To be honest I don't think I've heard either group wish for a change unless they were setting up a joke. I think people are largely happy as they are, but the double standards need to stop. All of them, not just the ones that you disapprove of. One set of rules and standards for everyone. Until then discrimination is a shell game where the group being discriminated against changes but the discrimination remains.
You can ignore this if your reality bubble won't allow it. Surely Berkley must be part of the vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary's wrong doing gets attributed to.
Yesterday was almost a backlash, a lot of angry white uneducated voters, and angry older voters from an age when racism was acceptable turned out en masse to vote for the guy who wants to make America white again.
As a white guy myself I am tired beyond belief at how much crap white males get. They are, to hear people tell it, all hopeless uneducated racist idiots who were all privileged anyway. No other group gets as much crap. We are discriminated against, as are Asians BTW but they haven't fully caught on, by the government at every level. How so you ask - try getting a BSA loan as a white male. No dice. Try going to college, it will work against you and your scores must be better. There are quotas for every group *except* you. To top it all off you will be called names and accused of being responsible for anything and everything.
Rather than make America white again we just the discrimination against us to end. Replacing one form of discrimination with another is not progress.
Consider a topic where proponents love to bend truths - illegal immigration. Those in favor will say that "immigrants" are less likely to commit a crime, and generally will position that statement somewhere in a piece on why more illegal immigration is a good idea. That would imply that they are speaking about illegal immigrants, yet the key missing word is "illegal". *Legal* immigrants are less likely to commit a crime. By positioning this truth such that it implies that illegal immigrants are less likely to commit a crime, which is false, they have now used a truth as a lie. The same thing is done with taxes, where they will say illegal immigrants pay taxes and the US needs their tax dollars. While they pay some taxes, for example sales taxes or illegal social security numbers, the cost of them *far* outweighs the taxes they pay. The statistic is further inflated by including legal immigrants in the tax receipts mix.
These types of half truths or deliberately misleading wordings will not likely be caught by a computer and could make things worse by validating the lies with a "Verified by Google" or something similar. Truth is hard to detect when people make a living cleverly hiding it.
When you take race out of it and account for only similar circumstances, the differences all but dissappear. You can believe it's crying wolf, but you would be incorrect.
What's the "it" in this case? Are we talking about the murder rate, police, or a different aspect of the discussion? I'm not being snarky, and I'm happy to continue the discussion, I'm just not sure which circumstances and differences you're referring to.
People funding other people's lawsuits is an old practice, and it's very valuable. Without it, the ACLU wouldn't be able to help people sue in civil rights cases, for instance.
If Obama's daughters were walking around Hyde Park, they would be more likely to get hassled by the cops than would, say, Barbara and Jenna Bush at the same age. Privilege, in this case, depends on what happens to the average citizen on the street. That some black men attain positions of power does not prove there is no racism, it only proves that there isn't 100% racism.
Sounds like you're upset with police.
Your statistical defense proves nothing at best. Of course blacks get caught more for crimes, because they are disproportionately persued by law enforcement. White kid with pot? Confiscate and scold. Black kid with pot? Lock him up. Relatively minor shit like that adds up.
Actually this does *not* explain the far higher murder rate. I don't know how much you think being white will get you but I can assure you that murder is not part of it. Being rich and connected might, but few cases fall under that situation. Certainly not enough to be statistically meaningful. So my murder rate statistic really is meaningful and still stands. This is partly why police are more likely to be suspicious of blacks as a group.
Is racism as prevalent as some people claim? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and on a pretty regular basis.
I think we agree on this one. My view is that the racism card is so overplayed that it's lost its meaning. A modern day version of crying wolf.
The Uber driver has the power to effect his prejudice by choosing not to pick up people he finds objectional. Power+prejudice=racism.
My experience with Uber is that the drivers are a mix of all ethnicities. It would be interesting to see how all groups did instead of singling out blacks. If only black people experience longer waits from a mix of all ethnicities maybe they should ask themselves why that might be? When everyone finds you "objectional" - maybe it's you.
White privilege is nothing magical. It just means the extra breaks you get for being white that other people don't get. It's a stupid name for a concept that absolutely happens all the time. Uber drivers are less likely to pick up blacks. Cops are more likely to pull over people of color. People with "black sounding" names get fewer callbacks for various applications. And on and on and on. Nobody asks for it, people may not even do it consciously, and each event doesn't even have to be particularly measurable. Even if the effect amounts to just 1% less opportunity a week, it compounds over a lifetime. When some members of a group have a little extra drag on their ability to live their life, the effect is that the others have privilege.
Perhaps you should consider where this "privilege" comes from. Or, if you prefer, where the mistrust comes from. When you have statistics like blacks are ~12% of the population yet commit half the murders then there is going to be a logical aversion. No amount of hand wringing over groups that generally behave getting less mistrust will change that. The only group that can change this is blacks themselves. Quotas and other forms of discrimination to benefit them will not fix their misdeeds, and will give those who do achieve the taint of was it them or was it their government mandated boost. As a side note, Asians get as much or more "privilege" than whites, given the benefit of the general Asian stereotype of a hard working productive group. Yet no discussion of "Asian privilege".
Just because something isn't a profanity-laden, blackfaced crossburning doesn't mean it isn't racist, or that it shouldn't be worked on.
Just how would this get worked on exactly? My personal belief is one standard that everyone is judged by regardless of race. The next best thing would be different standards but based on economic class rather than race. To use the example again of Obama's daughters, they have *far* more opportunities than a poor family of any race ever will. Economic based quotas make more sense than what we currently have. Economic quotas could also get far more public support than the current system of race based quotas.
And your comment about Obama's kids? That's true only because people know who they are. If they were wandering through their neighborhood in Chicago with their friends, you can bet they would be judged by the color of their skin rather than what their daddy's job is. That's kind of the point.
And what exactly would the result of wandering through Chicago be? I'm unclear where you're going with this one.
The modern SJW definition is "prejudice plus power" which is how they exclude minorities from being racist even when they are blatantly racist by the older definition.
I see a lot of people add the notion of "plus power" into that but they seem to always factor in the power as they want. For example no Uber driver has much power, so if power is a needed element then all Uber drivers are not racist. This is the crux of why I always find the term "white privilege" so silly, because although a lot of rich people are white most white people aren't rich. The notion that somehow Obama's daughters have less privilege than the average white guy on Slashdot is patently absurd. Certainly there are a great many white people who are dirt poor who would disagree with the notion that they enjoy special pricilege, and they have the poor economic stats to back that up. Then I had someone tell me that it's because there are more white people and so being surrounded by people who are like you is the privilege. By that logic now Southern California hispanics get "hispanic privilege" since they are the most numerous. The whole thing seems silly. I will say that my observation is that it's a shell game to keep the white and Asian male down while trying to explain away the obviousness unfairness of such policies. It's a shell game, where the explanation of why discriminatory policies are in place keeps changing.
I always felt that one question that should be asked is it is worth jailing this person for three felonies worth? With prison costs of $60K a year I don't think it's worth this much taxpayer money unless someone actually got hurt. Make him agree not to do it again, give him probation and community service, and threaten to not be so nice next time should someone else duplicate this.
Is it unethical to advertise on Univision, where the audience is 99% Hispanic? Is it unethical to screen viewers by gender when advertising sanitary napkins?
Regarding Univision it's only wrong if there are too many white people. BET is OK but a primarily white audience is somehow an evil plot to keep the brown man down. Along the same lines, it's OK to only advertise to women but it would be wrong for men. As you can infer, it's double wrong if it's primarily white men that is your audience.
Arguing against the Civil Rights Movement is effectively saying all citizens should not be equal, which is kind of one of the principles our country was founded on (admittedly it took us a long time to approach that point).
At this point the Civil Rights movement seems to be more interested in pushing for special rights for favored groups and blaming any problems its favored groups encounter on -isms like racism or sexism. Moreover Civil Rights groups tolerate honest discussion, or dissenting views, about as well as Soviet Russia. Indeed they take special pride in punishing dissenting political views such as anyone who donated to California Proposition 8 (citation below). This is why I chuckle when Civil Rights groups are mentioned in the same sentence as founding principles. The two couldn't be more different. Equality under law just means no special rules for anyone... period. It really is that simple.
And if your argument is "I'm not supporting either of them" - if you don't vote for one, you're supporting the other. Not to the degree of voting directly for the other, but you're still supporting them. Because that's the way the US electoral system works.
Sounds like you're rationalizing voting for Hillary. It's obvious both candidates are thoroughly bad. Someone could easily compile a list similar to yours for Hillary as she is embroiled in multiple scandals and has been pretty well shown to be bought and paid for. However most votes don't matter. In California they would elect a pet rock if it had "Democrat" next to it. In other states they would also elect a pet rock if it had Republican next to it. Moreover until the electoral votes are granted in proportion, not winner take all, then most peoples votes don't matter. The election is decided by a handful of battleground states. At this point parties largely hold the power, not voters. And if you want to discuss how voters pick candidates for the parties in primaries then you had better pay more attention to Wikileaks finding on that. Trump I will admit was not the Republican parties first choice. That and Brexit are a few signs that the people still have a chance to disrupt their masters.
You're assuming that the Republicans actually wanted to win. It makes more sense if you think of it as being a more sophisticated version of pro wrestling. The outcome is predetermined but the two "wrestlers" still have to go put on a show for the fans, or voters in this case. Because Hillary is *so* unelectable they had to get Trump. Every time Wikileaks shows just how corrupt, untruthful, and disconnected she is Trump saves her by doing something even more outrageous. I recall thinking that the 2008 election had a circus feel to it. That was a mere warm up for this go around. Expect even worse in the future.
There has to be some middle ground if we look. For example it could be that we both take care of people while still requiring them to work. As long as there is trash on the streets or lonely people in retirement homes there is useful work that can be done. This allows us to take care of those who need help without having them become accustomed to being idle. Between welfare and unemployment we have an army of workers that could be used for much social good. As for those who refuse to work but still want a free lunch - too bad.
Terrorism charge is the first thing that springs to mind what you'd get charged with if this gas either intentionally or accidentally gets released in a public area (such as a bike stand).
Do you work for the TSA by chance? By the above logic we better ban mace now because of terrorism.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that the idea is to compensate for past racism.
Because two wrongs always makes a right
To be honest I don't think I've heard either group wish for a change unless they were setting up a joke. I think people are largely happy as they are, but the double standards need to stop. All of them, not just the ones that you disapprove of. One set of rules and standards for everyone. Until then discrimination is a shell game where the group being discriminated against changes but the discrimination remains.
There IS a silent majority, and they're called that because they didn't vote last night, and therefore what they care about is moot.
Thus silence became approval
As more and more voting fraud is exposed, Hillary's chances will just keep increasing.
You mean like this kind of voting fraud:
http://alexanderhiggins.com/st...
You can ignore this if your reality bubble won't allow it. Surely Berkley must be part of the vast right wing conspiracy that Hillary's wrong doing gets attributed to.
I can think of no right or privilege I have ever been denied due to my pasty skin and tiny wiener.
Your self loathing is sad. Since you put down yourself no wonder you don't notice the insults of others.
Yesterday was almost a backlash, a lot of angry white uneducated voters, and angry older voters from an age when racism was acceptable turned out en masse to vote for the guy who wants to make America white again.
As a white guy myself I am tired beyond belief at how much crap white males get. They are, to hear people tell it, all hopeless uneducated racist idiots who were all privileged anyway. No other group gets as much crap. We are discriminated against, as are Asians BTW but they haven't fully caught on, by the government at every level. How so you ask - try getting a BSA loan as a white male. No dice. Try going to college, it will work against you and your scores must be better. There are quotas for every group *except* you. To top it all off you will be called names and accused of being responsible for anything and everything.
Rather than make America white again we just the discrimination against us to end. Replacing one form of discrimination with another is not progress.
All hacks are done by Russian's now, didn't you get the memo. ESPECIALLY when we have no idea who did it.
China must be thrilled at this turn of events. I can't think of a bigger beneficiary of this new blame the Russians thinking.
These types of half truths or deliberately misleading wordings will not likely be caught by a computer and could make things worse by validating the lies with a "Verified by Google" or something similar. Truth is hard to detect when people make a living cleverly hiding it.
First rule of science: Science doesn't settle
Unless it's global warming. Then if you don't agree that the science is settled it's
Silence ... I kill you
I'm sure no reasonable prosecutor will bring a case against this. They are a sad, pathetic department, even by government standards.
...Which shows what happens when people get information from outside their comfortable filter bubble ... they tend to take on less extreme views.
This explains why they insist on various "free spaces" at colleges, to keep the facts out and their extreme views in.
When you take race out of it and account for only similar circumstances, the differences all but dissappear. You can believe it's crying wolf, but you would be incorrect.
What's the "it" in this case? Are we talking about the murder rate, police, or a different aspect of the discussion? I'm not being snarky, and I'm happy to continue the discussion, I'm just not sure which circumstances and differences you're referring to.
People funding other people's lawsuits is an old practice, and it's very valuable. Without it, the ACLU wouldn't be able to help people sue in civil rights cases, for instance.
That sounds like another argument against it.
If Obama's daughters were walking around Hyde Park, they would be more likely to get hassled by the cops than would, say, Barbara and Jenna Bush at the same age. Privilege, in this case, depends on what happens to the average citizen on the street. That some black men attain positions of power does not prove there is no racism, it only proves that there isn't 100% racism.
Sounds like you're upset with police.
Your statistical defense proves nothing at best. Of course blacks get caught more for crimes, because they are disproportionately persued by law enforcement. White kid with pot? Confiscate and scold. Black kid with pot? Lock him up. Relatively minor shit like that adds up.
Actually this does *not* explain the far higher murder rate. I don't know how much you think being white will get you but I can assure you that murder is not part of it. Being rich and connected might, but few cases fall under that situation. Certainly not enough to be statistically meaningful. So my murder rate statistic really is meaningful and still stands. This is partly why police are more likely to be suspicious of blacks as a group.
Is racism as prevalent as some people claim? Probably not. But that doesn't mean it doesn't happen, and on a pretty regular basis.
I think we agree on this one. My view is that the racism card is so overplayed that it's lost its meaning. A modern day version of crying wolf.
The Uber driver has the power to effect his prejudice by choosing not to pick up people he finds objectional. Power+prejudice=racism.
My experience with Uber is that the drivers are a mix of all ethnicities. It would be interesting to see how all groups did instead of singling out blacks. If only black people experience longer waits from a mix of all ethnicities maybe they should ask themselves why that might be? When everyone finds you "objectional" - maybe it's you.
White privilege is nothing magical. It just means the extra breaks you get for being white that other people don't get. It's a stupid name for a concept that absolutely happens all the time. Uber drivers are less likely to pick up blacks. Cops are more likely to pull over people of color. People with "black sounding" names get fewer callbacks for various applications. And on and on and on. Nobody asks for it, people may not even do it consciously, and each event doesn't even have to be particularly measurable. Even if the effect amounts to just 1% less opportunity a week, it compounds over a lifetime. When some members of a group have a little extra drag on their ability to live their life, the effect is that the others have privilege.
Perhaps you should consider where this "privilege" comes from. Or, if you prefer, where the mistrust comes from. When you have statistics like blacks are ~12% of the population yet commit half the murders then there is going to be a logical aversion. No amount of hand wringing over groups that generally behave getting less mistrust will change that. The only group that can change this is blacks themselves. Quotas and other forms of discrimination to benefit them will not fix their misdeeds, and will give those who do achieve the taint of was it them or was it their government mandated boost. As a side note, Asians get as much or more "privilege" than whites, given the benefit of the general Asian stereotype of a hard working productive group. Yet no discussion of "Asian privilege".
Just because something isn't a profanity-laden, blackfaced crossburning doesn't mean it isn't racist, or that it shouldn't be worked on.
Just how would this get worked on exactly? My personal belief is one standard that everyone is judged by regardless of race. The next best thing would be different standards but based on economic class rather than race. To use the example again of Obama's daughters, they have *far* more opportunities than a poor family of any race ever will. Economic based quotas make more sense than what we currently have. Economic quotas could also get far more public support than the current system of race based quotas.
And your comment about Obama's kids? That's true only because people know who they are. If they were wandering through their neighborhood in Chicago with their friends, you can bet they would be judged by the color of their skin rather than what their daddy's job is. That's kind of the point.
And what exactly would the result of wandering through Chicago be? I'm unclear where you're going with this one.
The modern SJW definition is "prejudice plus power" which is how they exclude minorities from being racist even when they are blatantly racist by the older definition.
I see a lot of people add the notion of "plus power" into that but they seem to always factor in the power as they want. For example no Uber driver has much power, so if power is a needed element then all Uber drivers are not racist. This is the crux of why I always find the term "white privilege" so silly, because although a lot of rich people are white most white people aren't rich. The notion that somehow Obama's daughters have less privilege than the average white guy on Slashdot is patently absurd. Certainly there are a great many white people who are dirt poor who would disagree with the notion that they enjoy special pricilege, and they have the poor economic stats to back that up. Then I had someone tell me that it's because there are more white people and so being surrounded by people who are like you is the privilege. By that logic now Southern California hispanics get "hispanic privilege" since they are the most numerous. The whole thing seems silly. I will say that my observation is that it's a shell game to keep the white and Asian male down while trying to explain away the obviousness unfairness of such policies. It's a shell game, where the explanation of why discriminatory policies are in place keeps changing.
Racist != prejudiced or bigoted.
Can you clarify what it does mean then?
I always felt that one question that should be asked is it is worth jailing this person for three felonies worth? With prison costs of $60K a year I don't think it's worth this much taxpayer money unless someone actually got hurt. Make him agree not to do it again, give him probation and community service, and threaten to not be so nice next time should someone else duplicate this.
Is it unethical to advertise on Univision, where the audience is 99% Hispanic? Is it unethical to screen viewers by gender when advertising sanitary napkins?
Regarding Univision it's only wrong if there are too many white people. BET is OK but a primarily white audience is somehow an evil plot to keep the brown man down. Along the same lines, it's OK to only advertise to women but it would be wrong for men. As you can infer, it's double wrong if it's primarily white men that is your audience.
Arguing against the Civil Rights Movement is effectively saying all citizens should not be equal, which is kind of one of the principles our country was founded on (admittedly it took us a long time to approach that point).
At this point the Civil Rights movement seems to be more interested in pushing for special rights for favored groups and blaming any problems its favored groups encounter on -isms like racism or sexism. Moreover Civil Rights groups tolerate honest discussion, or dissenting views, about as well as Soviet Russia. Indeed they take special pride in punishing dissenting political views such as anyone who donated to California Proposition 8 (citation below). This is why I chuckle when Civil Rights groups are mentioned in the same sentence as founding principles. The two couldn't be more different. Equality under law just means no special rules for anyone ... period. It really is that simple.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02...
And if your argument is "I'm not supporting either of them" - if you don't vote for one, you're supporting the other. Not to the degree of voting directly for the other, but you're still supporting them. Because that's the way the US electoral system works.
Sounds like you're rationalizing voting for Hillary. It's obvious both candidates are thoroughly bad. Someone could easily compile a list similar to yours for Hillary as she is embroiled in multiple scandals and has been pretty well shown to be bought and paid for. However most votes don't matter. In California they would elect a pet rock if it had "Democrat" next to it. In other states they would also elect a pet rock if it had Republican next to it. Moreover until the electoral votes are granted in proportion, not winner take all, then most peoples votes don't matter. The election is decided by a handful of battleground states. At this point parties largely hold the power, not voters. And if you want to discuss how voters pick candidates for the parties in primaries then you had better pay more attention to Wikileaks finding on that. Trump I will admit was not the Republican parties first choice. That and Brexit are a few signs that the people still have a chance to disrupt their masters.
You're assuming that the Republicans actually wanted to win. It makes more sense if you think of it as being a more sophisticated version of pro wrestling. The outcome is predetermined but the two "wrestlers" still have to go put on a show for the fans, or voters in this case. Because Hillary is *so* unelectable they had to get Trump. Every time Wikileaks shows just how corrupt, untruthful, and disconnected she is Trump saves her by doing something even more outrageous. I recall thinking that the 2008 election had a circus feel to it. That was a mere warm up for this go around. Expect even worse in the future.
There has to be some middle ground if we look. For example it could be that we both take care of people while still requiring them to work. As long as there is trash on the streets or lonely people in retirement homes there is useful work that can be done. This allows us to take care of those who need help without having them become accustomed to being idle. Between welfare and unemployment we have an army of workers that could be used for much social good. As for those who refuse to work but still want a free lunch - too bad.
Terrorism charge is the first thing that springs to mind what you'd get charged with if this gas either intentionally or accidentally gets released in a public area (such as a bike stand).
Do you work for the TSA by chance? By the above logic we better ban mace now because of terrorism.
Of course Netflix came first. The had to have an original to copy ;-)