Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

272 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      89
    • No
      110
    • Maybe
      73
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      49
    • No
      110
    • Indifferent
      42


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, Lushen said:

I realize I listed a considerably amount of issues, but our education system really isn't that bad.  The fact is, most people in America study abroad because they think it sounds fun while the rest of the world studies here because our education system actually works.

Well, I'm studying abroad in the UK next year(hopefully) partially because I live in Orague so have the chance(American), partially because I much prefer the British model of teaching history, but mostly because King's College London, one of the best schools in the UK, costs about 33,000 pounds a year for an American. We don't need to make colleges free but clearly there's a way to make them affordable without becoming a socialist hellhole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Lushen said:

I spend like an hour typing up a response to everything....  Then I saw that you truly believe schools are purposefully causing segregation by weeding out the black kids....  Then I decided there was nothing to gain intellectually by going back and forth on this subject with you any longer....

goodnight....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/School_segregation_in_the_United_States#Contemporary_segregation

Quote

A 2013 study by Jeremy Fiel found that, “for the most part, compositional changes are to blame for the declining presence of whites in minorities’ schools,” and that racial balance increased from 1993 to 2010.[11] The study found that minority students became more isolated and less exposed to whites, but that all students became more evenly distributed across schools.

Another 2013 study found that segregation measured as exposure increased over the previous 25 years due to changing demographics.[8] The study did not, however, find an increase in racial balance; rather, racial unevenness remained stable over that time period.

Researcher Kori Stroub found that the “racial/ethnic resegregation of public schools observed over the 1990s has given way to a period of modest reintegration,” but that segregation between school districts has increased even though within-district segregation is low.[12] Fiel believes that increasing interdistrict segregation will exacerbate racial isolation.[11]

More from that wiki article:

Quote

A principal source of school segregation is the persistence of residential segregation in American society; residence and school assignment are closely linked due to the widespread tradition of locally controlled schools.[13] Residential segregation is related to growing income inequality in the United States.

A study conducted by Sean Reardon and John Yun found that from 1990-2000, residential black/white and Hispanic/white segregation declined by a modest amount in the United States, while public school segregation increased slightly during the same time period. Because the two variables moved in opposite directions, changes in residential patterns are not responsible for changes in school segregation trends. Rather, the study determined that in 1990, schools showed less segregation than neighborhoods, indicating that local policies were helping to ameliorate the effects of residential segregation on school composition. By 2000, however, racial composition of schools had become more closely correlated to neighborhood composition, indicating that public policies no longer redistributed students as evenly as before.[14]

A 2013 study corroborated these findings, showing that the relationship between residential and school segregation became stronger over the decade 2000-2010. In 2000, segregation of blacks in schools was lower than in their neighborhoods; by 2010, the two patterns of segregation were “nearly identical."[13]

It's definitely a real concept.

This article goes through some more specific school districts in more detail: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2014/11/modern-day-segregation-in-public-schools/382846/

That's why I kept calling it soft-segregation. You should educate yourself before trashing my whole post based on a concept you don't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s all a matter of how a given society chooses to allocate its resources. If you have a country that prioritizes military spending and mass incarceration of non-violent offenders, and where one of the two major parties stakes out the position that taxing millionaires at a level commensurate with their earnings is “socialism”…

...then You get a country that’s really good at fighting wars and filling for-profit prisons and running up trillion dollar deficits on the federal budget. But that can’t fund public access to healthcare and higher education.

 

If you cut the defense budget in half (we could do this and still spend more on our military than any other country in the world—the defense budget is that overbloated)

 

…And you get rid of mandatory-minimum jail time for everything from possession of marijuana to unpaid traffic tickets.   

…And you scale back the state and local police + departments of correction and probation to the size they need to be at to actually detain and process dangerous criminals—The murderers. The rapists. The robbers. The burglars. The kidnappers. The arsonists. The domestic terrorists.

...And you have a system where the segment of the population that controls 90% of the nation’s wealth bares no less than 90% of the nation’s tax burden; they can’t loophole their way out of payment and pass the cost along to lower earners or to the national debt.

Then you can have a country that educates its citizens. Keeps them healthy. Derives public benefit therefrom. And maintains a balanced budget while so doing.


We have simply chosen as a country that we would rather keep more money in the hands of a new American aristocracy (The Trumps. The Hiltons. The Vanderbilts. The Rockerfellers. We say we don't have aristocracy in this country--they're aristocrats).  And spend what money the government takes in on soldiers and prisons instead of books and medicine.

...Then we wonder why we get outperformed by everyone from Germany to South Korea on international competitiveness, and get populist shit-heads like Trump telling us to blame the Mexicans.

 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Raven said:

<snip>

These sources are ridiculous in my opinion.

 "“tracking”—designating students for separate educational paths based on their academic performance as teens or younger." "The education department and advocates have said tracking perpetuates a modern system of segregation that favors white students and keeps students of color, many of them black, from long-term equal achievement. "

WHAT?  So we should have the intelligent kids who are way ahead of their curriculum in the same classes as unintelligent kids who are way behind their curriculum?  This is your solution for a better educational system???  This has nothing to do with racism or a modern system of segregation.  Black students have the same ability to have high academic performance as white students.  The reason they statistically perform lower is not because they are black, but because there is a lot higher percentage of black students coming from poverty and inner cities w/o a full family who tend to perform low in school.  Well guess what, there are white people who come from inner cities that have the same issues.  But they're not a minority, so who cares?

This is the thing that really frustrates me about liberal ideologies.  They all want to help the inner city minority kids but they don't give a shit about the inner city majority kids.  

I used to consider myself left on social issues back when republicans were against things like gay marriage but right on economic issues but the left has gone so far left I think their ideologies are the ones with all the racism and bigotry.  Guess what?  No one is writing news articles criticizing minority groups.  What group is getting criticized consistently in the media and by gov't laws?  White males.  I'm pretty sure I've been called a white privileged male a lot more than most have been called something racist. 

54 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

<snip>

As someone pointed out earlier, a lot of countries in Europe count on us for their military.  South Korea also counts on us for our military.  The reason we spend 500billion on our military budget is because we're not just covering our military, but many other countries as well.  Not to mention a lot of our military spending is going towards research and development for things like shooting nukes out of the sky which I think I would pay 500billion for alone.

What are you going on about with crime?  We jail people too much?  What about this guy who we deported 20 times because we couldn't afford a proper border patrol and didn't jail him because it's more economical to deport.
http://wkrn.com/2017/07/31/accused-sex-attacker-was-deported-to-mexico-20-times-court-documents-say/
20 Deportations and he gets to come back and sexually assault some poor woman.   But by all means, of course, mexico handles crime better than we do.

You also want us to cut our local and state police despite the fact that we have the highest amount of crime in the world...  Are we living in the same country?

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lushen said:

 What about this guy who we deported 20 times...he gets to come back and sexually assault some poor woman?

What about him???

Arrest him, put him on trial for rape, and lock him up.

You take these kinds of wild sensationalist headlines. And you portray them as prototypical of crime in America, so as to justify the obscene levels of over-incarceration in this country and call for an even more expansive police presence to combat our epidemic of "crime."

And what you completely ignore is that the murderers and the rapists and the thieves are a minuscule minority of the people that go through the criminal justice system in this country.

The overwhelming majority of persons who we arrest and jail in America are in the system for drugs, unpaid fines, and driving with a suspended license.

Spend one week in a criminal Court and you will see it--dozens of them going through "the system" everyday. Maybe one or two child molesters and a guy who beats his wife (i.e. people who actually belong in jail) in between. Some low-level shoplifters. And then every once-in-a-blue-moon; the guy who raped someone after being deported 20 times.

The fact that the system is so clogged up with the guys driving on a suspended license or smoking a blunt in a public park and the police spend the overwhelming majority of their time chasing these guys down is the reason why as over-policed as our communities are, you still have a seeming scarcity of law enforcement resources on-hand when it comes time to chase down the violent rapist.

The fact that the system is so clogged up with the guys driving on a suspended license or smoking a blunt in a public park is likewise the reason our records show that this country has so much "crime."

-Violent crime is low.
-Stupid shit that we attach criminal-law penalties to so we can build as many prisons as we build and justify having as overbearing a police force as we have is high

We could:

1) Liberalize our drug laws
2) Liberalize our traffic laws
3) Eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for non-violent crimes
4) Put less money into funding prisons, probation departments, and law enforcement
5) Redirect police departments and the justice system to use the bulk of its resources arresting and prosecuting real criminals; not "you are charged with strict liability for a collision while operating a motor vehicle in violation of NJSA 39:3-40. How do you plead?

...And with that... 

You could have more police officers and more court resources going after arresting and jailing dangerous criminals (i.e. the guy who gets deported 20 times then rapes someone). At a lower cost. With more resources freed up for schools and hospitals.  With fewer disruptions to policed communities and better relationships between police departments and the communities they police.

Yes...We live in the same country...

How then you can say the problem is we don't have enough police and don't arrest enough people is mind-boggling, but it sounds like you've had extremely limited contacts with the criminal justice system and have a rather rose-colored view of how it works. 

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

...  the Democrats are an economically right-wing party, fiscal conservatism and social liberalism would naturally create a Democratic voter. Especially in a more fiscally conservative country. The older generation of baby boomers would likely vote for someone like Clinton over Sanders.

Maybe so, but I'm not really sure the Democrat base would call themselves 'fiscal conservatives' - they seem willing enough to spend government funding pretty freely even if they are not exactly 'socialist' from an economic standpoint. Neoliberalism is more accurate, and it's not like they are going to pick up much by going further right-wing.

47 minutes ago, Shoblongoo said:

And what you completely ignore is that the murderers and the rapists and the thieves are a minuscule minority of the people that go through the criminal justice system in this country.

Talking about 'thieves', how about we talk about the thief bankers in 2008 that committed fraud and crashed the economy? Of course, they got off with no punishment, and in fact got bailed out with stimulus packages. Yet the US has 25% of the prison population with 5% of the total population - a lot of that due to non-violent drug offenders in which private prison and rehabilitation companies profit directly from having as many inmates as possible, and spend their time lobbying to politicians. I suppose we know where the loyalty lies.

It's funny, I've found a view prevalent everywhere, but especially in Americans more than most seem to care more about tax cuts and accumulation of wealth moreso than human life, especially considering the majority of them are still getting fucked at the end of the day. I don't know how to explain to people that they should care about others.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lushen said:

I find the fact you use my local news to boost your soapbox insulting. To suggest that this is the norm is disgusting, and should be treated as such. Think about it, if the world was so dangerous that the linked article was the norm, armed protesters would fill the streets, and anarchy would ensue. Crime is only as bad as the authority trying to stop it. If the police are trained to be helpful, accessible, and transparent, crime will go down. The opposite is the norm here in the US, and you wonder why our prison is larger than the rest of the world due to almost every group except upper middle class white guys with no mental disabilities are the only ones treated impartially by the police.

@Tryhard Don't. It's that simple. If we cared about our fellow man, slavery would've been one of the first things to go, and the Trail of Tears wouldn't happen. You can't get into our heads, so go after our money instead.

Edited by Hylian Air Force

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, blah the Prussian said:

Well, I'm studying abroad in the UK next year(hopefully) partially because I live in Orague so have the chance(American), partially because I much prefer the British model of teaching history, but mostly because King's College London, one of the best schools in the UK, costs about 33,000 pounds a year for an American. We don't need to make colleges free but clearly there's a way to make them affordable without becoming a socialist hellhole.

@Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lushen said:

WHAT?  So we should have the intelligent kids who are way ahead of their curriculum in the same classes as unintelligent kids who are way behind their curriculum?  This is your solution for a better educational system???

If that's what you got out of the article I linked, then you definitely have reading comprehension issues.

6 hours ago, Lushen said:

This has nothing to do with racism or a modern system of segregation.  Black students have the same ability to have high academic performance as white students.  The reason they statistically perform lower is not because they are black, but because there is a lot higher percentage of black students coming from poverty and inner cities w/o a full family who tend to perform low in school.

Didn't you say economics was irrelevant to class performance?

I could write a whole report on how flawed our education system is, but it's not the economics, it's the teachers, the tenure, and the people in charge of the individual colleges.

Come on, stay consistent!

6 hours ago, Lushen said:

Well guess what, there are white people who come from inner cities that have the same issues.  But they're not a minority, so who cares?

Evidently, a lot of people, because we're focusing now on issues that are plaguing white/rural areas that have been plaguing black communities for years. In either case, the poor are screwed over, but there are studies that show that all else equal, the white person is still more likely to reach success or be in a better environment than the white person, for a lot of reasons. Many of which are in the Atlantic article I linked!

6 hours ago, Lushen said:

This is the thing that really frustrates me about liberal ideologies.  They all want to help the inner city minority kids but they don't give a shit about the inner city majority kids.  

Yes they do.

6 hours ago, Lushen said:

No one is writing news articles criticizing minority groups.

What the fuck?

http://www.breitbart.com/

https://heatst.com/culture-wars/

http://www.foxnews.com/

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/29/us/black-lives-matter-blowing-it/index.html

I can keep going, but I assure you that minorities have gotten plenty of news articles and plenty of places that continue to shit on them.

6 hours ago, Lushen said:

What group is getting criticized consistently in the media and by gov't laws?  White males.

[citation needed]

6 hours ago, Lushen said:

I'm pretty sure I've been called a white privileged male a lot more than most have been called something racist. 

I'm sorry to hear that. I guess it sucks to hear that you're privileged when the rest of us constantly have to endure shit about fried chicken & watermelons, purple drank, being poor and having no father, being stupid based purely on the color of your skin, being lynched

or other races about being burned alive in a fire by one of history's greatest monsters, being cooked in an oven, having to endure the highest rate of hate crimes

or other races are about curry, being terrorists, telling you to go back to al qaeda, telling you that you're not welcome in this country, being literally the most hated demographic in this country along with atheists

but i'm sorry you have to hear about being privileged more than the rest of us, it's fucking tragic

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Lushen said:

I used to consider myself left on social issues back when republicans were against things like gay marriage but right on economic issues but the left has gone so far left I think their ideologies are the ones with all the racism and bigotry.  Guess what?  No one is writing news articles criticizing minority groups.  What group is getting criticized consistently in the media and by gov't laws?  White males.  I'm pretty sure I've been called a white privileged male a lot more than most have been called something racist. 

by the way, is this the part where I tell you to stop being a snowflake? that's how these things usually go, right, especially for someone who criticises safe spaces just before?

pretty sure all groups get criticised and generalised, and i hate to tell you but white males (which I am) are not really the ones who have had the short end of the stick - i've seen different races criticised for years for being lazy, thuggish, etc. but as soon as there are accusations about white males people flip their shit?

I mean I don't think those accusations are productive and I'll usually criticise both as being unreasonable but you're just being purposely ignorant if you think they didn't/don't happen to other groups

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

So you couldn't find individual articles so you just link the websites?  What's more funny is the only article you referenced was a huge stretch and from the most liberal major media outlet out there.

Saying that Black Live Matter is fucking up is not racist, they are.  The 'organization' is worse than the NAACP. 

14 hours ago, Tryhard said:

by the way, is this the part where I tell you to stop being a snowflake? that's how these things usually go, right, especially for someone who criticises safe spaces just before?

pretty sure all groups get criticised and generalised, and i hate to tell you but white males (which I am) are not really the ones who have had the short end of the stick - i've seen different races criticised for years for being lazy, thuggish, etc. but as soon as there are accusations about white males people flip their shit?

I mean I don't think those accusations are productive and I'll usually criticise both as being unreasonable but you're just being purposely ignorant if you think they didn't/don't happen to other groups

I'm not going to claim that there is more racism against white people than black, I imagine it's the other way around. Nevertheless, there are areas where if you go as the only white person around it can be incredibly dangerous and areas where if you go as the only black person around it can be incredibly dangerous in the United States.  

What I can argue is that most of our politics and media are more against white people than black people.  Examples like Black History Month, Black Student Union, Black Lives Matter, NAACP.  You could try to help Lord Raven find actual examples of black people being criticized in the media, but you'll probably just see the opposite.

Let's talk about NAACP.  Just yesterday, they declared a travel advisory on my home state of Missouri.  In other words, Missouri is known to be a racist state and you should exercise caution because your civil rights will not upheld.  There are considerable more racist states than Missouri, the only reason I can think of for the NAACP targeting Missouri is the Michael Brown shooting indecent, which was proven beyond reasonable doubt to not actually be a hate crime, but a police officer defending himself and having to go into protective custody b/c he received death threats.  They cited like two examples of specific people saying things that could be construed as Racism, but very indirectly.  What's calling a whole group of people something based on the actions of a small minority?  Stereotyping right?
http://www.nationalcenter.org/P21PR-NAACP_Missouri_080317.html

 

edit:  It's not a war of whose more racist.  I'm just tired of seeing people who think it only goes one way.  Racism should end immediately, but calling out white privilege and protesting for more black rights is just making people more frustrated and create more racial divisions.  The best way to stop racism is to stop segregating them in protests, laws, and media reports. 

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Lushen said:

What I can argue is that most of our politics and media are more against white people than black people.  Examples like Black History Month, Black Student Union, Black Lives Matter, NAACP.  You could try to help Lord Raven find actual examples of black people being criticized in the media, but you'll probably just see the opposite.

Now you're just being embarrassing.

All but one U.S. presidents has been white (and male).

Congress is currently 80% white (over-represented, when only 63% of U.S. residents are white) (Congress is also over 80% male).

The U.S. is pretty firmly controlled by white people; is, and always has been.

Media? Again, the majority of people you will see on your screen are white. Majority of reporters are white. The vast majority of media is in English! When I recall to mind all my favourite (and the general population's most favourite) TV shows, the top billed character is nearly always white (and male). Sure, TV shows are growing more diverse, but the non-white characters are still usually only the sidekicks.

Literally millions and millions of Native Americans that white people slaughtered, enslaved and/or spread disease to, and kept from participating in U.S. government until very recently (until 1957, which is within my parents' lifetime, not all states permitted Native Americans to vote in their own country), and are generally talked about today by schools as if they're history.

Black History Month has to exist because pretty much the rest of history taught is white history, and if a special month wasn't set aside for black history, many schools would likely not teach it. Black Lives Matter exists because they don't, to white people. (BTW, BLM were the only people to show up at several funerals of white people shot by police; they're an organization that aims to highlight police aggression in general).

In general special groups and accommodations are formed because without them, change would never come about. If disabled spaces didn't exist you wouldn't have altruistic able-bodied people saying 'I can walk, so I should park further back!'. (And FWIW many able-bodied people still park in them, regardless). 

And here's the thing: In areas of the country where it's unsafe for black people to walk around, it's generally because the local government, schools and police are white. Because the threat comes from people with lawful authority. Whereas in areas of the country where it might be unsafe for white people to walk around, it's usually because those spaces are areas of desperate, low-income people with no lawful authority who were pushed out of the gentrified white-dominant areas. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Res said:

Congress is currently 80% white (over-represented, when only 63% of U.S. residents are white) (Congress is also over 80% male).

First off, it's 72.4% of the United States that is white which is pretty damn close to 80% (as of 2010 only 7 years ago).  
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans

And you're not factoring in that in the minorities, only 90% of the minorities speak english fluently.  Obviously someone who doesn't speak english well isn't going to be asked to speak in Congress...once again statistics tell only parts of the story.

edit: Actually it's likely much less than 90% of them.  I couldn't find any specific data, but I saw some right wing websites report one in 10 Americans can't speak English.  So it's probably exaggerated but still based off some amount of truth.  I think it's safe to assume that most of those people are not white (if not all) so the percentage of minorities speaking English would be lower than 90%.  

edit2:  Ah, here we go https://www.census.gov/prod/2013pubs/acs-22.pdf

1 hour ago, Res said:

Media? Again, the majority of people you will see on your screen are white. Majority of reporters are white. The vast majority of media is in English! When I recall to mind all my favourite (and the general population's most favourite) TV shows, the top billed character is nearly always white (and male). Sure, TV shows are growing more diverse, but the non-white characters are still usually only the sidekicks.

The vast majority of media is in English because the vast majority of Americans speak English and nothing else....

Maybe most TV shows have more white people in them because there are more white people in the area they're portraying?  The other day I saw a youtube video of someone complaining that Game of Thrones is racist because there are more redheads than blacks.  No, it's just portraying western europe during the dark ages...  Many US TV shows show modern US culture which is only ~15% black.  Is it racist to portray real life?

 

You just don't realize that TV programs exist to make money.  They're not going to make money appealing to the minorities who don't speak english...

1 hour ago, Res said:

Black History Month has to exist because pretty much the rest of history taught is white history, and if a special month wasn't set aside for black history, many schools would likely not teach it. Black Lives Matter exists because they don't, to white people. (BTW, BLM were the only people to show up at several funerals of white people shot by police; they're an organization that aims to highlight police aggression in general).

I don't really have a problem with Black History Month.  To me, it's like MLK and shows us who we were.  It was just one of the things I could think of.   The issue is the modern organizations like the NAACP.

And once again, you're the one stereotyping.  Black Lives Matter exists because white people are racist? You can't stereotype more than that.  BLM also supported protests  over the world (and was formed) following a false reported hate crime.  Their very existence was created on a lie.  I don't support a lot of rights organizations, because I think all they do is stir up trouble and cause conflicts and racial barriers.  Here's some of what BLM has actually done for society:

http://www.diversityinc.com/news/james-comey-viral-video-effect-police/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/former-chicago-top-cop-black-lives-matter-killing-blacks/article/2610687

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/07/10/permanently-disabled-baton-rouge-officer-sues-black-lives-matter-for-2016-ambush-shooting/?utm_term=.49cd47d054c9

http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/poll-americans-reject-black-lives-matters-myth-of-racist-police/

http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2017/07/06/author-black-lives-matter-motivate-shootings/

1 hour ago, Res said:

All but one U.S. presidents has been white (and male).

Which is actually quite high when you put things into perspective.  This is the most annoying thing I see people reference.  Guess what, not all 50 presidents are valid when you're determining racism in politics today.  I'd wager less than 1/4th of our presidents existed in times similar enough to today's culture to where you can compare them.  MLK died during our 36th president, so everyone before him has no MLK impact.  Liberal radicals like to think that we should maintain a 50/50 minority/majority ratio for our presidents, regardless of who the candidates are.  What really frustrated me was how many people wanted Hillary to win the election just so we can have our first female presdent.  The fact that she came so close means females stood just as much chance in the election as males.

1 hour ago, Res said:

Literally millions and millions of Native Americans that white people slaughtered, enslaved and/or spread disease to, and kept from participating in U.S. government until very recently (until 1957, which is within my parents' lifetime, not all states permitted Native Americans to vote in their own country), and are generally talked about today by schools as if they're history.

Build a time machine and maybe we can actually do something about that.  History is important, and I'm not arguing that we have a disgusting past.  That doesn't mean people born after 1957 are to blame for what their parents did or suffered from.

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I linked media outlets watched and read by a lot of people who have a habit of unfairly criticizing minorities for no real reason. CNN is also a right of center outlet not a left leaning outlet contrary to what the far right thinks.

In either case I swear you only get your news about racial issues from tumblr or some shit like that if you legit think that white people are always criticized and legislation only ever favors non-whites. You haven't linked to any mainstream sources at all, you haven't shown much of anything but your own feelings about this, and you haven't linked to specific legislation that targets whites people.

I mean our Attorney General is highly anti-black, joking that the problem with the KKK is just that they smoke weed. Wanting to re-institute mandatory minimums. Looking into racism against white people in college campuses where the majority of them are white. And this guy has an executive position.

The thing about race relations is this; the majority of white people are in a safe space and live in a bubble. They don't see racial divides and haven't seen them until recently when Barack Obama had to point them out due to him personally being black and experiencing them. Yet despite all these issues and despite the fact that segregation solved the legislative part of segregation, there is inherent inequality between white people and non-white people. So when white people tell non-white people to shut up and suck it up and stop hurting their feelings, it's completely ignoring the problem -- and it's been like that for decades.

Right now you're backed against a corner and going "I WANT ALL RACISM GONE" but you're ignoring the reason why organizations like the NAACP and BLM exist. You're also ignoring actual issues that are related to race and the fact that one race constantly gets the short end of the stick. Being white is a factor that factors into your privilege, it's not the only thing that you have going for you. But let's not pretend at all that being called privileged is anything bad in comparison to the experience of a minority in this country, especially if they're black.

EDIT: and people born after the 60s are reaping the benefits of what their parents had before. What, do you really think that majority black neighborhoods were going to be dandy after the civil rights movement? Do you really think that people accepted integration easily? Segregation still exists today because white dudes have all the power.

Also in a sample size of 438, an 8% difference is 35 representatives. That's quite significant.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

You haven't linked to any mainstream sources at all, you haven't shown much of anything but your own feelings about this, and you haven't linked to specific legislation that targets whites people.

I mean our Attorney General is highly anti-black, joking that the problem with the KKK is just that they smoke weed. Wanting to re-institute mandatory minimums. Looking into racism against white people in college campuses where the majority of them are white. And this guy has an executive position.

I'll knock these two out at once.  http://www.nationalreview.com/article/450088/jeff-sessions-affirmative-action-college-admissions-investigate-racial-discrimination

You're probably saying Jeff Sessions is anti-black for rolling back affirmative action.  In reality, he's trying to make it equal for everyone.  I think it's astonishing that asian americans who suffer a ton of abuse are never referenced by Liberal radicals.  They're all about protecting black rights, mexicans, muslims, and woman.  What about asian americans who have to "score 450 higher than black students".  But..wait, only "140 points higher than white students".  What is this?  Shouldn't it be 0 points higher across the board?  It's suprising to me how the minorities left out by the liberal agenda suffer the most.  But by all means, Jeff Sessions is clearly targeting blacks by imposing equality.

27 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

Right now you're backed against a corner and going "I WANT ALL RACISM GONE" but you're ignoring the reason why organizations like the NAACP and BLM exist. You're also ignoring actual issues that are related to race and the fact that one race constantly gets the short end of the stick. Being white is a factor that factors into your privilege, it's not the only thing that you have going for you. But let's not pretend at all that being called privileged is anything bad in comparison to the experience of a minority in this country, especially if they're black.

I'm not in a corner.  I live in the midwest, away from all the liberal consensus going on in the far western US.  Why do the NAACP exist if they're going to tell me that my state is so racist they need to issue a travel advisory asking minorities to avoid entering?  Especially when there are plenty of minority people living here already.  Why should BLM exist if it was forged under a debunked case of hate crime and encouraged people to physically target police officers and led to the death of many. Police officers are significantly more afraid since the birth of BLM.

27 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I linked media outlets watched and read by a lot of people who have a habit of unfairly criticizing minorities for no real reason. CNN is also a right of center outlet not a left leaning outlet contrary to what the far right thinks.

If you think CNN, a station that repeatedly criticizes republicans for being sexist, racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic is a white supremacy news outlet...I don't know how to explain reality to you.

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Lushen said:

*words*

When you start a post with "I'm not going to claim that there is more racism against white people than black, I imagine it's the other way around"  and end with "calling out white privilege and protesting for more black rights is just making people more frustrated," that should be a pretty good tell that you've got a whole lot of nothing in between.

...So inordinate racism still exists and continues to produce disparate treatment of affected minorities.

...but we're not supposed to talk about it or call for corrective action.

...and if we talk about it we're the bad guys, because the problem isn't that inordinate racism still exists and continues to produce disparate treatment of affected minorities. The problem is that people get upset when you talk about it.

Do you see why when you say things like this, people might think you come across as just a wee bit ignorant and over-privileged?

Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lushen said:

You're probably saying Jeff Sessions is anti-black for rolling back affirmative action.  In reality, he's trying to make it equal for everyone.  I think it's astonishing that asian americans who suffer a ton of abuse are never referenced by Liberal radicals.  They're all about protecting black rights, mexicans, muslims, and woman.  What about asian americans who have to "score 450 higher than black students".  But..wait, only "140 points higher than white students".  What is this?  Shouldn't it be 0 points higher across the board?  It's suprising to me how the minorities left out by the liberal agenda suffer the most.  But by all means, Jeff Sessions is clearly targeting blacks by imposing equality.

...  yes he is and his "equality" is not equality.

Stop calling them Liberal Radicals.

At any rate, I'm one of those "Asian Americans" that has had to work extra hard due to AA despite being part of a relatively impoverished asian-american demographic. In fact, many Muslims that you're referencing are also screwed by AA, so I don't see your point about how liberals are in favor of muslim rights and black rights??

AA is a really shitty scotch tape solution to a wider problem -- one that Jeff Sessions, this current Congress and this current Administration, and clearly right wing radicals such as yourself don't actually care about, because he's a white supremacist full stop and much of our executive branch isn't too different.

AA is about quotas anyway, not raising/lowering standards. It happens that they have to adjust standards for that reason, but it's a scotch tape solution that's been debated in this thread to hell and back.

17 minutes ago, Lushen said:

I'm not in a corner.  I live in the midwest, away from all the liberal consensus going on in the far western US.  Why do the NAACP exist if they're going to tell me that my state is so racist they need to issue a travel advisory asking minorities to avoid entering?  Especially when there are plenty of minority people living here already.  Why should BLM exist if it was forged under a debunked case of hate crime and encouraged people to physically target police officers and led to the death of many. Police officers are significantly more afraid since the birth of BLM.

a) BLM's stance does not inherently target police officers

b) BLM rose up as a result of officers targeting black people disproportionately, which has not been debunked

c) police officers are more afraid since the birth of BLM? I'm looking at the pew research link and I'm seeing this:

PSDT_01.11.17.police-00-11.png

It seems like they're afraid because they don't inherently see a problem with the way the law is applied differently depending on their race. That basically says that Police Officers probably do need training.

besides, they're armed, what do they have to be afraid of?

17 minutes ago, Lushen said:

If you think CNN, a station that repeatedly criticizes republicans for being sexist, racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic is a white supremacy news outlet...I don't know how to explain reality to you.

right of center != white supremacy

lol?

22 hours ago, Tryhard said:

Maybe so, but I'm not really sure the Democrat base would call themselves 'fiscal conservatives' - they seem willing enough to spend government funding pretty freely even if they are not exactly 'socialist' from an economic standpoint. Neoliberalism is more accurate, and it's not like they are going to pick up much by going further right-wing.

Sorry for ignoring this, @Tryhard, but a Blue Dog democrat is one of the things I'm referring to. That's how we end up getting democratic reps and senators in conservative states. Though, they're socially centrist to conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States) as well.

 

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lushen keeps bringing up the Ferguson Riot origins of BLM and the NAACP's travel advisory against Missouri as some sort of self-justifying pair of grievances. For some very misguided opinions on race.

This is a teachable moment.

I'm going to leave this here and kindly request that Lushen read at a level where we can substantively converse about the subject-matter therein: this is the published report of the United States Department of Justice--Civil Rights Division--"Investigation of the Ferguson Police Department," dated March 4, 2015. Undertaken in response to the outcry produced by BLM. 

https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/opa/press-releases/attachments/2015/03/04/ferguson_police_department_report.pdf

Please Review.

I will be referencing this document for any further discussion of the matter.

SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS:

1)   “Ferguson’s law enforcement practices are shaped by the City’s focus on revenue rather than by public safety needs. This emphasis on revenue has compromised the institutional character of Ferguson’s police department, contributing to a pattern of unconstitutional policing, and has also shaped its municipal court, leading to procedures that raise due process concerns and inflict unnecessary harm on members of the Ferguson community. Further, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices both reflect and exacerbate existing racial bias, including racial stereotypes. Ferguson’s own data establish clear racial disparities that adversely impact African Americans. The evidence shows that discriminatory intent is part of the reason for these disparities. Over time, Ferguson’s police and municipal court practices have sown deep mistrust between parts of the community and the police department, undermining law enforcement legitimacy among African Americans in particular.”
 

2)    "The City’s emphasis on revenue generation has a profound effect on FPD’s approach to law enforcement. Patrol assignments and schedules are geared toward aggressive enforcement of Ferguson’s municipal code, with insufficient thought given to whether enforcement strategies promote public safety or unnecessarily undermine community trust and cooperation. Officer evaluations and promotions depend to an inordinate degree on “productivity,” meaning the number of citations issued. Partly as a consequence of City and FPD priorities, many officers appear to see some residents, especially those who live in Ferguson’s predominantly African-American neighborhoods, less as constituents to be protected than as potential offenders and sources of revenue."
 

3)    "Officers expect and demand compliance even when they lack legal authority. They are inclined to interpret the exercise of free-speech rights as unlawful disobedience, innocent movements as physical threats, indications of mental or physical illness as belligerence. Police supervisors and leadership do too little to ensure that officers act in accordance with law and policy, and rarely respond meaningfully to civilian complaints of officer misconduct. The result  is a pattern of stops without reasonable suspicion and arrests without probable cause in violation of the Fourth Amendment; infringement on free expression, as well as retaliation  for protected expression, in violation of the First Amendment; and excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment."

 
Edited by Shoblongoo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Lushen said:

I'm not going to claim that there is more racism against white people than black, I imagine it's the other way around. Nevertheless, there are areas where if you go as the only white person around it can be incredibly dangerous and areas where if you go as the only black person around it can be incredibly dangerous in the United States.  

What I can argue is that most of our politics and media are more against white people than black people.  Examples like Black History Month, Black Student Union, Black Lives Matter, NAACP.  You could try to help Lord Raven find actual examples of black people being criticized in the media, but you'll probably just see the opposite.

I have never heard anything near that bad said about white people in public. 'Other species'? (even if admittedly this was a bit too crazy even for Fox News)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owcUci6Z18w (was an excerpt in this)

It's not as if you can't find right-wing media getting into hot water over racism accusations, and not just because of hysteria either - there's no shortage of dumb things said, the far-right is known for having a history of homophobia and pro-segregation in the US. I mean I don't really need to get into how the media covers shootings and riots, do I?

4 hours ago, Lushen said:

If you think CNN, a station that repeatedly criticizes republicans for being sexist, racist, homophobic, and Islamophobic is a white supremacy news outlet...I don't know how to explain reality to you.

I was under the impression that CNN was an establishment Democrat network, so he would be right in saying they were center-right. They did not like Bernie Sanders at all, to my recollection.

3 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

Sorry for ignoring this, @Tryhard, but a Blue Dog democrat is one of the things I'm referring to. That's how we end up getting democratic reps and senators in conservative states. Though, they're socially centrist to conservative.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factions_in_the_Democratic_Party_(United_States) as well.

Mmm, I always though it strange that basically Republicans in disguise were pushed as being okay in the Democratic party as long as they are fine with gays and abortions, essentially. Being somewhat socially liberal doesn't exactly make you a hero.

Edited by Tryhard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Shoblongoo said:

<snip>

I gave you the courtesy of reading through the police investigation and honestly I saw a lot of stuff I did not know and found it quite informative.  That being said...I think you're missing my point.  My arguements against the NAACP and BLM are that they are dysfunctional organizations that lead to more harm than good.  

BLM in particular, is built on a lie.  As I've said, Michael Brown's death was unarguable justified by the police officer who was forced to go into protection and relocation with his family due to death threats, his life destroyed.  The whole "Hand's up, Don't Shoot" motto they keep spuring out is also based on a lie.  If you go on BLM's website, you will see images with people protesting with signs saying both "Arrest Darren Wilson" (a man who was found innocent) and "Hand's Up Don't Shoot signs.  If you're interested in more lies being spout out by BLM, here's a link: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/18/lies-black-lives-matter/

NAACP also has significant disorganization.  The branch office in St. Louis told them to revoke their travel advisory saying citing that 38 other states have the exact same laws that promt'd the NAACP to issue this warning.  Again, Missouri was not known as particularly racist until the Ferguson effect which was based on a lie.  This shows that the national NAACP did not even consult the branch office in st. louis when they issued their travel advisory.  Not only that, but it's not just claiming the Missouri is a racist state, but also sexist and woman should also exercise extreme caution when traveling...The lunacy of this organizations claim is profound.  

If BLM was using the claims found in the article you just referenced, it would be fine.  But it is not.  All it does, is this : http://time.com/4850263/black-lives-matter-baton-rouge-police-shooting/

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLM's main issue is a lack of unification among its differing factions. It's not an organized movement, and the violent chapters get more press than the peaceful chapters.

That being said, your criticisms aren't valid for the entirety of BLM. Only for specific chapters and people. At any rate, Missouri wasn't known as particularly racist (well it was but..) until that investigation came to light is what you're saying? Then it's good that the investigation was done to reveal the truth behind the PD right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

BLM's main issue is a lack of unification among its differing factions. It's not an organized movement, and the violent chapters get more press than the peaceful chapters.

That being said, your criticisms aren't valid for the entirety of BLM. Only for specific chapters and people. At any rate, Missouri wasn't known as particularly racist (well it was but..) until that investigation came to light is what you're saying? Then it's good that the investigation was done to reveal the truth behind the PD right?

The investigation got very little media coverage.  Most of the media coverage was over Michael Brown who is still mentioned every few months and people want to turn it into a national holiday.  I often wonder what he would think if he was alive about how his death started all this after he charged a police officer and was literally inside the policecar attacking an officer when he was shot....

The thing is, BLM is dominantly practiced in the midwest, where it all began.  The people outside of the midwest that offer support for BLM often have very little clue as to how disorganized and radical it is.  They just see it as another black rights activist movements.

Not all black rights activist movements are bad, but the two I mentioned have a long history of causing disruptions, spreading propaganda, and lies.  Hell, the leader of NAACP resigned after it was alleged she lied about her race.  And all this other crap

https://thoughtcatalog.com/daniel-hayes/2015/06/rachel-dolezal/

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BLM operates basically everywhere, what are you talking about?

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The investigation got very little media coverage.  Most of the media coverage was over Michael Brown who is still mentioned every few months and people want to turn it into a national holiday.

???

http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/04/politics/ferguson-darren-wilson-justice-department-report/index.html

and uhh the holiday thing? http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/police-group-declares-anniversary-browns-death-darren-wilson-day

Darren Wilson day is not Michael Brown day..

7 minutes ago, Lushen said:

The people outside of the midwest that offer support for BLM often have very little clue as to how disorganized and radical it is.  They just see it as another black rights activist movements.

I think the fact that they all disagree on how to do it shows that they're disorganized. For the record, here's the website: http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

If you wanna read about their "radical" ideology, then go ahead. It's not inherent in the organization. It's inherent in certain chapters.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

No, this is the police dep't rightfully mocking the fact that some BLM people want to have Michael Brown anniversary day.  Every year for the past two years, Michael Brown has been brought back up and repeated protests on his birthday as though it is a national holiday.  

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/photos-crowds-gather-to-remember-michael-brown-on-second-anniversary/collection_29ca7eba-5ed4-5648-9b91-99d4c447b23e.html

I've never seen someone who committed unprovoked assault memorialized like this.

9 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

I think the fact that they all disagree on how to do it shows that they're disorganized. For the record, here's the website: http://blacklivesmatter.com/guiding-principles/

If you wanna read about their "radical" ideology, then go ahead. It's not inherent in the organization. It's inherent in certain chapters.

I was just on their website.  Remember, I referenced the photos they have with "Hands Up Don't Shoot" and "Arrest Darren Wilson" signs.

 

Also relevant, http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/08/how-americans-view-the-black-lives-matter-movement/

"About a third familiar with the group say they don't understand it's goals"

Edited by Lushen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not even sure why you're arguing this point. BLM was more or less in the works as early as Trayvon Martin (many news articles as well as their own website corroborates this). Whether or not they're holding up Michael Brown as a martyr should be irrelevant, given that he was one of the catalysts to their movement as well as the revelation of the Ferguson police department. Regardless of whether or not Michael Brown initiated attack, it's still fucked up that

a) a police department is being so petty as to celebrate his death just because people are taking a day of mourning for it;

b) people are focusing on the specific Michael Brown case instead of the investigation

In either case, you're pointing out a flaw in their overall movement, and it does not at all trivialize the point that their movement is trying to make: that black people disproportionately targeted by law enforcement. I mean, their argument on their website was why wasn't Darren Wilson carrying a taser?

Even though the final evidence and judgment about the officer's self-defense was correct, there are plenty of reasons to be mad about Michael Brown regardless. He's definitely not the best martyr, but there are reasons to lionize him, especially since the police force doesn't really care about the other instances that came out in the wake of the DOJ's investigation of this case.

5 minutes ago, Lushen said:

"About a third familiar with the group say they don't understand it's goals"

Isn't that the point I was making?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...