EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 5133
| 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. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4765 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42656 Posts
On September 24 2016 09:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: Yes, a university entrance exam is the perfect example of meritocracy.People who have scored hundreds higher in SATs will be better engineers, scientists, doctors than the mediocre scorers.I don't see whats so controversial.External factors are irrelevant, race gender and sexual identity is irrelevant name is irrelevant all that should matter is score/result. I was able to considerably boost my score when I took the GMAT by taking a prep course that would have cost over a thousand dollars had I not had it paid for me by work. Do you think that the GMAT is a meritocratic exam or one where the resources of the exam taker is a factor in the outcome? | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 24 2016 09:08 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: How are they working on it and what has been achieved? Last time i checked black poverty rates had risen under Obama.I can't see how globalization and mass immigration helps the black communities already doing it tough? Fill me in. while there are global factors that affect it; most crime is a local problem, that has to be addressed at the local level. There's lots of local efforts to work on these things; but crime is a never-ending struggle to deal with, and no great progress is made in general. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
| ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On September 23 2016 17:16 ChristianS wrote: But I wasn't really looking to pick a fight either. I don't really long to be a civil rights crusader. The 50's and 60's sound awful, and I'm glad I didn't have to be around for it. I honestly wish that we were having a relatively normal election between, like, Tim Kaine and Jeb Bush, and I could tune out and read the occasional headline without click on it and maybe get around to registering to vote if I had nothing better to do, but I probably never would because I wouldn't care that much who won. This part is pretty illustrative. Jeb Bush particularly is the kind of establishment candidate everybody likes: stands for nothing, doesn't fight for anything. To me it's looking at the looming debt, lawlessness, and bureaucratic control and deciding that everything fine, let's have some more of it! I even get some of the wistful feelings for an area of boring politics. Not for today's age, try the 1950s. Instead we've got a large, disgruntled population of lower- and middle-class white people who feel that they've been wronged by the world. They think they used to have some kind of glory and power, but now their manufacturing jobs are fading away and they're losing their privileged place in the world, and they feel betrayed and unsafe and powerless. We've got a demagogue candidate who's appealing to this population by telling them that they lost their power because of Mexicans and Muslims and China. He's parading around families of people that were raped or murdered by illegal Mexicans to gin up a rage against these foreigners that are raping and murdering their wives and children. He's saying the whole world is laughing at them because they don't win any more. And he's promising them that if they support him, then by the time he's done, nobody will laugh at them again. Lest we forget, we had a political class of BOTH parties that declared they would fight for their jobs and bring back all this economic growth and prosperity. You try explaining that most manufacturing jobs aren't coming back when you've lied for your entire political career. The backwards trade view that dominated both Trump & Bernie's campaigns is primarily the result of bad education and political lies that eroded people's faith in government. This is not a drill, this is how real life racial persecution gets started. This is the type of movement that used to lead to pogroms and lynchings and blood libel. People get so caught up in the movement and the propaganda and the cult of personality around a charismatic leader that they stop paying attention to facts and policy, to the point that you can explain to them that the crime rate is down, not up, that they lost their manufacturing jobs to the inexorable forces of globalism and no one can bring them back, and that illegal immigrants actually commit violent crime at a lower rate than the rest of the population, but it has absolutely no bearing on how they feel. Not by a long shot. The reason we get stories about illegal alien rapists in the country is nobody cares about securing the border. The reason we get repeat offenders is the release policies and deportation policies and sanctuary city laws create a catch and release system. If this issue got even a fraction of the news dedicated to black men shot by police, justified and unjustified, it wouldn't be an issue because the American people would demand an end. But it's awfully inconvenient for comprehensive immigration plans and amnesty/citizenship plans to deal with people that have nine previous felonies and one deportation being arrested for another crime. Two prior deportations on record, but now he's back for felony sexual penetration with force. Now do you have a heart? Would you sooner go up to a grieving black mother and tell her that her son deserved to die, or a grieving white mother and tell her that the illegal alien that killed her daughter is a member of a group with lower-than-average crime rates? When you show callous disregard for every anecdote of another death or rape, that's what builds resentment. Sanctuary cities are never brought up by your Tim Caines and Jeb Bushes, and they are one part of letting criminal aliens go free and flee deportation. Seems like you're throwing out a lot of punches at stuff I'm not sure if you're assuming I support. I'm also not sure what's meant by terms like "racial realism." It seems to denote a position which acknowledges the realities of race (about which this "regressive left" is presumably in denial), but I'm not sure what realities you think those are. A white supremacist might say they're a "racial realist" for acknowledging that white people are better than black people. An SJW might call themselves a "racial realist" for acknowledging the power dynamics between whites and various minorities in America today, such that a "color-blind" approach can't solve racial issues. I assume you're in neither of these camps, so you probably mean something more along the lines of acknowledging black culture has some toxic trends which contribute to blacks' underprivileged state (which the regressive left insists is a racist position)? I'm only guessing at your meaning here. I'm just using as mushy of a term I could find to contrast with the similar passage you used originally. Progress and racial equality are in the eyes of the beholder. How much discrimination in job applicants is permissible to achieve racial quotas? Is disparate impact alone enough to prove racism and discrimination? How do you square equal protection under the law and disparate impact provisions? It's a very easy thing to believe in a utopia of an "inevitable march towards progress and greater racial equality," but when it comes down to policy, a lot of it looks like pushing for the hardest discriminatory hiring systems and promotion rules, throwing out good candidates for candidates with the right skin color in the name of equality. I say racial realism to call attention to the mushiness typifying the debate (apparently the alt-right has already defined it and added it to their lexicon--oops). After all, who can be against progress and racial equality or antiracist attitudes? Let me just keep it simple. Staying in reality and approaching race with a healthy attitude means reducing and eliminating how many issues we observe purely through the lens of race. It's police training on brutality and firearm discipline first, not white cops shooting unarmed black teens. Fix the problem, don't racialize the problem for political power and influence. Understand that making everything about race demonizes whites and white hispanics and poisons cooperation on real issues. Your talk about Trump inciting future racial persecution is a good case in point. Fix the issues and let tempers go back down, don't pretend the man in front of the movement is using race for nefarious purposes. On September 23 2016 21:18 xDaunt wrote: The struggle is real. I always have hope for the newer names to have the light bulb turn on and step into somebody else's shoes.His post is the saner and nicer version of Kwark's 40% of America is racist posts. And it's unsurprising to me that he, like everyone else on the other side of the issue, struggles with this part of Danglars' post: | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13925 Posts
On September 24 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote: Because if we accept the premise that society teaches people to be white supremacists (or anti-black or whatever), then everyone in that society will have been taught to be a white supremacist (or anti-black or whatever) and hold those beliefs, consciously or not (and I add the consciously or not because that's what's being argued about me). So all that's left to differentiate the racists from the non-racists under this expansive definition of racism is mere virtue signalling. The people who recognize that society has taught them racist things and acknowledge that they sometimes act on what society has taught them are not racists, whereas the denier (ie yours truly) are still racists. Like I said earlier, this is an absurd dichotomy that further illustrates the absurdity of the over-expansive definition of racism. How is it absurd? People treat people of a different skin color differently then another skin color. Its not obviously beacuse they don't like the color of their skin but because they don't like the group of people who is easily definable based on the color of their skin. If we took the time to make up words for every single thing people do to hurt others based on the words they use to describe someone else then we wouldn't have time to communicate in any way. So we use the term racism to collect all the things people do to another person based on the group of people that they represent that they belong to that they are alike based on the skin of their color. Thats over-expansive for sheer convince and not an argument for or against you being racist its just you being werid on basic communication. People call you racist because you do racist things and arn't sorry for them. thats the difference between people who reorganize that they're racist and try not to be and people like you who regonize that they're racist and don't see a reason not to be racist. I get it you're a lawyer and are trying to attack the term racist beacuse its the easy out but there isn't anything there other then you looking dumb for not understanding how words work. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
That's not even debatable. But how do we solve that? | ||
|
Sermokala
United States13925 Posts
On September 24 2016 09:36 RealityIsKing wrote: Okay I think there are OF COURSE racism in America. That's not even debatable. But how do we solve that? The first step to change is awareness. But we're stuck on that and I doubt we'll get past that step as a species ever. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
On September 24 2016 09:38 Sermokala wrote: The first step to change is awareness. But we're stuck on that and I doubt we'll get past that step as a species ever. I think EVERYBODY are aware of racism but there are lot of people that want to censoring speech on it. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
Now these emails--alleged by Clinton not to contain classified information and deleted by the thousands because they were on stuff like yoga--are being withheld from FOIA because of presidential communication privilege. So rich. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 24 2016 09:38 RealityIsKing wrote: I think EVERYBODY are aware of racism but there are lot of people that want to censoring speech on it. The problem is a mix of denialism on one side and overzealous association on the other. A lot of the people who are racists just fall into the "well that guy is worse than me and he's a real racist, so I'm not" thinking just to separate themselves from the discussion, while on the other side, there are people who are so caught up in accusing people of racism that they lose sight of their original message. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On September 24 2016 09:36 RealityIsKing wrote: Okay I think there are OF COURSE racism in America. That's not even debatable. But how do we solve that? there is no single solution; there are many different problems with many different sources. As with all problems, it's a great long-term struggle. And we solve it by thinking, learning, discussing, and analyzing. Offhand I don't know the specifics much more than that; though i'm sure it wouldn't be that hard to start finding long lists of possibilities for what to do. just always remember: there's loudmouth idiots on all sides, and you hear a lot about what they're saying; you don't hear the reasonable people nearly as much, even though they're a lot more numerous. | ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium4765 Posts
Forget about the blatant cases, I want the ones where you see a white man ordering a burger in a McDonalds from a black person and then complaining about the amount of sesame seeds on the bun racism. But for real, give me the more nuanced parts of racism guys, because I just don't seem to understand it, because all I ever see in this debate is people slinging vague terms. Let's get concrete! | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
On September 24 2016 09:05 xDaunt wrote: Because if we accept the premise that society teaches people to be white supremacists (or anti-black or whatever), then everyone in that society will have been taught to be a white supremacist (or anti-black or whatever) and hold those beliefs, consciously or not (and I add the consciously or not because that's what's being argued about me). So all that's left to differentiate the racists from the non-racists under this expansive definition of racism is mere virtue signalling. The people who recognize that society has taught them racist things and acknowledge that they sometimes act on what society has taught them are not racists, whereas the denier (ie yours truly) are still racists. Like I said earlier, this is an absurd dichotomy that further illustrates the absurdity of the over-expansive definition of racism. Intrinsically, I think the idea behind "everybody is a little racist" and "white privilege" and similar ideas isn't to put people into buckets of "racist" and "not racist", but just to make *everybody* (whether they're "racists" or not) a little more aware of how their perspective might color other people's impressions of the things they say or do, and to get everyone to be a little bit more introspective of how they treat people of other races. The goal is to educate and encourage introspection, which I don't think this is an ignoble goal. The problem is that "racist" is a word that has too many negative connotations and people just get hung up on the term, when applying negative monikers to people isn't the point at all. People on the left use it as a way to legitimize their overuse of a negative label and apply the label to people whose ideas they don't like, while people on the right get hung up on the term and just miss the point of what those ideas are about. EDIT: Also, as I mentioned before in a discussion a while back, the message of "you as a white person don't have the necessary perspective to decide what things you say/do might be perceived as racist by people of color" gets a little muddled when the person delivering the message is not a PoC, but a probably-white SJW on the internet who likewise doesn't have that perspective either. | ||
|
RealityIsKing
613 Posts
Racism is solved by going on the street and destroying your neighbors' property. Institutional racism is solved in couple of ways: 1)Peacefully writing letters and visiting your local political offices and then increase intensity as time goes on. 2)For the ones getting discriminated to get your yourself a sustainable skills. Not necessary even going to colleges. But even becoming mechanics, electrician, accounting, science lab assistant, etc. 3)Do NOT under any circumstances hurt others or take unnecessary drugs while you are trying to achieve your goals. 4)Take care of your kids. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 24 2016 09:33 Sermokala wrote: How is it absurd? People treat people of a different skin color differently then another skin color. Its not obviously beacuse they don't like the color of their skin but because they don't like the group of people who is easily definable based on the color of their skin. If we took the time to make up words for every single thing people do to hurt others based on the words they use to describe someone else then we wouldn't have time to communicate in any way. So we use the term racism to collect all the things people do to another person based on the group of people that they represent that they belong to that they are alike based on the skin of their color. Thats over-expansive for sheer convince and not an argument for or against you being racist its just you being werid on basic communication. It's absurd because you're using a stigmatized term to label a whole of bunch people by arbitrarily expanding the definition of that term beyond the original bounds from which it acquired the term's stigma. Like I have argued before, it's completely counter-productive and poisonous to the debate. People call you racist because you do racist things and arn't sorry for them. thats the difference between people who reorganize that they're racist and try not to be and people like you who regonize that they're racist and don't see a reason not to be racist. I get it you're a lawyer and are trying to attack the term racist beacuse its the easy out but there isn't anything there other then you looking dumb for not understanding how words work. For the past several pages I have been trying to get people to explain to me why what I have said is racist, and I've gotten nothing back except piss-poor definitions of racism and circular logic such as the bolded quote above. I'm wildly unsatisfied by the fruits of my inquiries. My balls are blue. Maybe you can do better. Lay out the case for why I am racist, which should include a definition of racism and an explanation for why specific posts of my are racist within that definition. Where's Igne? I seem to recall him doing a decent job making the argument some time ago. | ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 24 2016 09:59 TheYango wrote: Intrinsically, I think the idea behind "everybody is a little racist" and "white privilege" and similar ideas isn't to put people into buckets of "racist" and "not racist", but just to make *everybody* (whether they're "racists" or not) a little more aware of how their perspective might color other people's impressions of the things they say or do, and to get everyone to be a little bit more introspective of how they treat people of other races. The goal is to educate and encourage introspection, which I don't think this is an ignoble goal. The problem is that "racist" is a word that has too many negative connotations and people just get hung up on the term, when applying negative monikers to people isn't the point at all. People on the left use it as a way to legitimize their overuse of a negative label and apply the label to people whose ideas they don't like, while people on the right get hung up on the term and just miss the point of what those ideas are about. EDIT: Also, as I mentioned before in a discussion a while back, the message of "you as a white person don't have the necessary perspective to decide what things you say/do might be perceived as racist by people of color" gets a little muddled when the person delivering the message is not a PoC, but a probably-white SJW on the internet who likewise doesn't have that perspective either. See, Yango gets it. | ||
|
TheYango
United States47024 Posts
It's actually pretty ironic. The core message here is to teach people to be a little more introspective and think carefully about the things they say and do, and how they're perceived by people of color. But the message is lost because the people delivering it aren't thinking carefully enough about how what they say is perceived by the "racists" they're preaching to. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42656 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On September 24 2016 10:22 KwarK wrote: xDaunt, you refer to black people as vermin. I'm really not sure why you keep coming back to this "prove I had racism in my heart when I said that" shit. We have been over that one already. That's not what I said, and you know it. Though I have no doubt that you wished I said it in your sick little world. Go troll someone else. I'm through with you. | ||
| ||
