No, they live under the shadow of the actions of a small (relative to the size of their population) but disproportionate (relative to the size of the criminal population) number of other Black people. It's unfortunate, as the majority of Black people are just like the majority of people of any other race, they just want to live peaceful, law abiding lives, but that's clearly not enough to offset the disproportionate rate of violent crime from their population.
Ask any cop, they'll tell you the same. Go ahead, cherry pick a Black cop to ask. They'll tell you the same. Based on statistics, which is why racial profiling is done. I don't agree with it; but, then, I'm not the one out there putting my life on the line every day.
As for falling behind in education, you do realize that a high school dropout can raise a kid who goes to college and graduates with a doctorate, right? When that doesn't happen, it's most often more to do with choices that were made (though I'll give a nod to the price of a college education, as well). There's no societal cause or excuse for failing to graduate high school due to one's race.
And housing? People born in the 'hood move out every single day. People of all races, mind you; and of all education levels, as well.
Employment? That one does tie in with education, but factory work has always only required a high school education; if even that. There's less of that work available today, but we're talking about "the generations where they were disadvantaged", when that work was widely available. In fact, not only was it widely available, it was commonly abundant in inner-city areas where most Black people lived at the time. Good paying jobs for hard working Americans, and the smart ones took those jobs. Assuming they stayed in school, that is.
Individual racism notwithstanding, the only people disadvantaged more than a full generation after slavery was abolished were disadvantaged by their own poor choices and/or poor upbringing. I'll grant that individual racism was a lot more prevalent back then, and is still a problem today. If you want to blame that, go right ahead, and I'll agree with you; but to keep blaming slavery? Really? That's a crutch, and it's one that won't carry you very far. As I said, I know, personally, many Black people who've given up that particular crutch and done very well for themselves; I know none who've held onto it and gone far.
Slavery isn't the problem Black people face in America today; their inability to let go of it -- at least, those of them who refuse to -- is the problem. The proof is in asking any successful Black man or woman how slavery affects them today.
That, and individual racism, which is driven at least on one side by that side's inability to let go of the past.
Ask anyone who's ever faced adversity in their life whether that adversity -- that they actually dealt with in their own life -- still affects them. Note their answers, their general state of happiness with their lives, and how successful they appear. You'll quickly put together that the people who've moved on tend to be happier and more successful than those who have not. And if people can move on from adversity they, personally, have faced, they can surely move on from adversity their great-great-great-great-great-grandparents faced over 150 years ago.
Let's focus on the more recent atrocities the Black population has faced, and fix those. M'kay? Because those are actually affecting people who are alive today and could benefit from the positive attention.
There's a very important distinction between those two actions. In one case, walking away, you're not making someone else do something for you, or likely impacting anyone else in any negative way, if at all. In the other case, you're very much having a negative impact on someone, much like this current movement would have the negative impact of forcing the entire software industry to crawl through miles and miles of code and documentation just to appease a handful of numbnuts whiners.
Your second example fits my point, because it's an example of one inflicting their own beliefs onto another. Your first example does not, as it is merely an example of one independently following their own beliefs.
Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of your nose. Similarly, your right to enforce your beliefs onto society stops at the tip of yours.
As with any hardship, the effects will last as long as those affected allow them to last. I personally know many Black people who've gotten over it and moved on to become productive members of society. Most of them are doing quite well for themselves, many are doing better than I am. And good for them, having overcome such an atrocity is a real show of strength and integrity.
If only you knew the shit I've actually experienced in my lifetime... that I also have moved on from. But that's not the point. The point is it's in the past and you decide how much the past affects you. Regardless of race.
No, the reason they're trying to do it (they tried in the 90's and failed then, too) is much less meaningful. In fact, it is such a weak reason that allowing it would open a floodgate of "this offends me, change it" that would topple our society in short order. That's why we don't allow that argument to succeed.
There may be a point you're missing, so let me spell it out for you: Black people who are alive today are not the same people who experienced Black slavery in America. When they claim they're the same people, they're guilty the same fallacy you're pointing out in my comment. If I'm wrong, so are they, and it needs to be left in the past where it belongs. Yes, I was inaccurate. On purpose. For a reason.
Keep it in history books, discuss it, make sure people understand why it was wrong so it doens't happen again, then move on. Anything else just perpetuates racism.
Considering that the people raising the issue under discussion are referring specifically to Black slavery in America, yes, that's what I was referring to. Yes, it happened elsewhere, and continues elsewhere to this very day. No, that's not relevant to this discussion; which is why, unlike you, I didn't inappropriately bring it up.
But I give more weight to the offence felt by the descendants of slaves (who still deal with racism and slavery apologists) than the offence felt by people asked to use a different set of technical terms.
While I can see why this would be the case, you also need to give consideration to the implication of allowing the terms to change. Whatever takes their place will have the same meaning and will, in short order, become offensive to the same group, in a never-ending cycle. It's not that we're offended by the suggestion that we change the terminology (thus why someone else's offense might hold more weight than ours -- because we are not offended to begin with), but that we recognize that it is a futile and wasteful effort and choose not to entertain it.
Torn from their home and kidnapped? Try sold by their own people, for whom they were already slaves. Not that the reality of what actually happened is any better than your ignorant understanding, mind you, but... you could at least make an attempt to be factually accurate.
And black people who weren't alive when slavery was commonplace aren't your pawns, either. Can we please stop using them? Seriously, let them rest, they've been free for over a century and a half now.
And his car has an alarm because he wanted a fucking car. Presumably, buying new was a requirement for one reason or another, which limited his options to:
A) Alarm.
or
B) No car.
That has not been my experience. Maybe that's because I don't buy the $50 "last year's model" special. You can still buy the S8 new today, and it's certainly more than a year old -- and supported, still getting updated. A friend of mine with an S7 still receives updates monthly.
And I know when both of these phones came out, because I bought both of them on day one. Not because I had to, but because a priomary feature of my phones is the camera and the camera on the S8 was that much better than the S7; repeat with the S9. Plus models, of course; I like 'em a little on the big side.
Actually, they cod have run them at a much lower intensity if inverted, leaving more headroom to brighten them up as the phosphors faded. Phosphors begin fade at a higher-than-linear rate relative to intensity, which is a problem modern OLED displays still face. That said, I'd have to get hold of the spec sheet for an old green mono CRT and the phosphor within, and do some math to determine how much better or worse it might actually be. Theorecitcally, though...
We *did* start with dark themes. It was the text on the green screen terminals that was illuminated; the background was black.
Glad to see we're finally coming full circle. The engineers who designed these systems wold have inverted the color scheme if more light were better; I don't think today's engineers realize that was actually a design consideration back then, so our finally getting back to it is purely by way of newbies wanting to be different, but that's fine, so long as we get back to it.
Here's the best mobile device in the world, give us money. Here's the best wireless headphones in the world, give us money. Here's the best tablet in the world, give us money. Here's a service that integrates it all, give us money.
Only one of those is true. Nobody has the iPad beat, simply because Android only makes a halfassed attempt at being a tablet OS. The market agrees and it outsells every other tablet combined.
Best mobile device is entirely subjective and will be based on needs. For well more than half the market, it's clearly not good enough so, clearly, not the best.
As for the wireless headphones, well... that's entirely objective. They're easy to lose, which makes them not the best if you want to keep them; but, ignoring that, they measurably don't have the best audio reproduction. Period.
And if Apple has told you otherwise, they were not being honest.
Yes. They can do that. A lot of people can do a lot of terrible things. What's actually important is whether or not the do do it.
It would be idiotic of them not to if they can profit from it. It would be more idiotic of them to claim they don't and risk getting caught committing fraud when it's found out that they do. So, which is it? Are they idiots, or are the even bigger idiots? And I mean that question seriously as can be.
Slashdot Mirror
Very well put.
And I just slide my finger across the keyboard without pressing harder or waiting. On which Android phone did you have to long-press to do that?
No, they live under the shadow of the actions of a small (relative to the size of their population) but disproportionate (relative to the size of the criminal population) number of other Black people. It's unfortunate, as the majority of Black people are just like the majority of people of any other race, they just want to live peaceful, law abiding lives, but that's clearly not enough to offset the disproportionate rate of violent crime from their population.
Ask any cop, they'll tell you the same. Go ahead, cherry pick a Black cop to ask. They'll tell you the same. Based on statistics, which is why racial profiling is done. I don't agree with it; but, then, I'm not the one out there putting my life on the line every day.
As for falling behind in education, you do realize that a high school dropout can raise a kid who goes to college and graduates with a doctorate, right? When that doesn't happen, it's most often more to do with choices that were made (though I'll give a nod to the price of a college education, as well). There's no societal cause or excuse for failing to graduate high school due to one's race.
And housing? People born in the 'hood move out every single day. People of all races, mind you; and of all education levels, as well.
Employment? That one does tie in with education, but factory work has always only required a high school education; if even that. There's less of that work available today, but we're talking about "the generations where they were disadvantaged", when that work was widely available. In fact, not only was it widely available, it was commonly abundant in inner-city areas where most Black people lived at the time. Good paying jobs for hard working Americans, and the smart ones took those jobs. Assuming they stayed in school, that is.
Individual racism notwithstanding, the only people disadvantaged more than a full generation after slavery was abolished were disadvantaged by their own poor choices and/or poor upbringing. I'll grant that individual racism was a lot more prevalent back then, and is still a problem today. If you want to blame that, go right ahead, and I'll agree with you; but to keep blaming slavery? Really? That's a crutch, and it's one that won't carry you very far. As I said, I know, personally, many Black people who've given up that particular crutch and done very well for themselves; I know none who've held onto it and gone far.
Slavery isn't the problem Black people face in America today; their inability to let go of it -- at least, those of them who refuse to -- is the problem. The proof is in asking any successful Black man or woman how slavery affects them today.
That, and individual racism, which is driven at least on one side by that side's inability to let go of the past.
Ask anyone who's ever faced adversity in their life whether that adversity -- that they actually dealt with in their own life -- still affects them. Note their answers, their general state of happiness with their lives, and how successful they appear. You'll quickly put together that the people who've moved on tend to be happier and more successful than those who have not. And if people can move on from adversity they, personally, have faced, they can surely move on from adversity their great-great-great-great-great-grandparents faced over 150 years ago.
Let's focus on the more recent atrocities the Black population has faced, and fix those. M'kay? Because those are actually affecting people who are alive today and could benefit from the positive attention.
There's a very important distinction between those two actions. In one case, walking away, you're not making someone else do something for you, or likely impacting anyone else in any negative way, if at all. In the other case, you're very much having a negative impact on someone, much like this current movement would have the negative impact of forcing the entire software industry to crawl through miles and miles of code and documentation just to appease a handful of numbnuts whiners.
Your second example fits my point, because it's an example of one inflicting their own beliefs onto another. Your first example does not, as it is merely an example of one independently following their own beliefs.
Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of your nose. Similarly, your right to enforce your beliefs onto society stops at the tip of yours.
As with any hardship, the effects will last as long as those affected allow them to last. I personally know many Black people who've gotten over it and moved on to become productive members of society. Most of them are doing quite well for themselves, many are doing better than I am. And good for them, having overcome such an atrocity is a real show of strength and integrity.
If only you knew the shit I've actually experienced in my lifetime... that I also have moved on from. But that's not the point. The point is it's in the past and you decide how much the past affects you. Regardless of race.
No, the reason they're trying to do it (they tried in the 90's and failed then, too) is much less meaningful. In fact, it is such a weak reason that allowing it would open a floodgate of "this offends me, change it" that would topple our society in short order. That's why we don't allow that argument to succeed.
In most of the world, regardless of civilised or not, slavery is not connected with race, and in some countries is still going on.
The above is correct. It has also been discussed elsewhere in the thread.
Looks like they removed the linked reference, as well. RIP AirPower.
There may be a point you're missing, so let me spell it out for you: Black people who are alive today are not the same people who experienced Black slavery in America. When they claim they're the same people, they're guilty the same fallacy you're pointing out in my comment. If I'm wrong, so are they, and it needs to be left in the past where it belongs. Yes, I was inaccurate. On purpose. For a reason.
Keep it in history books, discuss it, make sure people understand why it was wrong so it doens't happen again, then move on. Anything else just perpetuates racism.
Considering that the people raising the issue under discussion are referring specifically to Black slavery in America, yes, that's what I was referring to. Yes, it happened elsewhere, and continues elsewhere to this very day. No, that's not relevant to this discussion; which is why, unlike you, I didn't inappropriately bring it up.
I'd suggest you check your colon, but you were clearly in the middle of a direct visual inspection when you wrote that.
But I give more weight to the offence felt by the descendants of slaves (who still deal with racism and slavery apologists) than the offence felt by people asked to use a different set of technical terms.
While I can see why this would be the case, you also need to give consideration to the implication of allowing the terms to change. Whatever takes their place will have the same meaning and will, in short order, become offensive to the same group, in a never-ending cycle. It's not that we're offended by the suggestion that we change the terminology (thus why someone else's offense might hold more weight than ours -- because we are not offended to begin with), but that we recognize that it is a futile and wasteful effort and choose not to entertain it.
What do to get out of being in a constant tizzy?
I'd ask the same of those who keep pushing for such stupid bullshit. Constantly.
Because when doing X for Y reason becomes acceptable, Y becomes a viable excuse for any value of X.
Torn from their home and kidnapped? Try sold by their own people, for whom they were already slaves. Not that the reality of what actually happened is any better than your ignorant understanding, mind you, but... you could at least make an attempt to be factually accurate.
And black people who weren't alive when slavery was commonplace aren't your pawns, either. Can we please stop using them? Seriously, let them rest, they've been free for over a century and a half now.
When it rains, it pours.
And his car has an alarm because he wanted a fucking car. Presumably, buying new was a requirement for one reason or another, which limited his options to:
A) Alarm.
or
B) No car.
That has not been my experience. Maybe that's because I don't buy the $50 "last year's model" special. You can still buy the S8 new today, and it's certainly more than a year old -- and supported, still getting updated. A friend of mine with an S7 still receives updates monthly.
And I know when both of these phones came out, because I bought both of them on day one. Not because I had to, but because a priomary feature of my phones is the camera and the camera on the S8 was that much better than the S7; repeat with the S9. Plus models, of course; I like 'em a little on the big side.
Indeed. But it has to look pretty. In snowflakeland, that's more important than being useful or efficient.
Actually, they cod have run them at a much lower intensity if inverted, leaving more headroom to brighten them up as the phosphors faded. Phosphors begin fade at a higher-than-linear rate relative to intensity, which is a problem modern OLED displays still face. That said, I'd have to get hold of the spec sheet for an old green mono CRT and the phosphor within, and do some math to determine how much better or worse it might actually be. Theorecitcally, though...
^ Seconded.
We *did* start with dark themes. It was the text on the green screen terminals that was illuminated; the background was black.
Glad to see we're finally coming full circle. The engineers who designed these systems wold have inverted the color scheme if more light were better; I don't think today's engineers realize that was actually a design consideration back then, so our finally getting back to it is purely by way of newbies wanting to be different, but that's fine, so long as we get back to it.
Here's the best mobile device in the world, give us money. Here's the best wireless headphones in the world, give us money. Here's the best tablet in the world, give us money. Here's a service that integrates it all, give us money.
Only one of those is true. Nobody has the iPad beat, simply because Android only makes a halfassed attempt at being a tablet OS. The market agrees and it outsells every other tablet combined.
Best mobile device is entirely subjective and will be based on needs. For well more than half the market, it's clearly not good enough so, clearly, not the best.
As for the wireless headphones, well... that's entirely objective. They're easy to lose, which makes them not the best if you want to keep them; but, ignoring that, they measurably don't have the best audio reproduction. Period.
And if Apple has told you otherwise, they were not being honest.
Yes. They can do that. A lot of people can do a lot of terrible things. What's actually important is whether or not the do do it.
It would be idiotic of them not to if they can profit from it. It would be more idiotic of them to claim they don't and risk getting caught committing fraud when it's found out that they do. So, which is it? Are they idiots, or are the even bigger idiots? And I mean that question seriously as can be.