|
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 September 24 2016 07:18 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Privilege isn't like getting Platinum status for Delta with access to the Skyclub and free drinks. It's more like your plane gets there on time and there's no fat smelly guy taking up half your seat and no crying baby next to you. where does it end though, we are all privileged in one way or another. I have functioning limbs, some people do not. I have eyes that see, some people do not.
It's called validisme in my language—don't know how to translate it, but basically the fact that society is built for people without handicaps and that disabled persons are discriminated.
|
On September 24 2016 07:24 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:21 TheDwf wrote:On September 24 2016 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:24 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:16 Hryul wrote:
[quote]
[quote]
ah i see. the famous "you need to understand the context" argument. The various liberal posters have spent 20+ pages saying "xDaunt is a racist" without ever providing a coherent argument -- which necessarily would have to include a definition of racism. So someone, please, give me a definition of racism for me to shit on, and I will happily oblige. Let's cut to the chase. Could start with this one? Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Yep, I'll accept that as an instance of racism. Would you consider it a complete definition? No, I would not. What's wrong with it? It specifies a subset of actions that constitute materially racist discrimination. But let's cut to the chase. The definition is not broad enough to label me as a racist based upon what I've said. So go ahead and bring out the big guns. Stumbled upon that definition from the UN—not about racism, but about racial discrimination: The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. What say you? By that definition, everybody is a racist.
Why? The last part is restrictive enough. Plus it's not even a definition of racism anyway.
|
I'm sure it's been brought up, but what was the Trump approved deflection talking point used when the Trump foundation was brought up? Not the Pam Bondi double dealing (which could legitimately be a mistake), not the buying a portrait of himself (who the fuck cares), but the meat of the accusations. Like not having donated any of his own money since 2008.
Trump had earlier gone to a charity in New Jersey — the Charles Evans Foundation, named for a deceased businessman — and asked for a donation. Trump said he was raising money for the Palm Beach Police Foundation.
The Evans Foundation said yes. In 2009 and 2010, it gave a total of $150,000 to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a small charity that the Republican presidential nominee founded in 1987.
Then, Trump’s foundation turned around and made donations to the police group in South Florida. In those years, the Trump Foundation’s gifts totaled $150,000.
Trump had effectively turned the Evans Foundation’s gifts into his own gifts, without adding any money of his own.
|
On September 24 2016 07:21 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:24 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:16 Hryul wrote:On September 24 2016 06:06 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]
XDaunt was accused of being a racist.
his defense was 'I don't see race'.
My response is 'That's what every racist says'.
'I don't see race' is not what made him a racist. His earlier comments did that.
His response just confirms that he is unlikely to have the self reflection to realize that his comments could be seen as racist. 'I don't see race', 'I have black friends/family'. They are the classic defense used by racists. Do you seriously not see this? ah i see. the famous "you need to understand the context" argument. The various liberal posters have spent 20+ pages saying "xDaunt is a racist" without ever providing a coherent argument -- which necessarily would have to include a definition of racism. So someone, please, give me a definition of racism for me to shit on, and I will happily oblige. Let's cut to the chase. Could start with this one? Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior. Yep, I'll accept that as an instance of racism. Would you consider it a complete definition? No, I would not. What's wrong with it? It specifies a subset of actions that constitute materially racist discrimination. But let's cut to the chase. The definition is not broad enough to label me as a racist based upon what I've said. So go ahead and bring out the big guns. Stumbled upon that definition from the UN—not about racism, but about racial discrimination: Show nested quote +The term "racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life. What say you?
That's not a bad definition of racial discrimination. I think Title VII does it better and properly broadens the definition from the UN's. But racial discrimination and racism are different concepts.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 24 2016 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +As for old school feudal style privilege where you can drive a car off a bridge and drown your companion and have it be cool, that's a completely different subject. Some professor somewhere thought that they could get more eyes on their new thing if they called it privilege I guess. Was this intentionally invoking Teddy Kennedy?
I just reached for the first example of aristocratic style privilege in the US I could think of.
|
On September 24 2016 07:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:27 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 24 2016 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 07:18 biology]major wrote:On September 24 2016 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Privilege isn't like getting Platinum status for Delta with access to the Skyclub and free drinks. It's more like your plane gets there on time and there's no fat smelly guy taking up half your seat and no crying baby next to you. where does it end though, we are all privileged in one way or another. I have functioning limbs, some people do not. I have eyes that see, some people do not. I am in good health, some people aren't. Even someone who you would think is severely under privileged can play this game and list ways in which they are privileged. I guess its healthy to realize things could always be worse, but class assignments on it? Why focus on race in particular as well? Real privilege comes from having a family and wealth, not race. Where are the class assignments on those topics? This is actually progress. "Why focus on race", the answer is in the words following the question. Think about what beyond hard work and dumb luck might have contributed to the current allocation and strength of families and wealth? Could the systemic destruction of Black families and wealth over the course of hundreds of years resulted on a disparate impact that deserves special attention? There is this thing called "Affirmative Action" for black people. It is very much possible to get out of slums and even get into a better position than other races. So you're saying something designed as special attention for underprivileged groups means that those groups don't need special attention? What is this circular logic?
It only means that BLM is just a huge waste of everybody's time and money.
BLM is the exactly the regressive movement that a healthy society needn't.
|
On September 24 2016 07:28 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 07:03 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:42 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:36 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:35 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:33 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 06:31 xDaunt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:28 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
Could start with this one?
[quote]
Yep, I'll accept that as an instance of racism. Would you consider it a complete definition? No, I would not. What's wrong with it? It specifies a subset of actions that constitute materially racist discrimination. But let's cut to the chase. The definition is not broad enough to label me as a racist based upon what I've said. So go ahead and bring out the big guns. But it is. You just think that you're immune to the same racial biases that we all deal with in our own ways. So, in turn, you refuse to see how they influence your perspective and rhetoric. No, it's not even close. The single biggest problem with that definition for your position is that it includes a subjective criterion pertaining to the thought process of the alleged racist. This, in and of itself, prevents the conclusion that XDaunt is a racist given my very detailed explanations for what I said and why. And beyond that, none my statements were facially racially discriminatory anyway. So you're going to need to come up with a much broader definition of racist to nail me. While it's not my preferred definition, it's one you agreed with. Like I said, the problem seems to be you reading into that definition that you have to be self-aware of your belief, but you don't. I'm not reading anything into the definition. I'm literally reading what you said in the definition: "...based on the belief that one's own race is superior." I have never said anything remotely resembling a belief that my race is superior. And you telling me what I believe or don't believe does not make a very compelling argument. So like I said, you need a different definition of racism.
See, you're taking each post without keeping the context of the conversation. You refusing to admit you're influenced by a society that teaches white supremacy (even if to a much lesser degree today) doesn't immunize you to that influence.
What I find amusing about this, is that I have had an easier time coming to grips with the reality that I sometimes act out of an internalized belief in white supremacy than you are.
|
On September 24 2016 07:31 Nevuk wrote:I'm sure it's been brought up, but what was the Trump approved deflection talking point used when the Trump foundation was brought up? Not the Pam Bondi double dealing (which could legitimately be a mistake), not the buying a portrait of himself (who the fuck cares), but the meat of the accusations. Like not having donated any of his own money since 2008. Show nested quote +Trump had earlier gone to a charity in New Jersey — the Charles Evans Foundation, named for a deceased businessman — and asked for a donation. Trump said he was raising money for the Palm Beach Police Foundation.
The Evans Foundation said yes. In 2009 and 2010, it gave a total of $150,000 to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a small charity that the Republican presidential nominee founded in 1987.
Then, Trump’s foundation turned around and made donations to the police group in South Florida. In those years, the Trump Foundation’s gifts totaled $150,000.
Trump had effectively turned the Evans Foundation’s gifts into his own gifts, without adding any money of his own.
Isn't that exactly what they said, then?
|
On September 24 2016 07:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:29 GreenHorizons wrote:As for old school feudal style privilege where you can drive a car off a bridge and drown your companion and have it be cool, that's a completely different subject. Some professor somewhere thought that they could get more eyes on their new thing if they called it privilege I guess. Was this intentionally invoking Teddy Kennedy? I just reached for the first example of aristocratic style privilege in the US I could think of.
ethan couch tho
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 24 2016 07:34 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 24 2016 07:27 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 24 2016 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 07:18 biology]major wrote:On September 24 2016 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Privilege isn't like getting Platinum status for Delta with access to the Skyclub and free drinks. It's more like your plane gets there on time and there's no fat smelly guy taking up half your seat and no crying baby next to you. where does it end though, we are all privileged in one way or another. I have functioning limbs, some people do not. I have eyes that see, some people do not. I am in good health, some people aren't. Even someone who you would think is severely under privileged can play this game and list ways in which they are privileged. I guess its healthy to realize things could always be worse, but class assignments on it? Why focus on race in particular as well? Real privilege comes from having a family and wealth, not race. Where are the class assignments on those topics? This is actually progress. "Why focus on race", the answer is in the words following the question. Think about what beyond hard work and dumb luck might have contributed to the current allocation and strength of families and wealth? Could the systemic destruction of Black families and wealth over the course of hundreds of years resulted on a disparate impact that deserves special attention? There is this thing called "Affirmative Action" for black people. It is very much possible to get out of slums and even get into a better position than other races. So you're saying something designed as special attention for underprivileged groups means that those groups don't need special attention? What is this circular logic? It only means that BLM is just a huge waste of everybody's time and money. BLM is the exactly the regressive movement that a healthy society needn't.
Remember the Ferguson riots? Well the Justice department actually looked into what was going on with the Ferguson PD before the riots and they issued this report.
https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf
Eric Holder summarized it as such
Our investigation showed that Ferguson police officers routinely violate the Fourth Amendment in stopping people without reasonable suspicion, arresting them without probable cause, and using unreasonable force against them.
When exactly were they going to get around to looking into that had the riots not happened? Do you think the Ferguson PD would have stopped victimizing the population by now?
|
On September 24 2016 07:34 RealityIsKing wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 24 2016 07:27 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 24 2016 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 07:18 biology]major wrote:On September 24 2016 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Privilege isn't like getting Platinum status for Delta with access to the Skyclub and free drinks. It's more like your plane gets there on time and there's no fat smelly guy taking up half your seat and no crying baby next to you. where does it end though, we are all privileged in one way or another. I have functioning limbs, some people do not. I have eyes that see, some people do not. I am in good health, some people aren't. Even someone who you would think is severely under privileged can play this game and list ways in which they are privileged. I guess its healthy to realize things could always be worse, but class assignments on it? Why focus on race in particular as well? Real privilege comes from having a family and wealth, not race. Where are the class assignments on those topics? This is actually progress. "Why focus on race", the answer is in the words following the question. Think about what beyond hard work and dumb luck might have contributed to the current allocation and strength of families and wealth? Could the systemic destruction of Black families and wealth over the course of hundreds of years resulted on a disparate impact that deserves special attention? There is this thing called "Affirmative Action" for black people. It is very much possible to get out of slums and even get into a better position than other races. So you're saying something designed as special attention for underprivileged groups means that those groups don't need special attention? What is this circular logic? It only means that BLM is just a huge waste of everybody's time and money. BLM is the exactly the regressive movement that a healthy society needn't.
A healthy society would indeed not need BLM because a healthy society wouldn't be racist to begin with. I assume this is what you meant?!
|
On September 24 2016 07:26 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 24 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 06:42 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:37 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 06:34 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On September 23 2016 11:25 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 10:05 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 23 2016 09:58 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2016 09:51 Doodsmack wrote:
People do need to start seeing more nuance in these police shootings. If this guy in Charlotte had a gun, it's pretty clear the cop was justified. What even is the Second Amendment? Americans are allowed guns, even the black ones. Pointing one at a cop is another matter but I'm always amazed at the way the right try to make it about whether or not he had a gun and the left agree to play that game by those rules. We all collectively concede that gun ownership isn't a black right and that the Second Amendment isn't worth shit in the eyes of the police. There is a difference between the right to own a gun, and raising your hands with a gun in them when a cop is telling you to "drop the gun". Not saying that happened here, but that there is a world of difference between the right to own a gun and holding a gun while engaging with a cop, in a manner the latter might consider threathening. Also, it was a black victim shoot by a black cop, with a black head of police department. So why is this a racial thing again? It's a way of blaming white people in perpetuity and feeding off the division to get people in power in government, and as lackeys of government, for their own benefit, rather than addressing the root problems. On September 23 2016 10:37 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 23 2016 10:20 KwarK wrote:On September 23 2016 10:05 GoTuNk! wrote:
[quote]
There is a difference between the right to own a gun, and raising your hands with a gun in them when a cop is telling you to "drop the gun". Not saying that happened here, but that there is a world of difference between the right to own a gun and holding a gun while engaging with a cop, in a manner the latter might consider threathening.
Also, it was a black victim shoot by a black cop, with a black head of police department. So why is this a racial thing again? Hi, this is your daily reminder that black people don't have a superpower that prevents them from learning any racism while growing up and living in a society with entrenched racism. It'd actually be really weird if they could do that. But, despite claims to the contrary by GG and xDaunt, black people are actually human. Also I wasn't referring to this specific incident, just commenting on the way gun ownership in the black community is seen as a deciding factor for police shootings, even though it's a constitutional right. I think at this point, white people feel racism too. Especially with the rise of BLM. And teachers these days are guilt tripping their white students. I mean that's not at all what a healthy society should be like. Do you have a source for the teachers thing? I thought that was in the UK but I don't remember. Hi. I am a high school student in the USA, half white and half east Asian, can confirm that my asian-american literature teacher just guilt tripped over 90% of the world by having us write about white privilege as a graded assignment. How would you even grade that? It's so subjective and my SJW teacher is the kind of person to give slightly lower grades for disagreeing with her ideas. I also had to read "it's a right-handed world," which can probably speak for itself. Half of me feels like this class is terrible because of the thinly veiled "hate on whites" theme, the other (Asian) half believes it is alright. That feels like major guilt tripping to me. To make it worse, my high school is ranked in the top 150 in the nation and in the top 4 in my city (to be fair, it's a huge city). This woman is tenured and cannot be removed from her job, not even by the school's principal. White privilege as a concept has nothing to do with feeling guilty. I think you need to do the assignment again because you clearly didn't get it. Nobody is demanding that white people feel guilty for having their privilege. I haven't turned in the assignment yet, and I will take this into consideration while writing it. Thank you. I was also trying to make a point about the education system, which is what I five more concerning and more relevant to the post that i responded to. Sorry :p All good. The point of privilege is just understanding that shit for other people might not be as easy as it is for you. There was a study done in 2003 that indicated that resumes with black sounding names got substantially lower calls to come and interview for a position than the same resume with a whiter name. I would argue that offers a good example of how privilege could exist between two otherwise identical black people. Before an African American called James judges his African American friend Jamal for Jamal's difficulty in finding a job he should recognize that he was the beneficiary of a system which fucks over Jamal. James shouldn't feel guilty for being called James, nor should he feel guilty for the system which he had no part in creating but he should recognize that Jamal struggles with a burden that James does not. This does not equal a free pass if Jamal isn't trying to get a job or whatever, just recognition that it's not as simple as "I got a job, why can't you?" when if they both applied to the same company with the same resume James is getting an interview and Jamal isn't. James gets white-sounding-name-in-a-racist-society privilege which helps him get his foot in the door, Jamal doesn't. The study in case you're curious. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf I think I've commented on this study before, but the methodology on it is actually extremely suspect... The last page shows the "fraction of all birth" percentage, which it clarifies as "fraction of births within that race-sex subgroup". Which basically means that in America, the White Male names (1.7%) amount to something like 4 million people, while the Black Male names (3.1%) is closer to 900 thousand? Basically the White names are 4x as common in the US than the Black ones. Also a lack of control or comparison groups. No race neutral names (meaning names that are roughly equal in population for both groups in the US) or White names that are just as uncommon or foreign sounding. These kinds of studies show an obvious intent to create a conclusion from the sample choices. What would a control group look like to you? What kind of result would these 'race neutral' names give? The control group is the not Black sounding names. Your testing the Black sounding names against the rest. Race neutral will only muddle your results since you do not know if the Note that I am not saying the study is good (I havnt checked into it enough to say that) but I can understand why it is set up the way it is.
The problem is basically that I can look at the same results, remove all knowledge of culture/race association with those names, and come to the conclusion: More common names will get more callbacks. And there would probably be valid reasoning for that conclusion as well.
The idea behind good sample selections and study methodology is to remove those other potential factors.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 24 2016 07:40 TheDwf wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 24 2016 07:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 24 2016 07:27 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 24 2016 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 07:18 biology]major wrote:On September 24 2016 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Privilege isn't like getting Platinum status for Delta with access to the Skyclub and free drinks. It's more like your plane gets there on time and there's no fat smelly guy taking up half your seat and no crying baby next to you. where does it end though, we are all privileged in one way or another. I have functioning limbs, some people do not. I have eyes that see, some people do not. I am in good health, some people aren't. Even someone who you would think is severely under privileged can play this game and list ways in which they are privileged. I guess its healthy to realize things could always be worse, but class assignments on it? Why focus on race in particular as well? Real privilege comes from having a family and wealth, not race. Where are the class assignments on those topics? This is actually progress. "Why focus on race", the answer is in the words following the question. Think about what beyond hard work and dumb luck might have contributed to the current allocation and strength of families and wealth? Could the systemic destruction of Black families and wealth over the course of hundreds of years resulted on a disparate impact that deserves special attention? There is this thing called "Affirmative Action" for black people. It is very much possible to get out of slums and even get into a better position than other races. So you're saying something designed as special attention for underprivileged groups means that those groups don't need special attention? What is this circular logic? It only means that BLM is just a huge waste of everybody's time and money. BLM is the exactly the regressive movement that a healthy society needn't. A healthy society would indeed not need BLM because a healthy society wouldn't be racist to begin with. I assume this is what you meant?!
Take a look at some of his other utterances. It's good fun. He says the Founding Fathers would never engage in overseas policing and before you can say Barbary Pirates he's claiming that Trump is committed to renewable energy. By the time you've found Trump declaring his plan to "bring the coal industry back 100%" he's claiming that America doesn't win anymore. He says something, someone refutes it utterly, he misunderstands and then ignores it.
|
United States42009 Posts
On September 24 2016 07:36 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:31 Nevuk wrote:I'm sure it's been brought up, but what was the Trump approved deflection talking point used when the Trump foundation was brought up? Not the Pam Bondi double dealing (which could legitimately be a mistake), not the buying a portrait of himself (who the fuck cares), but the meat of the accusations. Like not having donated any of his own money since 2008. Trump had earlier gone to a charity in New Jersey — the Charles Evans Foundation, named for a deceased businessman — and asked for a donation. Trump said he was raising money for the Palm Beach Police Foundation.
The Evans Foundation said yes. In 2009 and 2010, it gave a total of $150,000 to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a small charity that the Republican presidential nominee founded in 1987.
Then, Trump’s foundation turned around and made donations to the police group in South Florida. In those years, the Trump Foundation’s gifts totaled $150,000.
Trump had effectively turned the Evans Foundation’s gifts into his own gifts, without adding any money of his own.
Isn't that exactly what they said, then?
Yeah, I don't see the issue with the Trump foundation acting as a go-between in that police charity scenario. I'm far more upset about the Pam Bondi shit which absolutely could not have been a mistake (he insisted it was intentional right up until someone pointed out it was bribery at which point it was all a misunderstanding). I know that that's how the corrupt game is played to an extent but that doesn't mean we all have to pretend not to see it.
|
On September 24 2016 07:43 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:40 TheDwf wrote:On September 24 2016 07:34 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 24 2016 07:28 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 24 2016 07:27 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 24 2016 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 24 2016 07:18 biology]major wrote:On September 24 2016 06:55 ticklishmusic wrote:
Privilege isn't like getting Platinum status for Delta with access to the Skyclub and free drinks. It's more like your plane gets there on time and there's no fat smelly guy taking up half your seat and no crying baby next to you. where does it end though, we are all privileged in one way or another. I have functioning limbs, some people do not. I have eyes that see, some people do not. I am in good health, some people aren't. Even someone who you would think is severely under privileged can play this game and list ways in which they are privileged. I guess its healthy to realize things could always be worse, but class assignments on it? Why focus on race in particular as well? Real privilege comes from having a family and wealth, not race. Where are the class assignments on those topics? This is actually progress. "Why focus on race", the answer is in the words following the question. Think about what beyond hard work and dumb luck might have contributed to the current allocation and strength of families and wealth? Could the systemic destruction of Black families and wealth over the course of hundreds of years resulted on a disparate impact that deserves special attention? There is this thing called "Affirmative Action" for black people. It is very much possible to get out of slums and even get into a better position than other races. So you're saying something designed as special attention for underprivileged groups means that those groups don't need special attention? What is this circular logic? It only means that BLM is just a huge waste of everybody's time and money. BLM is the exactly the regressive movement that a healthy society needn't. A healthy society would indeed not need BLM because a healthy society wouldn't be racist to begin with. I assume this is what you meant?! Take a look at some of his other utterances. It's good fun. He says the Founding Fathers would never engage in overseas policing and before you can say Barbary Pirates he's claiming that Trump is committed to renewable energy. By the time you've found Trump declaring his plan to "bring the coal industry back 100%" he's claiming that America doesn't win anymore. He says something, someone refutes it utterly, he misunderstands and then ignores it.
That's basically what Trump does
|
On September 24 2016 07:46 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:36 oBlade wrote:On September 24 2016 07:31 Nevuk wrote:I'm sure it's been brought up, but what was the Trump approved deflection talking point used when the Trump foundation was brought up? Not the Pam Bondi double dealing (which could legitimately be a mistake), not the buying a portrait of himself (who the fuck cares), but the meat of the accusations. Like not having donated any of his own money since 2008. Trump had earlier gone to a charity in New Jersey — the Charles Evans Foundation, named for a deceased businessman — and asked for a donation. Trump said he was raising money for the Palm Beach Police Foundation.
The Evans Foundation said yes. In 2009 and 2010, it gave a total of $150,000 to the Donald J. Trump Foundation, a small charity that the Republican presidential nominee founded in 1987.
Then, Trump’s foundation turned around and made donations to the police group in South Florida. In those years, the Trump Foundation’s gifts totaled $150,000.
Trump had effectively turned the Evans Foundation’s gifts into his own gifts, without adding any money of his own.
Isn't that exactly what they said, then? Yeah, I don't see the issue with the Trump foundation acting as a go-between in that police charity scenario. I'm far more upset about the Pam Bondi shit which absolutely could not have been a mistake (he insisted it was intentional right up until someone pointed out it was bribery at which point it was all a misunderstanding). I know that that's how the corrupt game is played to an extent but that doesn't mean we all have to pretend not to see it.
The issue is more that the Bondi part can be handwaved in a pretty incoherent manner (something about similar names) but there's no real explanation for the continued pattern of that style of giving (and he didn't tell these people he was doing it, most of them declined to give in the future after finding out about it). The graph is pretty startling.
![[image loading]](https://www.washingtonpost.com/r/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2016/09/11/National-Politics/Images/trumpfoundationchart.gif)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-donald-trump-retooled-his-charity-to-spend-other-peoples-money/2016/09/10/da8cce64-75df-11e6-8149-b8d05321db62_story.html
|
|
|
On September 24 2016 07:42 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2016 07:26 Gorsameth wrote:On September 24 2016 07:17 WolfintheSheep wrote:On September 24 2016 06:50 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 06:42 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On September 24 2016 06:37 KwarK wrote:On September 24 2016 06:34 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On September 23 2016 11:25 oBlade wrote:On September 23 2016 10:05 GoTuNk! wrote:On September 23 2016 09:58 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
What even is the Second Amendment? Americans are allowed guns, even the black ones. Pointing one at a cop is another matter but I'm always amazed at the way the right try to make it about whether or not he had a gun and the left agree to play that game by those rules. We all collectively concede that gun ownership isn't a black right and that the Second Amendment isn't worth shit in the eyes of the police. There is a difference between the right to own a gun, and raising your hands with a gun in them when a cop is telling you to "drop the gun". Not saying that happened here, but that there is a world of difference between the right to own a gun and holding a gun while engaging with a cop, in a manner the latter might consider threathening. Also, it was a black victim shoot by a black cop, with a black head of police department. So why is this a racial thing again? It's a way of blaming white people in perpetuity and feeding off the division to get people in power in government, and as lackeys of government, for their own benefit, rather than addressing the root problems. On September 23 2016 10:37 RealityIsKing wrote:On September 23 2016 10:20 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Hi, this is your daily reminder that black people don't have a superpower that prevents them from learning any racism while growing up and living in a society with entrenched racism. It'd actually be really weird if they could do that. But, despite claims to the contrary by GG and xDaunt, black people are actually human.
Also I wasn't referring to this specific incident, just commenting on the way gun ownership in the black community is seen as a deciding factor for police shootings, even though it's a constitutional right. I think at this point, white people feel racism too. Especially with the rise of BLM. And teachers these days are guilt tripping their white students. I mean that's not at all what a healthy society should be like. Do you have a source for the teachers thing? I thought that was in the UK but I don't remember. Hi. I am a high school student in the USA, half white and half east Asian, can confirm that my asian-american literature teacher just guilt tripped over 90% of the world by having us write about white privilege as a graded assignment. How would you even grade that? It's so subjective and my SJW teacher is the kind of person to give slightly lower grades for disagreeing with her ideas. I also had to read "it's a right-handed world," which can probably speak for itself. Half of me feels like this class is terrible because of the thinly veiled "hate on whites" theme, the other (Asian) half believes it is alright. That feels like major guilt tripping to me. To make it worse, my high school is ranked in the top 150 in the nation and in the top 4 in my city (to be fair, it's a huge city). This woman is tenured and cannot be removed from her job, not even by the school's principal. White privilege as a concept has nothing to do with feeling guilty. I think you need to do the assignment again because you clearly didn't get it. Nobody is demanding that white people feel guilty for having their privilege. I haven't turned in the assignment yet, and I will take this into consideration while writing it. Thank you. I was also trying to make a point about the education system, which is what I five more concerning and more relevant to the post that i responded to. Sorry :p All good. The point of privilege is just understanding that shit for other people might not be as easy as it is for you. There was a study done in 2003 that indicated that resumes with black sounding names got substantially lower calls to come and interview for a position than the same resume with a whiter name. I would argue that offers a good example of how privilege could exist between two otherwise identical black people. Before an African American called James judges his African American friend Jamal for Jamal's difficulty in finding a job he should recognize that he was the beneficiary of a system which fucks over Jamal. James shouldn't feel guilty for being called James, nor should he feel guilty for the system which he had no part in creating but he should recognize that Jamal struggles with a burden that James does not. This does not equal a free pass if Jamal isn't trying to get a job or whatever, just recognition that it's not as simple as "I got a job, why can't you?" when if they both applied to the same company with the same resume James is getting an interview and Jamal isn't. James gets white-sounding-name-in-a-racist-society privilege which helps him get his foot in the door, Jamal doesn't. The study in case you're curious. http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873.pdf I think I've commented on this study before, but the methodology on it is actually extremely suspect... The last page shows the "fraction of all birth" percentage, which it clarifies as "fraction of births within that race-sex subgroup". Which basically means that in America, the White Male names (1.7%) amount to something like 4 million people, while the Black Male names (3.1%) is closer to 900 thousand? Basically the White names are 4x as common in the US than the Black ones. Also a lack of control or comparison groups. No race neutral names (meaning names that are roughly equal in population for both groups in the US) or White names that are just as uncommon or foreign sounding. These kinds of studies show an obvious intent to create a conclusion from the sample choices. What would a control group look like to you? What kind of result would these 'race neutral' names give? The control group is the not Black sounding names. Your testing the Black sounding names against the rest. Race neutral will only muddle your results since you do not know if the Note that I am not saying the study is good (I havnt checked into it enough to say that) but I can understand why it is set up the way it is. The problem is basically that I can look at the same results, remove all knowledge of culture/race association with those names, and come to the conclusion: More common names will get more callbacks. And there would probably be valid reasoning for that conclusion as well. The idea behind good sample selections and study methodology is to remove those other potential factors.
Good point, you would want to use uncommon but obviously white names but then you could claim uncommon names get more callbacks.
In order to focus truly on race the only difference between 2 applications should be race. But that is not something you normally list on an application so you would need to set up a specific event for it rather then using actual job offers.
|
was (very briefly) discussed earlier. He has to have been bribed/pressured into it with something big.
|
Privilege is anything that moves away from meritocracy.
Affirmative action and african americans entering college over Asian americans that scored hundreds higher in SATs are both examples of privilege.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
