EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 1676
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11695 Posts
| ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On July 17 2019 23:53 KwarK wrote: Greeks don’t eat proper food and use the wrong alphabet. They’re basically Middle Eastern. Smell like incense and buggery. Little better than Coptics. Russians depend if they’re from the German part or the Slavic part. Still wrong alphabet though. Right food, probably a rank above Greeks but that Orthodox stuff needs to stay in the motherland. Indigenous steppe Russians are obviously just indigenous, all colonized people are the same tier. Caucasus is a mess due to being on the crossroads of Eurasia. Get your Dulux colour chart and make your best guess. You're not including the laplanders in there, depending where you ask that's part of russia a bit. Either way the absurdity of race is that race is a completely made up construct that's a fuzzy set of crap to actually describe, given it's physical appearance, culture, religion, nationality, identity, and other crap. It lends it self well to people's "interpretation" which is basically w.e they want to justify their own actions. Race is a tool used to compare people against other people, comparisons eventually bring about what is better which is why racism isn't generally viewed as a good thing to be overt about. Race is all about ingroups and outgroups, little good comes from that line of thinking. On July 17 2019 22:51 Destructicon wrote: How does that work exactly, I thought all people in the US, barring the illegal immigrants, have equal rights. Like anywhere you go you are not allowed to discriminate based off ethnicity, sex, religion etc. Is the right denying US citizens those rights based off those same features you are not allowed to discriminate against? In the US you can legally discriminate under certain circumstances to specific groups. People just assume you can't. Which is where the outrage comes from. Outrage that people can discriminate, outrage that people are trying to make other people not discriminate(then the weird i'm being discriminated against because i'm trying to discriminate against others). It's always amazing how it's everyone else's fault and i'm the victim. | ||
Destructicon
4713 Posts
Since introduced into the US constitution. Amendment 1 protects the people's right to hold whatever religion they want and also protects free speech. Amendment 14 basically says that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment 15 protects the rights of all people regardless of race, color or previous servitude, basically its an extension of the 14th. Amendment 19 was added to also extend the voting rights to women. From all these taken together I can see that no state in the US is allowed to pass any laws which would discriminate against sex, ethnicity, religion of its own citizens. To also present some of my own anecdotal evidence I've also had to do mandatory compliance training for the subsidiaries of the US corporations I worked in, and I know for a fact discrimination based on the above is not allowed. So again, where where is this marginalization manifest? Edit: @ semantics, I saw your post after posting, can you give me an example of this specific circumstance? | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On July 17 2019 21:41 Destructicon wrote: I find it somewhat hypocritical of this guy to label Dems as the truthful ones, meeting Republicans and trying to beat them with facts, when the Dems they've been riding the Russian collusion narrative for so long and it turned out to lead nowhere. And that was one example. In any case I also recommend watching videos from more centrist or slightly right points of view. Off the top of my head Tim Pool comes to mind. I just look at this thread and the overall feel I get is extremely anti right. That's because the "moderate" right died a fiery death in 2016. Essentially the republican party is dead, now you just have a group of power hungry assholes that will break whatever rules exist to desperately hang to that power. There's nothing left to compromise with. And if the videos sting, it's likely because there is an ample amount of truth to them. When people try to do the same things (make critical videos) of the left, they fall flat... because there is no equivalence. Nothing even remotely close. You get pizza gate and alex jones, if you are on the right those are your people (your sages) and trump ofc. And he made it abundantly clear, the right is immune to facts. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On July 18 2019 01:09 Destructicon wrote: Since introduced into the US constitution. Amendment 1 protects the people's right to hold whatever religion they want and also protects free speech. Amendment 14 basically says that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment 15 protects the rights of all people regardless of race, color or previous servitude, basically its an extension of the 14th. Amendment 19 was added to also extend the voting rights to women. From all these taken together I can see that no state in the US is allowed to pass any laws which would discriminate against sex, ethnicity, religion of its own citizens. To also present some of my own anecdotal evidence I've also had to do mandatory compliance training for the subsidiaries of the US corporations I worked in, and I know for a fact discrimination based on the above is not allowed. So again, where where is this marginalization manifest? Edit: @ semantics, I saw your post after posting, can you give me an example of this specific circumstance? Read any book on power dynamics. Or if you are "not white" come live in the US for a while. Then you'll get it. | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11194 Posts
On July 18 2019 01:09 Destructicon wrote: Since introduced into the US constitution. Amendment 1 protects the people's right to hold whatever religion they want and also protects free speech. Amendment 14 basically says that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment 15 protects the rights of all people regardless of race, color or previous servitude, basically its an extension of the 14th. Amendment 19 was added to also extend the voting rights to women. From all these taken together I can see that no state in the US is allowed to pass any laws which would discriminate against sex, ethnicity, religion of its own citizens. To also present some of my own anecdotal evidence I've also had to do mandatory compliance training for the subsidiaries of the US corporations I worked in, and I know for a fact discrimination based on the above is not allowed. So again, where where is this marginalization manifest? Edit: @ semantics, I saw your post after posting, can you give me an example of this specific circumstance? So the states can discriminate for any reason not on that list. Like for example sexuality. Also, people or organisations who are not the states can discriminate against people for reasons on that list. There are probably some reasons and situations where it is slightly harder to do that discrimination based on laws which were passed, but you can always just fire the black guy as long as you never say that the reason for that is because he is black, everything is fine. Or you stop and frisk black people far more often then white people, and then justify that with the fact that you have caught more black people who committed some crime without people seeing the obvious logic flaw in that argument. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 18 2019 00:47 JimmiC wrote: I don't care what his ethnicity is. It is irrelevant. I don't care what side of the irrelevant political spectrum he may or may not claim he is. He could be 8 of 1/8 anything and everything for all I care. I care about his words and the argument of the words.Well he was born in Hong Kong is a quarter Latino a quarter Chinese and grew up in a Jewish Catholic house. Most of his writings don’t appear to have a right wing bend but his point is the instant you talk white people call it racist. He also goes into more detail. In fact his first answer is about that. “The term “white” can refer to an ethnic majority group like white American , or it can refer to a racial category, which is a piece of the colour spectrum or the phenotype spectrum. Those two are not perfectly aligned right now. They’re not perfectly aligned, but they weren’t very aligned, but they weren’ very aligned in the past. In the future, I don’t think they’ll be that aligned either. He is not left but that does not automatically make him racist. The two others mentioned in the article one is a British conservatives who separated himself from the American right back in the bush era and strongly disagrees with the American right on social issues. And the other is a libertarian economist who is strongly pro choice and wrote on how bigger government can come with progress and that’s ok. Simply calling people racist is a lot easier than trying to understand them but far less effective if the goal is not to simply fight or to make yourself feel somehow superior (not saying this is you just stating as a general rule painting everyone that doesn’t have the same thoughts as you with a broad brush of racism pushes them away. That should be saved for those who say and think things like “go back to your own country” when their skin is darker or last name is not European.) It would be nice if people could say, I’m generally a conservative but what Trump said was racist and I don’t support it. Instead were so tribal that it doesn’t help. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On July 17 2019 14:30 Wegandi wrote: Is it your supposition that Spanish and Portuguese descendants are not white? I might add that race does not equal country of origin. My original point being, talking about AOC's skin color is fucking hilarious considering she's "white AF". Of course, he's being facetious poking fun at the doofus Donald, but, regardless, this idea that Mexicans, or Puerto Ricans of European (read: Spanish/Portuguese), or Brazilians, et. al. are not white, but "brown" is pretty idiotic if you have two eyeballs and an idea of where Spain and Portugal reside geographically. As for this topic, I think much more people are nativist, than racist. You don't hear people telling Ted Cruz/Allen West to go "back home" because they share a lot of the supposed values of the people who tend to levy such sophistry. As far as culture goes, people were born in different geographies. We evolved that way. Depending on where you were born, your culture developed differently. You liked that or didn't, and then if you didn't you likely moved somewhere else where you continued to have children and adapt to that new culture of different ways than your home culture. Your children act more in the way of the new culture, because the only contact they have with the old culture is you, their parents, but they still have both. This continues for generations = enculturation. If your culture of origin is different from where you live now, you probably identify to some degree as different, because part of your history, genetics, etc... is different than the majority of people you are around. This differentiation happens on both sides, it's a two way distinction. If someone acts "white" it's because they have been largely adapted to the norms of the culture around them. I'm curious why you care so much if she is called brown or white? If someone wants to be called brown (or white) why does that even matter to you? If people are talking about her as "brown", that is a rub to you because why? Also, no white American is purely American, we are all immigrants, brown people lived here before us, and we killed them all and took their land. I'm not sure there is anything more to it than that. In regard to fear, I think it's more of a people fear what they don't know, thing, imo. That's generally where racism comes from, different cultures are unknowns. Ted cruz is super enculturated, which I guess is also a values thing to some degree (different cultures, different values). | ||
|
semantics
10040 Posts
On July 18 2019 01:09 Destructicon wrote: Since introduced into the US constitution. Amendment 1 protects the people's right to hold whatever religion they want and also protects free speech. Amendment 14 basically says that no state can deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. Amendment 15 protects the rights of all people regardless of race, color or previous servitude, basically its an extension of the 14th. Amendment 19 was added to also extend the voting rights to women. From all these taken together I can see that no state in the US is allowed to pass any laws which would discriminate against sex, ethnicity, religion of its own citizens. To also present some of my own anecdotal evidence I've also had to do mandatory compliance training for the subsidiaries of the US corporations I worked in, and I know for a fact discrimination based on the above is not allowed. So again, where where is this marginalization manifest? Edit: @ semantics, I saw your post after posting, can you give me an example of this specific circumstance? Sure the problem here is you're assuming the US has blanket laws preventing discrimination. When in fact the US has separated out laws on discrimination, why else would the US have an employment discrimination law, housing discrimination law etc. It's because the laws were crafted only to hit specific instances of discrimination, this has left holes allowing legal discrimination even by the government. The easiest assumption people have is that sexual orientation is protected. It's not federally, it's left to the individual states. Political affiliation isn't protected in just about every state, although funny enough we've federally specified that members of the communist party can be discriminated against, it's part of the civil rights act irrc. Medical conditions aren't exactly covered so if you have say hepatitis that can be a basis of discrimination, although if you lost a leg, no. Gender identity is not covered usually the same states that don't protect sexual orientation. Military discharge status(this is often referring to unfavorable discharge as that's been the basis for people) is a gray area and unprotected. Atheists can be discriminated against depending on state as that's been taken as not a religion and thus can be discriminated against. Height can be used to discriminate(often is a proxy for race when actually used). There is a reason why all the states failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment which is only asking for "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Destructicon
4713 Posts
On July 18 2019 01:35 semantics wrote: Sure the problem here is you're assuming the US has blanket laws preventing discrimination. When in fact the US has separated out laws on discrimination, why else would the US have an employment discrimination law, housing discrimination law etc. It's because the laws were crafted only to hit specific instances of discrimination, this has left holes allowing legal discrimination even by the government. The easiest assumption people have is that sexual orientation is protected. It's not federally, it's left to the individual states. Political affiliation isn't protected in just about every state, although funny enough we've federally specified that members of the communist party can be discriminated against, it's part of the civil rights act irrc. Medical conditions aren't exactly covered so if you have say hepatitis that can be a basis of discrimination, although if you lost a leg, no. Gender identity is not covered usually the same states that don't protect sexual orientation. Military discharge status(this is often referring to unfavorable discharge as that's been the basis for people) is a gray area and unprotected. Atheists can be discriminated against depending on state as that's been taken as not a religion and thus can be discriminated against. Height can be used to discriminate(often is a proxy for race when actually used). There is a reason why all the states failed to ratify the Equal Rights Amendment which is only asking for "Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex." Shouldn't the 10th Amendment protect from this? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This seems to read like if there isn't any specific law for or against something created by the US or its states then that power is reserved to the people. Or, can this be used as a double edge sword for people to discriminate against the characteristics not protected by the constitution? | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
On July 18 2019 01:46 JimmiC wrote: Don't be like GH. Don't post a link with barely a description and quip that the other guy has to read it. You can do better than that. Then I suggest you reread them, without the filter of "this guy must be racist let me see how". Rather clearly I have read it as I can identify the problem I have with the article. Now, you have to respond to the problem I have, rather than talk about some cultural artifact that I didn't talk about. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On July 17 2019 17:46 Dangermousecatdog wrote: What? No really, what? Are you serious or just parodying the insanity of Trumpists? Because if you are, you sure got me. Reframe your question, I don't understand what you're asking me. | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
Or are those your genuine thoughts? I cannot tell if you are or are not making a joke. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11695 Posts
On July 18 2019 02:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Are you parodying that Spanish descendents don't count as "white" because they or their prescendents immigrated from Mexico to USA? Or are those your genuine thoughts? I cannot tell if you are or are not making a joke. It's super obvious that people from Central and South America don't count as white in the US. You have to listen to like two minutes of US political discourse to find that out. Some are white passing which brings a whole new set of contradictions. | ||
|
ShambhalaWar
United States930 Posts
On July 18 2019 02:37 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Are you parodying that Spanish descendents don't count as "white" because they or their prescendents immigrated from Mexico to USA? Or are those your genuine thoughts? I cannot tell if you are or are not making a joke. Define "white". | ||
|
Dangermousecatdog
United Kingdom7084 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States41470 Posts
On July 18 2019 01:51 Destructicon wrote: Shouldn't the 10th Amendment protect from this? "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." This seems to read like if there isn't any specific law for or against something created by the US or its states then that power is reserved to the people. Or, can this be used as a double edge sword for people to discriminate against the characteristics not protected by the constitution? You’ve missed some of the arguments we’ve already had but basically discrimination is still very real. Take voting. The constitution allows states to run their own elections and so in the post civil war years the southern states realized they could pass racist disenfranchisement laws. And because it was 1900 they actually wrote down what they were doing and why which was quite remarkable. “We’re going to abuse this loophole to suppress the negro menace by disenfranchising negroes with bullshit laws”. Those laws are still actually on the books today, even though we know why the laws were written and what they do because it’s the grandkids of the authors in power today and they still feel the exact same way about the negro menace. + Show Spoiler [prior discussion] + On May 10 2017 08:09 IgnE wrote: ok well i dont know the details and they werent presented to danglars in your original query. if all you say is true im sure the law could be ruled unconstitutional. maybe it is if this law s 116 years old. maybe some links would help but surely you can see that in the hypothetical way you presented it the legislator's comments aren't dispositive http://users.cla.umn.edu/~uggen/Behrens_Uggen_Manza_ajs.pdf But again, they literally said why they were doing it, how it was intended to work and what the desired result was when they wrote it. If ever there was a case to be made that the intent of the author changes the constitutionality of the law, this one does. [In 1861], as now, the negro was the prominent factor in the issue. . . . And what is it that we want to do? Why it is within the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution, to establish white supremacy in this State. . . . The justification for whatever manipulation of the ballot that has occurred in this State has been the menace of negro domination. . . . These provisions are justified in law and in morals, because it is said that the negro is not discriminated against on account of his race, but on account of his intellectual and moral condition.”— John B. Knox, president of the Alabama Constitutional Convention of 1901, in his opening address I mean come on. At a certain point you don't need to go "hey now, hold on a minute, let's not be too hasty to judge 'The Law For The Manipulation Of The Ballot To End The Menace Of Negro Domination And Enshrine White Supremacy', we need to see how it's actually enforced". | ||
|
Simberto
Germany11194 Posts
The main points that were made in this thread are: 1: "white" is ill defined 2: The definition of "white" is not logical in any way 3: Nonetheless, there is a working definition of "white" that people in the US work with. 4: That definition changed over time and nowadays encompasses mostly people who descend from northern and middle europe and italy and who didn't significantly mix with people who don't descend from there. For a more detailed definition and exposition of the ridiculousness of this, take a look at Kwarks posts. My point with regards to this is that this does not really matter, because the whole concept is really, really pointless. Instead of fighting for a good definition of "white", we should fight for a world where it doesn't matter whether someone is "white" or in any other ill defined ethnic group. And bigots don't care whether their definition doesn't make any sense, because their bigotry is not based on rational thought anyways, but on their feelings. So the most practically useful definition is ""white" is whoever the bigots feel is "white"", and similarly "Anyone who the bigots don't feel is "white" doesn't count as "white"". Neither skin color nor geographic family history matter in this regard. If someone of african descend is an albino, he still wouldn't count as white to the bigots, and if someone of norwegian viking descent had a disease that made his skin black as coal, he would still count as white to them. The topic of spain and portugal has been debated already. | ||
| ||
