Sanders' campaign as one based on rhetoric (attacking Clinton and the "institutions"). So to me, rhetoric cannot be realistically condoned, especially the kind which is playing on racial indentity. If it's just rhetoric, then it probably fuels racism itself more than anything. Not appealing to a group based on color of their skin would be a sign of candidate quality, in my opinion. | ||
|
ticklishmusic
United States15977 Posts
On May 18 2016 23:04 kwizach wrote: First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. (see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). A difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And with regards to STEM jobs specifically, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, the existence of statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. The gap is significantly smaller than the oft quoted number when you control for all those factors though, and I don't think it helps the cause by distorting it There is also selection going on with regards to gender for certain jobs similar to what Trevor Noah said about black comedians not applying for the Daily Show, though that's a separate piece of the gender gap | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46200 Posts
On May 18 2016 23:04 kwizach wrote: First of all, studies have shown that overall there remains a pay gap between men and women for the same jobs, even taking into account various factors like the number of hours worked, the qualifications, etc. (see for example the Invest in women, invest in America - A Comprehensive Review of Women In the U.S. Economy report by the U.S. Congress' Joint Economic Committee). A difference remains, some of which is attributable to gender discrimination (for example in the hiring process). And with regards to STEM jobs specifically, here's another study which shows gender pay disparity in STEM jobs even after controlling for hours, age, experience, education, etc. Second, the existence of statistical differences in occupations between men and women is not at all an argument against the idea that there are differences in earnings between the two that need to be addressed. The point is precisely that social norms and representations about both genders still permeate our societies and contribute to the choices made by individuals with regards to their studies and careers. The pay gap is therefore very real, and it needs to be addressed by targeting both gender discrimination at (and to access) work and the cultural factors that play a role in the professional trajectories of men and women. You fell for it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe's_law | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On May 18 2016 23:06 Plansix wrote: It is a matter of information and how willing people are to engage well debated subjects. Anyone who has read up on the last 50 years of US politics would know why democrats pull in 90% of the black vote in national elections. Having to teach that to prove black voters did not vote for Obama simply because he is black is something people were willing to do, but it more of a history lesson than a debate. Though it was interesting for some folks who are not from the US, I guess. Perhaps those statistics that you presented cannot be argued. However, the main point is still up for debate, and I do not think it is illogical to suggest that race was a contributing factor on why Obama was elected. I know this is anecdotal evidence but it at least sheds some light on the topic. During the 2008 election, i had many white friends who were voting for Obama explicitly because he was black. They thought it would be neat to have the first African American president. While I agreed that it would be neat, I still affirmed that a candidate should soley be judged on his\hers merits and character. That your ability to relate to them on key issues should hold my water. Unfortunately, most people really are not that smart, and are easily swayed by superficial aspects such as race. So yeah, i think it is likely that a lot of white and black people supported Obama just because he was black. | ||
|
Plansix
United States60190 Posts
On May 18 2016 23:06 Incognoto wrote: If it's racist, then how is it even remotely acceptable? Especially if it's rhetoric. Rhetoric being defined as (in the context I'm using it in, maybe this is the wrong definition) language which is used to influence people in a way which may or may not be reasonable. Rhetoric should be frowned upon, in fact many posters in this thread were actively denouncing Sanders' campaign as one based on rhetoric (attacking Clinton and the "institutions"). So to me, rhetoric cannot be realistically condoned, especially the kind which is playing on racial indentity. If it's just rhetoric, then it probably fuels racism itself more than anything. Not appealing to a group based on color of their skin would be a sign of candidate quality, in my opinion. The issue is that politics isn’t color blind or race neutral for any of us. There are issues that face blacks the same way there are issues that face poor children or people who are blind. They are a demographic that faces specific issues that other groups do not face. And the bar to get those votes is very low currently, because only one party is listening to those issues nationally. On the state and local level, that changes very quickly. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On May 18 2016 23:30 farvacola wrote: Asserting that a black president was elected by "a lot of white and black people" on the basis of race is just as superficial as voting for a president because of his race. Hardly. And i didn't decide, I said it was likely. If you understand how simple most humans think, it really isn't that hard to fathom | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46200 Posts
On May 18 2016 23:06 Incognoto wrote: If it's racist, then how is it even remotely acceptable? Especially if it's rhetoric. Rhetoric being defined as (in the context I'm using it in, maybe this is the wrong definition) language which is used to influence people in a way which may or may not be reasonable. Rhetoric should be frowned upon, in fact many posters in this thread were actively denouncing Sanders' campaign as one based on rhetoric (attacking Clinton and the "institutions"). So to me, rhetoric cannot be realistically condoned, especially the kind which is playing on racial indentity. If it's just rhetoric, then it probably fuels racism itself more than anything. Not appealing to a group based on color of their skin would be a sign of candidate quality, in my opinion. That's why I'm hesitant to really call it racism. When a politician says "Here's what I'll do for blacks and Hispanics, here's what I'll do for women, here's what I'll do for LGBT", the politician is acknowledging that different groups have different needs, and may also be pandering to certain groups for votes. Is it discrimination? Technically I guess so, but sometimes this rhetoric is a good thing (because different demographics do have different needs), so I'd rather use a term that isn't inherently negative. I feel like this is an instance where trying to label this as *something* can remove some important context. | ||
|
Incognoto
France10239 Posts
On May 18 2016 23:30 Plansix wrote: The issue is that politics isn’t color blind or race neutral for any of us. There are issues that face blacks the same way there are issues that face poor children or people who are blind. They are a demographic that faces specific issues that other groups do not face. And the bar to get those votes is very low currently, because only one party is listening to those issues nationally. On the state and local level, that changes very quickly. Well, what you're describing isn't really rhetoric anymore, you're talking about actual issues. @Darkplasmaball Well that goes along with this post of mine. There's a difference between institutionalized racism and policies which deal racism. Acknowledging that some ethnic groups have issues which others do not isn't quite racism, it's addressing the issue of racism. I think there's a difference between different treatment for people and making sure that people get the same treatment. Random, baseless example: "black people get a higher minimum wage" would be institutionalized racism (campaigning with those arguments would be rhetoric), but realizing that many black people live in poverty and thus implementing policies to help with poverty is not. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On May 18 2016 23:30 Plansix wrote: The issue is that politics isn’t color blind or race neutral for any of us. There are issues that face blacks the same way there are issues that face poor children or people who are blind. They are a demographic that faces specific issues that other groups do not face. And the bar to get those votes is very low currently, because only one party is listening to those issues nationally. On the state and local level, that changes very quickly. I can agree that what I said holds true for any candidate or demographic. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War Dota 2 Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
Replay Cast
CrankTV Team League
OSC
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
Serral vs Bunny
ByuN vs GgMaChine
CranKy Ducklings
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
