|
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 June 16 2016 02:29 SolaR- wrote:
This all depends how racism is defined. The topic of conversation was white supremacists, neo-nazis and the like. In that regard, i would say racism is almost if not all dead.
GH, what you are arguing for, I can agree with certain aspects. Let me stress certain. While i do agree with some views on systematic racism, i also think some aspects have been over dramaticized by the left, and some people (mostly white college kids) have lost grip with reality.
Exactly. As I have repeatedly said, I do not like how the definition of racism has been expanded to include the facially neutral. That's where the left jumped the shark.
|
On June 16 2016 02:29 SolaR- wrote:
This all depends how racism is defined. The topic of conversation was white supremacists, neo-nazis and the like. In that regard, i would say racism is almost if not all dead.
GH, what you are arguing for, I can agree with certain aspects. Let me stress certain. While i do agree with some views on systematic racism, i also think some aspects have been over dramaticized by the left, and some people (mostly white college kids) have lost grip with reality.
Racism isn't dead. At best it's undercover, that doesn't make it go away. The drug trade in the US is also "undercover", still one of the biggest drug markets in the world. The idea that "racism is dead" is a wholly and completely ridiculous thing to say.
EDIT: I'll say that some aspects of racism have been exaggerated by the left but that in no way is indicative of racism being a thing of the past, that's a view overwhelmingly populated by non PoC for obvious reasons they yet seem oblivious to.
|
On June 16 2016 02:30 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On June 16 2016 02:11 Simberto wrote:On June 16 2016 02:01 SolaR- wrote:On June 16 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:On June 16 2016 01:41 IgnE wrote:
So you are fine with a daughter who enthusiastically wears it and says you are going to hell? This has to be one of the most disingenuous discussions I have engaged with in a while. When did I fucking say that? Do you have reading comprehension issues I should be aware of? Edit: I'm not playing 20 questions about religion just because two internet atheists found someone to debate. Seriously, do you people think anyone who believes in religion has to justify their beliefs to you? Better question is. Do you think that your beliefs should not be questioned? Any belief should be subject to criticism or skepticism. Stop referring to me as an "internet atheist". What does that even mean? You think i post out on internet forums all day teaming up with my fellow atheists while we criticize religion meanwhile thinking we are intellectually superior? This is the only forum in which i post in, and spend very little time on the internet or social media elsewhere. Are you suggesting i supress my view or my right to question your views? The question is not whether someones beliefs should be questioned, but whether it is your job to question everyones beliefs. I say this as a person that does not have any religious beliefs. Do you know how annoying militant vegetarians can be? It is the same for militant atheists. Just relax a bit, have your beliefs, and let others have their own. As long as they are not hurting anyone, does it really need to be that important to you that they believe the exact same thing as you do? It is not your job to enlighten everyone else. Noone likes to be preached to, and that includes being preached to about the virtues of atheism, the virtues of veganism or anything else. Do your things. Let others do their things. I'm not so sure that the questioning is meant to push Plansix from Christianity to atheism so much as it is to question Plansix's serial equivalence of Christianity and Islam. Not all of us paint the world with the broad brush you employ.
Wrong. Personally i dislike all religion. However, i have stood up for christianity when being compared to Islam. And believe me that is hard for me to do. Christianity has earned it's right to coexist in a secular world with it's reforms and continuing reforms despite my personal opinions on it in general. Islam has not made those strides and sinply refuses to.
|
The echoes of racism in the 60s and 70s still exist. The war on drugs and crime were created by Nixon as a way to go after what he perceived as the base of the left, blacks and left leaning student drug users. And that language, “The war on crime” is very specific and imparts a military like aspect to our police, rather than people who uphold the law. And so many decades later, what people said was attack on blacks was proven to be just that.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/
But we still use the term today, even though we be aware of this for years. This is the new style of racism, where they contort their views to find socially acceptable way to present them. Now a days you have people like John Tanton, founding numerous organizations to produce data pretty questionable data about immigration and spam it out there. And every time someone points out the questionable methods of the data collection, he just moves on to form a new, faceless organization.
|
On June 16 2016 02:45 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 02:30 Plansix wrote:On June 16 2016 02:17 xDaunt wrote:On June 16 2016 02:11 Simberto wrote:On June 16 2016 02:01 SolaR- wrote:On June 16 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:On June 16 2016 01:41 IgnE wrote:
So you are fine with a daughter who enthusiastically wears it and says you are going to hell? This has to be one of the most disingenuous discussions I have engaged with in a while. When did I fucking say that? Do you have reading comprehension issues I should be aware of? Edit: I'm not playing 20 questions about religion just because two internet atheists found someone to debate. Seriously, do you people think anyone who believes in religion has to justify their beliefs to you? Better question is. Do you think that your beliefs should not be questioned? Any belief should be subject to criticism or skepticism. Stop referring to me as an "internet atheist". What does that even mean? You think i post out on internet forums all day teaming up with my fellow atheists while we criticize religion meanwhile thinking we are intellectually superior? This is the only forum in which i post in, and spend very little time on the internet or social media elsewhere. Are you suggesting i supress my view or my right to question your views? The question is not whether someones beliefs should be questioned, but whether it is your job to question everyones beliefs. I say this as a person that does not have any religious beliefs. Do you know how annoying militant vegetarians can be? It is the same for militant atheists. Just relax a bit, have your beliefs, and let others have their own. As long as they are not hurting anyone, does it really need to be that important to you that they believe the exact same thing as you do? It is not your job to enlighten everyone else. Noone likes to be preached to, and that includes being preached to about the virtues of atheism, the virtues of veganism or anything else. Do your things. Let others do their things. I'm not so sure that the questioning is meant to push Plansix from Christianity to atheism so much as it is to question Plansix's serial equivalence of Christianity and Islam. Not all of us paint the world with the broad brush you employ. Wrong. Personally i dislike all religion. However, i have stood up for christianity when being compared to Islam. And believe me that is hard for me to do. Christianity has earned it's right to coexist in a secular world with it's reforms and continuing reforms despite my personal opinions on it in general. Islam has not made those strides and sinply refuses to. I wasn't responding to you?
|
On June 16 2016 02:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 02:29 SolaR- wrote:
This all depends how racism is defined. The topic of conversation was white supremacists, neo-nazis and the like. In that regard, i would say racism is almost if not all dead.
GH, what you are arguing for, I can agree with certain aspects. Let me stress certain. While i do agree with some views on systematic racism, i also think some aspects have been over dramaticized by the left, and some people (mostly white college kids) have lost grip with reality. Exactly. As I have repeatedly said, I do not like how the definition of racism has been expanded to include the facially neutral. That's where the left jumped the shark.
In terms of who is responsible to initiate social change it is exactly the 'moderates' who are responsible. Can't blame a crazy KKK guy for being what he is, might as well hold a landslide or a rabid dog morally responsible. The problem are the other 90% who somehow believe that they carry no responsibility although they ought to now better.
|
On June 16 2016 02:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 16 2016 02:29 SolaR- wrote:
This all depends how racism is defined. The topic of conversation was white supremacists, neo-nazis and the like. In that regard, i would say racism is almost if not all dead.
GH, what you are arguing for, I can agree with certain aspects. Let me stress certain. While i do agree with some views on systematic racism, i also think some aspects have been over dramaticized by the left, and some people (mostly white college kids) have lost grip with reality. Exactly. As I have repeatedly said, I do not like how the definition of racism has been expanded to include the facially neutral. That's where the left jumped the shark. In terms of who is responsible to initiate social change it is exactly the 'moderates' who are responsible. Can't blame a crazy KKK guy for being what he is, might as well hold a landslide or a rabid dog morally responsible. The problem are the other 90% who somehow believe that they carry no responsibility although they ought to now better.
lel, yes you can
|
On June 16 2016 02:47 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 02:32 xDaunt wrote:On June 16 2016 02:29 SolaR- wrote:
This all depends how racism is defined. The topic of conversation was white supremacists, neo-nazis and the like. In that regard, i would say racism is almost if not all dead.
GH, what you are arguing for, I can agree with certain aspects. Let me stress certain. While i do agree with some views on systematic racism, i also think some aspects have been over dramaticized by the left, and some people (mostly white college kids) have lost grip with reality. Exactly. As I have repeatedly said, I do not like how the definition of racism has been expanded to include the facially neutral. That's where the left jumped the shark. In terms of who is responsible to initiate social change it is exactly the 'moderates' who are responsible. Can't blame a crazy KKK guy for being what he is, might as well hold a landslide or a rabid dog morally responsible. The problem are the other 90% who somehow believe that they carry no responsibility although they ought to now better.
What exactly is my responsibility? Can you elaborate?
|
On June 16 2016 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 02:29 SolaR- wrote:
This all depends how racism is defined. The topic of conversation was white supremacists, neo-nazis and the like. In that regard, i would say racism is almost if not all dead.
GH, what you are arguing for, I can agree with certain aspects. Let me stress certain. While i do agree with some views on systematic racism, i also think some aspects have been over dramaticized by the left, and some people (mostly white college kids) have lost grip with reality. Racism isn't dead. At best it's undercover, that doesn't make it go away. The drug trade in the US is also "undercover", still one of the biggest drug markets in the world. The idea that "racism is dead" is a wholly and completely ridiculous thing to say. EDIT: I'll say that some aspects of racism have been exaggerated by the left but that in no way is indicative of racism being a thing of the past, that's a view overwhelmingly populated by non PoC for obvious reasons they yet seem oblivious to.
I'll concede that some minorities -- particularly blacks -- get adverse, disparate impacts from some facially neutral policies and institutions. I'm just not going to call that disparate impact racism, and I firmly believe that the greatest disservice that the "civil rights movement" (such as it is in its greatly lessened, current incarnation) ever did to itself and its constituents was adopt its retarded terminology.
|
On June 16 2016 03:19 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2016 02:29 SolaR- wrote:
This all depends how racism is defined. The topic of conversation was white supremacists, neo-nazis and the like. In that regard, i would say racism is almost if not all dead.
GH, what you are arguing for, I can agree with certain aspects. Let me stress certain. While i do agree with some views on systematic racism, i also think some aspects have been over dramaticized by the left, and some people (mostly white college kids) have lost grip with reality. Racism isn't dead. At best it's undercover, that doesn't make it go away. The drug trade in the US is also "undercover", still one of the biggest drug markets in the world. The idea that "racism is dead" is a wholly and completely ridiculous thing to say. EDIT: I'll say that some aspects of racism have been exaggerated by the left but that in no way is indicative of racism being a thing of the past, that's a view overwhelmingly populated by non PoC for obvious reasons they yet seem oblivious to. I'll concede that some minorities -- particularly blacks -- get adverse, disparate impacts from some facially neutral policies and institutions. I'm just not going to call that disparate impact racism, and I firmly believe that the greatest disservice that the "civil rights movement" (such as it is in its greatly lessened, current incarnation) ever did to itself and its constituents was adopt its retarded terminology.
That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about KKK members (or some modern version) as police chiefs as an example of both real flat out racism is not just not dead but still in plenty of positions of power as well.
That you don't want to call it racism has ~0 bearing on whether it is or not.
|
On Tuesday, the Senate passed a defense authorization bill that would require young women to register for the draft — the latest development in a long-running debate over whether women should sign up for the Selective Service. The provision would apply to women turning 18 in 2018 or later and would impose the same requirements and rules that currently apply to men.
The policy is still far from being law. The House, after considering a similar provision earlier this spring, ultimately passed an authorization bill that omitted it; the two branches of Congress now must resolve the differences between their bills. And the bill faces a veto threat from President Obama over other elements of the legislation, such as the prohibition on closing down the Guantanamo Bay military prison.
But the bill's passage brings women a step closer to Selective Service registration — a historic change that has bipartisan support in Congress but is firmly opposed by some conservative lawmakers.
For decades, the U.S. policy of having a draft for men, and not women, was approved as constitutional by the Supreme Court.
But as NPR's David Welna reported last year, the court's reasoning relied on the fact that women were barred from combat roles.
Now that women are eligible for combat duty, "Congress seems to have lost its court-endorsed rationale for limiting Selective Service registration to males only," David wrote.
Influential lawmakers are on board for registering women — Sen. John McCain, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, is one of them.
Source
|
I dream of a day women can also receive letters threatening them with jailtime because their new state's driver's license bureau system can't handle a hyphen in their name and so invented a new person living at their address that wasn't registered with the Selective Service System.
Not that I'm bitter over that or anything.
|
On June 16 2016 03:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 03:19 xDaunt wrote:On June 16 2016 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2016 02:29 SolaR- wrote:
This all depends how racism is defined. The topic of conversation was white supremacists, neo-nazis and the like. In that regard, i would say racism is almost if not all dead.
GH, what you are arguing for, I can agree with certain aspects. Let me stress certain. While i do agree with some views on systematic racism, i also think some aspects have been over dramaticized by the left, and some people (mostly white college kids) have lost grip with reality. Racism isn't dead. At best it's undercover, that doesn't make it go away. The drug trade in the US is also "undercover", still one of the biggest drug markets in the world. The idea that "racism is dead" is a wholly and completely ridiculous thing to say. EDIT: I'll say that some aspects of racism have been exaggerated by the left but that in no way is indicative of racism being a thing of the past, that's a view overwhelmingly populated by non PoC for obvious reasons they yet seem oblivious to. I'll concede that some minorities -- particularly blacks -- get adverse, disparate impacts from some facially neutral policies and institutions. I'm just not going to call that disparate impact racism, and I firmly believe that the greatest disservice that the "civil rights movement" (such as it is in its greatly lessened, current incarnation) ever did to itself and its constituents was adopt its retarded terminology. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about KKK members (or some modern version) as police chiefs as an example of both real flat out racism is not just not dead but still in plenty of positions of power as well. That you don't want to call it racism has ~0 bearing on whether it is or not.
Do you have any statistics or anything regarding KKK members in positions of power?
|
On June 16 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
White supremacists have been losing sway, yes. But bigotry of all sorts is alive and well. Here's my point: racism is so dead in the US that the left has had to go out of its ways to create new, overly-expansive definitions of racism to bitch about lest they lose all purpose in life.
To be clear, are you actually saying that racism isn't an issue in the United States anymore? Or am I misinterpreting your comment?
|
On June 16 2016 03:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On June 16 2016 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
White supremacists have been losing sway, yes. But bigotry of all sorts is alive and well. Here's my point: racism is so dead in the US that the left has had to go out of its ways to create new, overly-expansive definitions of racism to bitch about lest they lose all purpose in life. To be clear, are you actually saying that racism isn't an issue in the United States anymore? Or am I misinterpreting your comment?
Basically, yes. To the extent that racism is still an issue, it is completely undeserving of the level of attention that it currently gets.
|
On June 16 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 01:41 IgnE wrote:
So you are fine with a daughter who enthusiastically wears it and says you are going to hell? This has to be one of the most disingenuous discussions I have engaged with in a while. When did I fucking say that? Do you have reading comprehension issues I should be aware of? Edit: I'm not playing 20 questions about religion just because two internet atheists found someone to debate. Seriously, do you people think anyone who believes in religion has to justify their beliefs to you?
I think they should be able to justify their beliefs, at least to themselves, don't you?
Your hysterical response speaks volumes though.
Edit: you realize that I'm trying to engage with you, the individual, here. i'm trying not to "straw man" as you love to point out, and in response to my measured questioning about a statement of yours you get hysterical and start othering me with epithets like "internet atheist". you really need to look into the mirror
|
On June 16 2016 03:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:On June 16 2016 01:41 IgnE wrote:
So you are fine with a daughter who enthusiastically wears it and says you are going to hell? This has to be one of the most disingenuous discussions I have engaged with in a while. When did I fucking say that? Do you have reading comprehension issues I should be aware of? Edit: I'm not playing 20 questions about religion just because two internet atheists found someone to debate. Seriously, do you people think anyone who believes in religion has to justify their beliefs to you? I think they should be able to justify their beliefs, at least to themselves, don't you? Your hysterical response speaks volumes though.
As stated previously, you are the militant vegetarian demanding someone justify why they eat meat. I am not hysterical, I just think you are being an asshole and expressing that.
|
On June 16 2016 03:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:On June 16 2016 01:41 IgnE wrote:
So you are fine with a daughter who enthusiastically wears it and says you are going to hell? This has to be one of the most disingenuous discussions I have engaged with in a while. When did I fucking say that? Do you have reading comprehension issues I should be aware of? Edit: I'm not playing 20 questions about religion just because two internet atheists found someone to debate. Seriously, do you people think anyone who believes in religion has to justify their beliefs to you? I think they should be able to justify their beliefs, at least to themselves, don't you? Your hysterical response speaks volumes though.
Hey, all religions are the same, man.
|
On June 16 2016 03:44 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 03:29 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2016 03:19 xDaunt wrote:On June 16 2016 02:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 16 2016 02:29 SolaR- wrote:
This all depends how racism is defined. The topic of conversation was white supremacists, neo-nazis and the like. In that regard, i would say racism is almost if not all dead.
GH, what you are arguing for, I can agree with certain aspects. Let me stress certain. While i do agree with some views on systematic racism, i also think some aspects have been over dramaticized by the left, and some people (mostly white college kids) have lost grip with reality. Racism isn't dead. At best it's undercover, that doesn't make it go away. The drug trade in the US is also "undercover", still one of the biggest drug markets in the world. The idea that "racism is dead" is a wholly and completely ridiculous thing to say. EDIT: I'll say that some aspects of racism have been exaggerated by the left but that in no way is indicative of racism being a thing of the past, that's a view overwhelmingly populated by non PoC for obvious reasons they yet seem oblivious to. I'll concede that some minorities -- particularly blacks -- get adverse, disparate impacts from some facially neutral policies and institutions. I'm just not going to call that disparate impact racism, and I firmly believe that the greatest disservice that the "civil rights movement" (such as it is in its greatly lessened, current incarnation) ever did to itself and its constituents was adopt its retarded terminology. That's not what I'm talking about, I'm talking about KKK members (or some modern version) as police chiefs as an example of both real flat out racism is not just not dead but still in plenty of positions of power as well. That you don't want to call it racism has ~0 bearing on whether it is or not. Do you have any statistics or anything regarding KKK members in positions of power?
Is that supposed to be a serious question? Like a statistic of how many publicly self-avowed members of the KKK are in power?
On June 16 2016 03:52 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 03:50 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On June 16 2016 01:58 xDaunt wrote:On June 16 2016 01:47 ticklishmusic wrote:
White supremacists have been losing sway, yes. But bigotry of all sorts is alive and well. Here's my point: racism is so dead in the US that the left has had to go out of its ways to create new, overly-expansive definitions of racism to bitch about lest they lose all purpose in life. To be clear, are you actually saying that racism isn't an issue in the United States anymore? Or am I misinterpreting your comment? Basically, yes. To the extent that racism is still an issue, it is completely undeserving of the level of attention that it currently gets.
I'm sure from the perspective of a upper-middle class white guy that statement doesn't seem as ridiculous as it is.
|
On June 16 2016 03:58 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On June 16 2016 03:54 IgnE wrote:On June 16 2016 01:47 Plansix wrote:On June 16 2016 01:41 IgnE wrote:
So you are fine with a daughter who enthusiastically wears it and says you are going to hell? This has to be one of the most disingenuous discussions I have engaged with in a while. When did I fucking say that? Do you have reading comprehension issues I should be aware of? Edit: I'm not playing 20 questions about religion just because two internet atheists found someone to debate. Seriously, do you people think anyone who believes in religion has to justify their beliefs to you? I think they should be able to justify their beliefs, at least to themselves, don't you? Your hysterical response speaks volumes though. As stated previously, you are the militant vegetarian demanding someone justify why they eat meat. I am not hysterical, I just think you are being an asshole and expressing that.
I'm really not. You said you weren't afraid of religions but now we know you at least fear "cults" and judgmental burkha wearers. I'm trying to outline your imagination here for your benefit and mine.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
