the full concept is "black lives matter, TOO. because that's the entire point: they are constantly treated as if they don't, like when racists like you try to rationalize away things like being 31x more like to be shot and killed by police with a shrug and an 'oh well'. dropping the too simply adds emphasis, makes it more impactful.
that's why saying "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" as a response to BLM, in a country where historically whites have controlled everything, had the majority of the benefits is racist.
"why isn't there a white history month?" because you already have twelve of them.
"why isn't there a white entertainment televisions channel?" same answer: because that's already every other channel
questions like that aren't meant to be serious, and if they are, then the person asking is terribly ignorant of reality. but when it comes to racists, like you, that's a redundant statement.
http://theincidentaleconomist.... -rich people have always ignored borders -they're not talking about life threatening medicine, but elective medicine. non-lifethreatening.
know how you reduce wait times? by spending more money.
its the old engineer axiom: fast, cheap, or effective. pick two.
You're trying to applies restaurant economics to healthcare and that simply doesn't work. the two are not comparable.
When you go to a restaurant, if they screw up your order you'll probably still live. When you go to a restaurant, and they recommend the fish it's not because the alternative is death.
In healthcare peoples lives are on the line. And if they present you a choice between 200k$ surgery or certain death, it doesn't matter what your financial situation is, you're going to choose the surgery. And there is very little shopping around to be done especially because when it comes to life saving medicine or surgery time is a factor.
This does NOT happen, nor should it be expected to: "You've got days to live unless we act now." "That's ok, ill shop around first."
JFC you act like this is a new concept to you, which only helps further reinforce how idiotic and ill-informed you are.
there are areas where profit motive is a detriment, where it actively impedes other more important motives such Quality. Health care is one. Aircraft maintenance (both civil and military, and ive worked both) is another.
all you've done is show that you know precisely zero about the problems minorities face and that you are one of the people who needs to learn the lessons I brought up, and that you desperately need to learn and understand the reality that you are blind to.
because what you just said is not in fact true for many minorities and POC in this country. you may think it is, but that's only an example of your own privilege blinding you to reality.
No, the MSM is, other than Fox News (which, having the lion's share of ratings is by definition VERY mainstream) fairly objective in their reporting. Claims otherwise are examples of projection from Fox fans. No MSNBC is not included in the MSM; they are small potatoes compared to the big 6: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS/NPR, and CNN (I'd include HLN, but ever since they were sold off, does anyone even watch them anymore???)
and PBS/NPR have probably the best quality reporting and most carefully protected objectivity in the nation.
the definition of bias is not "reporting things I don't agree with" or "challenging my worldview", though you'd never know that listening to conservatives.
Is America evil? the atom bombs I'll say are debateable. But drone striking funerals, wedding, and birthday parties I'll say is pretty evil. As is the then followup drone striking what we would call "first responders" trying to help the injured after the first attack.
As for Trump being evil: Hitler wasn't "Hitler" when he first came on the scene either. He too was seen as a loon, a long shot, not taken seriously, said hate rhetoric, but given a pass because he wanted to "make Germany great again".
No, it developed over time, and was helped along by the people he surrounded himself with, the German political elites who thought they could control him and so compromised in little ways, and with the willing participation of the German people.
And thus far Trump has some real "winners" next to him (Ailes, Bannon), and plenty of willing enablers in both the Congress (Ryan, McConnell) and the public.
actually China, and now India as well, are leading the way and setting the example when it comes to emissions controls in developing economies. (though im not sure if China should still be considered a "developing" economy).
no it is not, because even that isn't accurate. the concept of the "Fall of the Roman Empire" is a myth, a misconception created by a lack of knowledge of history.
the GP already addressed one point: that the Empire really just split into two parts, and the Eastern Empire survived for quite some time as a cohesive entity. but that division was also the start of this concept of "western" and "eastern" cultures. another part of this myth is that there was a "dark ages" following the fall of the empire. but there wasn't.
see, the western empire also never really fell. there was no one event where it just ceased to be.
rather it gradually dissolved, with pockets of what we would call Roman Civilization persisting for various periods of time. the "fall" of the empire wasn't a single concrete event like the fall of Nazi Germany or the end of the Ming Dynasty but a gradual process.
Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the Alt-Right version of history. Meant not to educate on history (because it isn't history) but to manipulate modern opinions on modern topics and help spread xenophobia.
there was that. there the Pope Wars and Papal States. people also forget that for over 1000 years Italy wasn't a country but a group of separate city states, occasionally unified into small territories or Kingdoms like Middle Italy, but never for long. it was only unified into a single nation again in 1871. (I am vastly oversimplifying) then there were Mussolini's fascists.
it's not the pieces that are racist. it's the whole.
it's the entire phrase concept that he implied (because the modern sophisticated racist hides his language in coded dog whistles): that too many (insert racial group) is somehow bad for civic society.
and to be clear, this being Bannon, he wasn't approaching this from the concept that an underprivileged group is underrepresented, but that an underprivileged group is being overrepresented, and the privileged group being underrepresented.
simply continuing to live as they did in their native countries creating these pockets of culture
every wave of immigration did that. EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
that are in many cases incompatible with American culture
That exact phrase was said about every wave of immigration. Again: EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
and it was just as bigoted then as it is now. Define American culture?
Prior to the Irish and Italians showing up, it was predominantly protestant, and Catholics were seen as subversive undesirable elements.
Now no one cares.
Prior to the construction of the railroad, and its coincidental timing with the first waves of Chinese immigrants (which caused further immigration because "hey guys there's jobs here!"), Chinese cuisine was utterly foreign, and initially there attempts to regulate and even prohibit it, because it was seen as somehow unfit for America.
Now everyone loves it.
Every wave of immigration has a similar story, of some aspect of their culture being deemed un-American at first. Current waves are no different, and neither will be future waves.
what you folks miss is that assimilation is a multigenerational process that is nearly the same every time. and if anything, the immigrants you complain about today actually assimilate faster than previous waves did, because both English and things you consider "western" or "American" values are actually more widespread around the world now.
again: this is a fault in our education system and curriculums.
people don't learn about the Irish and Polish and Italian ghettos of New York City, where thousands of people rarely if ever spoke English, other than the children, and lived culturally traditional lives only slightly changed from their home country to accommodate their new living conditions. People know longer know that for several decades the predominant language in the Midwest was actually Dutch and/or German!
yes, and unless you were one of the german people who voted for Hitler way back when, the person who said that was a fool.
the better question, 15 years from now, will be did you vote for or otherwise enable Trump, and the Trumpification of the US?
that was Germany's shame: not just that they allowed Hitler to come to power (and he and the Nazi party did so with only 44% of the vote!). It was that they allowed themselves to be drawn along in the Nazification of Germany; that the Nazis enjoyed wide support among the German people.
See, the tragedy of Nazi Germany is that it wasn't just Hitler. That's why the scifi plot of "killing Hitler" doesn't work in reality. It was all the people around Hitler, who were in many ways worse, the power behind the throne, who manipulated and amplified his own evil, who enabled and encouraged him which led to him going further and further down that path. Hitler had Goering, Goebbels, Himmler, and so on. And it was the German people who allowed themselves to be seduced so they went along willingly.
If the German people had resisted the seduction, or if enough people in the Reichstag (German parliament) had resisted instead of compromising to save their own political power, history would have been completely different.
I hope and pray that Ryan, in an attempt to get his own legislative vision passed and signed, does not cater to and appease Trump (or more importantly, the people behind Trump, like Bannon, Pence, and Kursch). I hope and pray that the democrats, in an attempt to retain some control and influence don't compromise and enable him in areas they deem lost causes anyway.
I hope and pray something similar does not become our shame.
You're not entirerly wrong. The problem is, you don't understand why.
you see, think racism is only folks burning crosses, saying n------. etc. but its not. that's just overt, expressed racism. its easily detected, and (until now) easily shut down by making it not a welcome part of society.
what you miss are the other forms racism most often takes in modern society. casual racism, which is slowly going away as people are more mindful, is one.
but the big one is structural or systemic racism. this isn't an overt expressed racism, but a hidden one. one built into our institutions, our economy, or society. it is hidden, hard to see, and hard to eliminate.
it is found in the wealth gap between whites and blacks, that stems from 400 years of slavery, where society accrued a large amount of wealth as a result of slave labor. slave labor the base that drove the American economy, and it wasn't just the southern plantations that benefitted, but also the textile mills, the granaries, the merchants of the north. all that wealth, all the opportunity for goods and services ultimately came about as a result of slave labor; without that slave labor the economy would not have grown so fast, so strong. and the slaves were denied any part of that growth or benefit. once freed they were essentially starting from scratch in a country where everyone else had a more than 200 year head start. and that's before we get to Jim Crow, to redlining, to segregation, to all the other structures created that continued to oppress and deprive African americans of an equal share in the opportunity of the country. thus the persistant income and wealth gap that persist to this day. things are improving, slowly, and while economic mobility has slowed and stalled for the majority of people in this country, African americans still tend to have it worse (or it could be said, not completely inaccurately , the rest of us are simply being reduced to where they already were).
systemic racism was found in segregation. it's found in redlining, which still exists.
it's in the make up of school districts, and believe it or not this is where white liberals have a big blind spot, as some of the most segregated school districts are in places like New York. and they are fine with being a liberal until all of a sudden someone proposes bussing, or expanding a district to include a low income (re: black) neighborhood. and then the latent biases they didn't even know they had come out, and they dont even realize it, thinking their school will go down in quality as a result. Jon Oliver did a really good piece on this recently.
some folks even go so far as to make a specific distinction to make it expressly clear what is being talked about. and that's actually a fairly smart idea, because often when we talk about racism we, such as you and me here, are talking about different things. you are referring to the crazy uncle saying or doing inappropriate things, things you might never say or do. so when we talk about a school or legislative district being 'racist', you're expecting it to be because of deplorable people, but we're talking about because of how it marginalize or excludes minorities, to diminish their voice or access.
so some folks make the distinction that you crazy uncle is simply a bigot. and that racism is structural in nature. or that racism is bigotry combined with power, such as exclusionary school districts or gerrymandered legislative districts.
that's how people come to the concept that in a society where white people have run things for over 400 years and excluded black people from an equal share of society for just as long, blacks cannot truly be racist: it's because they have no power. they have no way to force their bigotry onto white society. using these definitions, yes, they absolutely can be bigoted. but without the power to impose that bigotry, they are not racist.
that difference in perception, in definition, is what people are talking about, and what you are complaining about. now that you hopefully understand, our communication can hopefully be more effective.
newsflash: its possible to be a liberal and a socialist and a racist at the same time.
saying that "80% of H1B visa are Asians" isn't racist (it is a questionable statistic though...) but saying that "80% of H1B visa are Asians, and they undermine civil society" clearly is.
and explaining that he means India doesn't change that or help in any way.
you first: -he's clearly referring to the trend that began in the 70s and has continued to today. the same trend that has crated state budgets for decades leading to fewer and lesser funded public services, underfunded schools, etc. Britian, and the rest of Europe seems to always follow America's lead, just with a 20-30 year lag time. they did it with social programs, and now they are doing with it white nationalism and idiotic tax/budget cuts. -yes, the Republicans are in fact also responsible. Sequestration was a 100% bipartisan effort -there never was a takeover of health insurance. the ACA is the biggest handout to an industry in recent history, rivaled only by the F35 program.
Slashdot Mirror
dissent rooted in bigotry is bigoted.
dissent rooted in opposition to bigotry is not.
take your false equivalence and shove it where the sun don't shine.
the full concept is "black lives matter, TOO.
because that's the entire point: they are constantly treated as if they don't, like when racists like you try to rationalize away things like being 31x more like to be shot and killed by police with a shrug and an 'oh well'. dropping the too simply adds emphasis, makes it more impactful.
that's why saying "all lives matter" or "white lives matter" as a response to BLM, in a country where historically whites have controlled everything, had the majority of the benefits is racist.
"why isn't there a white history month?"
because you already have twelve of them.
"why isn't there a white entertainment televisions channel?"
same answer: because that's already every other channel
questions like that aren't meant to be serious, and if they are, then the person asking is terribly ignorant of reality.
but when it comes to racists, like you, that's a redundant statement.
also many of the people who sought care outside Canada did so because they were -already- outside the country.
the number that -left- the country to seek care is still vanishingly small, and predominantly rich.
Reality calling:
http://theincidentaleconomist....
-rich people have always ignored borders
-they're not talking about life threatening medicine, but elective medicine. non-lifethreatening.
know how you reduce wait times?
by spending more money.
its the old engineer axiom:
fast, cheap, or effective. pick two.
*WHOOSH*
really?
you haven't figured this part out yet?
You're trying to applies restaurant economics to healthcare and that simply doesn't work.
the two are not comparable.
When you go to a restaurant, if they screw up your order you'll probably still live.
When you go to a restaurant, and they recommend the fish it's not because the alternative is death.
In healthcare peoples lives are on the line.
And if they present you a choice between 200k$ surgery or certain death, it doesn't matter what your financial situation is, you're going to choose the surgery. And there is very little shopping around to be done especially because when it comes to life saving medicine or surgery time is a factor.
This does NOT happen, nor should it be expected to :
"You've got days to live unless we act now."
"That's ok, ill shop around first."
JFC you act like this is a new concept to you, which only helps further reinforce how idiotic and ill-informed you are.
there are areas where profit motive is a detriment, where it actively impedes other more important motives such Quality.
Health care is one. Aircraft maintenance (both civil and military, and ive worked both) is another.
Mi doesn't bother with facts.
It's easier for him to spew his BS that way.
I remember a movie where something like that happened.
"It's not like they set the code to 1234"
"Um...well....", *speaks into wrist mic*, "change the codes! change the codes now!"
earth shattering kaboom.
you should have gone with earth shattering kaboom.
I agree, but only because now that Trump will be given the nuclear codes, I'd say 4 years, maybe 5, rather than 1000.
and seriously, do we HAVE to give him the codes?
cant we just like, lie?
tell him the code is 12345 or something?
all you've done is show that you know precisely zero about the problems minorities face and that you are one of the people who needs to learn the lessons I brought up, and that you desperately need to learn and understand the reality that you are blind to.
because what you just said is not in fact true for many minorities and POC in this country.
you may think it is, but that's only an example of your own privilege blinding you to reality.
RIP Net Neutrality
this only shows your own ignorance.
No, the MSM is, other than Fox News (which, having the lion's share of ratings is by definition VERY mainstream) fairly objective in their reporting.
Claims otherwise are examples of projection from Fox fans. No MSNBC is not included in the MSM; they are small potatoes compared to the big 6: ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox, PBS/NPR, and CNN (I'd include HLN, but ever since they were sold off, does anyone even watch them anymore???)
and PBS/NPR have probably the best quality reporting and most carefully protected objectivity in the nation.
the definition of bias is not "reporting things I don't agree with" or "challenging my worldview", though you'd never know that listening to conservatives.
Is America evil?
the atom bombs I'll say are debateable.
But drone striking funerals, wedding, and birthday parties I'll say is pretty evil.
As is the then followup drone striking what we would call "first responders" trying to help the injured after the first attack.
As for Trump being evil: Hitler wasn't "Hitler" when he first came on the scene either.
He too was seen as a loon, a long shot, not taken seriously, said hate rhetoric, but given a pass because he wanted to "make Germany great again".
No, it developed over time, and was helped along by the people he surrounded himself with, the German political elites who thought they could control him and so compromised in little ways, and with the willing participation of the German people.
And thus far Trump has some real "winners" next to him (Ailes, Bannon), and plenty of willing enablers in both the Congress (Ryan, McConnell) and the public.
actually China, and now India as well, are leading the way and setting the example when it comes to emissions controls in developing economies. (though im not sure if China should still be considered a "developing" economy).
no it is not, because even that isn't accurate.
the concept of the "Fall of the Roman Empire" is a myth, a misconception created by a lack of knowledge of history.
the GP already addressed one point: that the Empire really just split into two parts, and the Eastern Empire survived for quite some time as a cohesive entity. but that division was also the start of this concept of "western" and "eastern" cultures. another part of this myth is that there was a "dark ages" following the fall of the empire. but there wasn't.
see, the western empire also never really fell. there was no one event where it just ceased to be.
rather it gradually dissolved, with pockets of what we would call Roman Civilization persisting for various periods of time.
the "fall" of the empire wasn't a single concrete event like the fall of Nazi Germany or the end of the Ming Dynasty but a gradual process.
Ladies and Gentleman, I present to you the Alt-Right version of history.
Meant not to educate on history (because it isn't history) but to manipulate modern opinions on modern topics and help spread xenophobia.
there was that.
there the Pope Wars and Papal States.
people also forget that for over 1000 years Italy wasn't a country but a group of separate city states, occasionally unified into small territories or Kingdoms like Middle Italy, but never for long. it was only unified into a single nation again in 1871. (I am vastly oversimplifying)
then there were Mussolini's fascists.
you aren't taking the whole quote though.
it's not the pieces that are racist.
it's the whole .
it's the entire phrase concept that he implied (because the modern sophisticated racist hides his language in coded dog whistles): that too many (insert racial group) is somehow bad for civic society.
and to be clear, this being Bannon, he wasn't approaching this from the concept that an underprivileged group is underrepresented, but that an underprivileged group is being overrepresented, and the privileged group being underrepresented.
simply continuing to live as they did in their native countries creating these pockets of culture
every wave of immigration did that.
EVERY.
SINGLE.
ONE.
that are in many cases incompatible with American culture
That exact phrase was said about every wave of immigration.
Again: EVERY. SINGLE. ONE.
and it was just as bigoted then as it is now.
Define American culture?
Prior to the Irish and Italians showing up, it was predominantly protestant, and Catholics were seen as subversive undesirable elements.
Now no one cares.
Prior to the construction of the railroad, and its coincidental timing with the first waves of Chinese immigrants (which caused further immigration because "hey guys there's jobs here!"), Chinese cuisine was utterly foreign, and initially there attempts to regulate and even prohibit it, because it was seen as somehow unfit for America.
Now everyone loves it.
Every wave of immigration has a similar story, of some aspect of their culture being deemed un-American at first.
Current waves are no different, and neither will be future waves.
what you folks miss is that assimilation is a multigenerational process that is nearly the same every time.
and if anything, the immigrants you complain about today actually assimilate faster than previous waves did, because both English and things you consider "western" or "American" values are actually more widespread around the world now.
again: this is a fault in our education system and curriculums.
people don't learn about the Irish and Polish and Italian ghettos of New York City, where thousands of people rarely if ever spoke English, other than the children, and lived culturally traditional lives only slightly changed from their home country to accommodate their new living conditions. People know longer know that for several decades the predominant language in the Midwest was actually Dutch and/or German!
yes, and unless you were one of the german people who voted for Hitler way back when, the person who said that was a fool.
the better question, 15 years from now, will be did you vote for or otherwise enable Trump, and the Trumpification of the US?
that was Germany's shame: not just that they allowed Hitler to come to power (and he and the Nazi party did so with only 44% of the vote!).
It was that they allowed themselves to be drawn along in the Nazification of Germany; that the Nazis enjoyed wide support among the German people.
See, the tragedy of Nazi Germany is that it wasn't just Hitler.
That's why the scifi plot of "killing Hitler" doesn't work in reality.
It was all the people around Hitler, who were in many ways worse, the power behind the throne, who manipulated and amplified his own evil, who enabled and encouraged him which led to him going further and further down that path. Hitler had Goering, Goebbels, Himmler, and so on. And it was the German people who allowed themselves to be seduced so they went along willingly.
If the German people had resisted the seduction, or if enough people in the Reichstag (German parliament) had resisted instead of compromising to save their own political power, history would have been completely different.
I hope and pray that Ryan, in an attempt to get his own legislative vision passed and signed, does not cater to and appease Trump (or more importantly, the people behind Trump, like Bannon, Pence, and Kursch). I hope and pray that the democrats, in an attempt to retain some control and influence don't compromise and enable him in areas they deem lost causes anyway.
I hope and pray something similar does not become our shame.
You're not entirerly wrong.
The problem is, you don't understand why.
you see, think racism is only folks burning crosses, saying n------. etc.
but its not.
that's just overt, expressed racism.
its easily detected, and (until now) easily shut down by making it not a welcome part of society.
what you miss are the other forms racism most often takes in modern society.
casual racism, which is slowly going away as people are more mindful, is one.
but the big one is structural or systemic racism.
this isn't an overt expressed racism, but a hidden one. one built into our institutions, our economy, or society.
it is hidden, hard to see, and hard to eliminate.
it is found in the wealth gap between whites and blacks, that stems from 400 years of slavery, where society accrued a large amount of wealth as a result of slave labor. slave labor the base that drove the American economy, and it wasn't just the southern plantations that benefitted, but also the textile mills, the granaries, the merchants of the north. all that wealth, all the opportunity for goods and services ultimately came about as a result of slave labor; without that slave labor the economy would not have grown so fast, so strong. and the slaves were denied any part of that growth or benefit. once freed they were essentially starting from scratch in a country where everyone else had a more than 200 year head start. and that's before we get to Jim Crow, to redlining, to segregation, to all the other structures created that continued to oppress and deprive African americans of an equal share in the opportunity of the country. thus the persistant income and wealth gap that persist to this day. things are improving, slowly, and while economic mobility has slowed and stalled for the majority of people in this country, African americans still tend to have it worse (or it could be said, not completely inaccurately , the rest of us are simply being reduced to where they already were).
systemic racism was found in segregation.
it's found in redlining, which still exists.
it's in the make up of school districts, and believe it or not this is where white liberals have a big blind spot, as some of the most segregated school districts are in places like New York. and they are fine with being a liberal until all of a sudden someone proposes bussing, or expanding a district to include a low income (re: black) neighborhood. and then the latent biases they didn't even know they had come out, and they dont even realize it, thinking their school will go down in quality as a result. Jon Oliver did a really good piece on this recently.
some folks even go so far as to make a specific distinction to make it expressly clear what is being talked about. and that's actually a fairly smart idea, because often when we talk about racism we, such as you and me here, are talking about different things. you are referring to the crazy uncle saying or doing inappropriate things, things you might never say or do. so when we talk about a school or legislative district being 'racist', you're expecting it to be because of deplorable people, but we're talking about because of how it marginalize or excludes minorities, to diminish their voice or access.
so some folks make the distinction that you crazy uncle is simply a bigot.
and that racism is structural in nature.
or that racism is bigotry combined with power, such as exclusionary school districts or gerrymandered legislative districts.
that's how people come to the concept that in a society where white people have run things for over 400 years and excluded black people from an equal share of society for just as long, blacks cannot truly be racist: it's because they have no power. they have no way to force their bigotry onto white society. using these definitions, yes, they absolutely can be bigoted. but without the power to impose that bigotry, they are not racist.
that difference in perception, in definition, is what people are talking about, and what you are complaining about.
now that you hopefully understand, our communication can hopefully be more effective.
newsflash: its possible to be a liberal and a socialist and a racist at the same time.
saying that "80% of H1B visa are Asians" isn't racist (it is a questionable statistic though...)
but saying that "80% of H1B visa are Asians, and they undermine civil society" clearly is.
and explaining that he means India doesn't change that or help in any way.
Get your facts straight!
you first:
-he's clearly referring to the trend that began in the 70s and has continued to today. the same trend that has crated state budgets for decades leading to fewer and lesser funded public services, underfunded schools, etc. Britian, and the rest of Europe seems to always follow America's lead, just with a 20-30 year lag time. they did it with social programs, and now they are doing with it white nationalism and idiotic tax/budget cuts.
-yes, the Republicans are in fact also responsible. Sequestration was a 100% bipartisan effort
-there never was a takeover of health insurance. the ACA is the biggest handout to an industry in recent history, rivaled only by the F35 program.