General US Politics

[UNLEASH IT]

I think that the homophobic/misogynistic tendencies displayed in Islamic countries has less to do with Islam itself and more to do with said countries being really undeveloped. I mean, look at sub-Saharan Africa. Christianity is the major religion in many of these countries yet most of them also outlaw homosexuality: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Africa, not the best source). My theory is that as the level of poverty rises, less attention is paid to things like women's/LGBT rights. But then that doesn't really explain Saudi Arabia/Qatar so I don't know.

[Rapier]

Society created expectations for people just because they're born with a man or a woman. These concepts were created by society. In a world where gender roles never existed at any time, transgenderism would likely not be a thing. People wouldn't have to feel uncomfortable in their own bodies if society hadn't told them that their bodies were meant for specific purposes.

Bolded part interests me in particular, because concepts need to be abstracted from something first in order to be created. Which were the driving fundaments of those concepts? Biological functions, customs, maybe an observed pattern on behavior that people pertaining to X sex usually show?

[UNLEASH IT]

Bolded part interests me in particular, because concepts need to be abstracted from something first in order to be created. Which were the driving fundaments of those concepts? Biological functions, customs, maybe an observed pattern on behavior that people pertaining to X sex usually show?

Well women are generally smaller than men right? So maybe gender roles started from there and snowballed into what we have today.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Chad Thundercock

[Flee Fleet!]

But then that doesn't really explain Saudi Arabia/Qatar so I don't know.

Even if Saudi Arabia/Qatar is developed it's definitely not the best in terms of women and LGBT rights. Trust me, as a Muslim I went to Makkah and Madinah for Umra(correct me if I'm wrong) and I remember some ppl being a bit of douchebags. Especially the security guards at the mosque in Makkah, who, as my mother told me, basically forced women to leave as each prayer finished along with men, and some even threw the belongings(e.g. purses, bags) away to get ppl to leave.Though this isn't exactly surprising to some, including me, considering how we are told about the shitty history of Saudi Arabia(e.g. men burying their daughters alive and constant beatings to slaves and women) before Islam at least toned it down considerably,in my opinion. I mean, some people would still have a bit of their country's historic culture, and that includes Saudi Arabians, in my opinion

Correct me if anyone want to, but I believe it that way for Saudi Arabia.

[Rapier]

I think that the homophobic/misogynistic tendencies displayed in Islamic countries has less to do with Islam itself and more to do with said countries being really undeveloped. I mean, look at sub-Saharan Africa. Christianity is the major religion in many of these countries yet most of them also outlaw homosexuality: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGBT_rights_in_Africa, not the best source). My theory is that as the level of poverty rises, less attention is paid to things like women's/LGBT rights. But then that doesn't really explain Saudi Arabia/Qatar so I don't know.

it's true that poverty is linked with ignorance, which can lead to bigotry, but that alone doesn't motivate or originate those homophobic/misogynistic tendencies. It's not because I'm ignorant that it automatically makes me a bigot, it just means I'm stupid. An ideology that literally belittles them is a much more direct motivational source.

You're right that sub-development influences bigotry, but the ideology is the source of it, and not people's ignorance. Imagine a person who's easily convinced to do bad stuff. That itself doesn't make them do bad stuff. Now imagine someone tells them to commit bad stuff and they do so because they're easily persuaded into things. That's the case.

[Lord Raven]

^ So you are saying that all religion should be targeted for this?

Even if Saudi Arabia/Qatar is developed it's definitely not the best in terms of women and LGBT rights. Trust me, as a Muslim I went to Makkah and Madinah for Umra(correct me if I'm wrong) and I remember some ppl being a bit of douchebags. Especially the security guards at the mosque in Makkah, who, as my mother told me, basically forced women to leave as each prayer finished along with men, and some even threw the belongings(e.g. purses, bags) away to get ppl to leave.Though this isn't exactly surprising to some, including me, considering how we are told about the shitty history of Saudi Arabia(e.g. men burying their daughters alive and constant beatings to slaves and women) before Islam at least toned it down considerably,in my opinion. I mean, some people would still have a bit of their country's historic culture, and that includes Saudi Arabians, in my opinion

Correct me if anyone want to, but I believe it that way for Saudi Arabia.

My sister lived in Qatar for four years and it's not entirely conservative, considering they allowed men/women to fraternize and stuff. It wasn't sexist there on the surface.

Having that said, Saudi/Qatar have more issues with national identity, where they believe the natives are superior to foreigners. They don't actually care about non-natives, and their natives are wealthy enough that they actually don't give a shit.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Lord Raven

[-Cynthia-]

Well women are generally smaller than men right? So maybe gender roles started from there and snowballed into what we have today.

That's part of it probably. Some of it is also probably linked to women more frequently dying in childbirth and reproduction being more crucial to society's survival. Even for a non physical role such as leadership, choosing a woman over a man meant that your leader had a higher chance of dying due to medical reasons which was undesirable for stability. Modern medicine makes it much more likely for a woman and her children to survive, which makes these concerns less relevant in modern times.

[Rapier]

^ So you are saying that all religion should be targeted for this?

I'm not being picky about any religion in particular. Also, not saying that you did, but please don't misunderstand what I said with "muslims and islam are evil!!!". It's a statement of fact that its wording belittles some minorities, and this can be verified by merely checking the Q'ran, but it doesn't mean its adherents can't find a better doctrinal understanding about it and find ways to live better with their neighbors, like what happened with christianity. I admit I'm kind of ignorant about the subject, but don't muslims live that way on western/more secularized countries? The problem with islam is that it is less secularized, that's all. The more an ideology resists an "update", the rustier and more defective it becomes. Once fundamentalism is broken, its wrongs will be fixed.

That's part of it probably. Some of it is also probably linked to women more frequently dying in childbirth and reproduction being more crucial to society's survival. Even for a non physical role such as leadership, choosing a woman over a man meant that your leader had a higher chance of dying due to medical reasons which was undesirable for stability. Modern medicine makes it much more likely for a woman and her children to survive, which makes these concerns less relevant in modern times.

I also wonder if women and men showed certain personality traits and particular tastes more often than the other sex, and if those divergences made society perceive a pattern and develop gender notions about how men and women are.

I wish I knew more about how much women and men are different, what is societal bs and what is factually correct, but I'm completely ignorant about this and I lack good sources.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Rapier

[-Cynthia-]

I wish I knew more about how much women and men are different, what is societal bs and what is factually correct, but I'm completely ignorant about this and I lack good sources.

Research on gender differences is a very wide and varied field. From what I know of research on several factors in social psychology, the difference between groups is significantly smaller than the variance within the groups. A randomly selected group of men and a randomly selected group of women will probably have similar scores on mathematical ability for instance, but eithin those groups there will be high performing men, low performing men, high performing women, low performing women etc. Factors like the socioeconomic status and education level of the parents are going to be much stronger predictors than gender.

Edited August 21, 2016 by -Cynthia-

[Lord Raven]

The more an ideology resists an "update", the rustier and more defective it becomes. Once fundamentalism is broken, its wrongs will be fixed.

Is this really true though? Can we say that an ideology is "resisting" an update when there is so much variance int he way people express the ideology - especially in some of the countries of origin? Why do you think people resist the updates and where does the fundamentalism come from?

[Phoenix Wright]

That's not "poor people don't vote", it's telling us that lower income households don't vote in the same numbers that higher income households do relatively. There is a disparity, and it's a noteworthy one. To say it doesn't matter if people are being manipulated is a little ridiculous and I'd hope it was poor phrasing lol.

Otherwise I agree with your post, money in politics is absolutely a huge problem and the root of a lot of our issues.

the point i was getting at was two-fold:

congress doesn't care what people want

poor people don't vote in enough numbers to make change

of course it matters that people are manipulated. however! it starts at the home. school is one of the most important things in a young person's life (outside of necessities), and only when someone learns to critically think can they wade through the bullshit. fox news and cnn are problematic, but the saddest thing a poor person goes through (in the context of education) is poor education. growing up in los angeles, my school was atrocious, and i had teachers that cared a lot about their students! kids grow up thinking like their parents and aren't taught to think for themselves. that, to me, is worse than private businesses putting out thoughtless content.

But private businesses cannot and should not be forced to conduct business contrary to their wants.

the private industry should not be granted immunity to the wants of a nation. no business should be able to turn away a customer because of race, ethnicity, religion, sex, or gender. businesses operate in a nation under the permission granted by the state, after all.

Because Sharia Law by itself is misinterpreted by Muslims, because not every Muslim speaks Arabic and even those that speak Arabic don't understand what's in the Quran. Ultimately, they're at the mercy of the Imam at the mosque they go to when it comes to religious interpretation.

this is a huge issue, and is largely the reason christianity was so shitty in the dark ages. when people learned to read and interpret the bible for themselves, rejection of the crazy, violent, or nonsensical things ensued, albeit slowly.

[tuvarkz]

Gender is exactly a social concept.

Society created expectations for people just because they're born with a man or a woman. These concepts were created by society. In a world where gender roles never existed at any time, transgenderism would likely not be a thing. People wouldn't have to feel uncomfortable in their own bodies if society hadn't told them that their bodies were meant for specific purposes.

In a perfect world, androgyny would be the primary beginning for everyone and whether one felt the way they should feel or not wouldn't matter.

We do know that there are differences between the male and female brains (As example, regarding changes during parenthood). Additionally, there is plenty of proof that transgenderism has a biological source. I don't think it's as much about gender roles (There's men that enjoy traditionally female activities and aren't any less of a man for doing so; and the other way around as well), but potential self-perception and likely neurological and hormonal mutations. Particularly due to natural biological differences regarding muscle strength, it is clear that a differentiation between roles in men and women would naturally happen to maximize efficiency; even in very early societies.

[Rapier]

Is this really true though? Can we say that an ideology is "resisting" an update when there is so much variance int he way people express the ideology - especially in some of the countries of origin? Why do you think people resist the updates and where does the fundamentalism come from?

I'm not educated enough to answer this, but I'll try anyway. Correct me if it ends up being bs.

Variance doesn't necessarily translate to secularization. It's natural for there to be variance because of cultural and societal differences that lead to different interpretations of the same thing. It doesn't mean said ideology is trying to get an "update" (in fact, I don't see anyone trying to). I guess that saying that the interpretation of islam isn't changing is wrong, but it is changing very slowly (at least on its countries of origin, where a more fundamentalist and hostile stance is adopted. I know very little of how muslims live in more secularized countries).

Not sure why fundamentalism exists and why people resist change (I think I am missing the point, but I'm not sure). I guess that's a natural psychological reaction to that which is new and strange/different? And if we talk about the countries of origin, being isolated plays a big part on why they resist change and stick to fundamentalism. I'm sure the perspective of a muslim that lives and follows his religion on France or the USA is very different from someone on Qatar. The interactions with a new, more secularized world and its ideas influences one's perception of their faith (or, well, any other idea, in general), leading to different interpretations that someone without that same contact with those ideas wouldn't have.

[Moblin Major General]

I'm not educated enough to answer this, but I'll try anyway. Correct me if it ends up being bs.

Variance doesn't necessarily translate to secularization. It's natural for there to be variance because of cultural and societal differences that lead to different interpretations of the same thing. It doesn't mean said ideology is trying to get an "update" (in fact, I don't see anyone trying to). I guess that saying that the interpretation of islam isn't changing is wrong, but it is changing very slowly (at least on its countries of origin, where a more fundamentalist and hostile stance is adopted. I know very little of how muslims live in more secularized countries).

Not sure why fundamentalism exists and why people resist change (I think I am missing the point, but I'm not sure). I guess that's a natural psychological reaction to that which is new and strange/different? And if we talk about the countries of origin, being isolated plays a big part on why they resist change and stick to fundamentalism. I'm sure the perspective of a muslim that lives and follows his religion on France or the USA is very different from someone on Qatar. The interactions with a new, more secularized world and its ideas influences one's perception of their faith (or, well, any other idea, in general), leading to different interpretations that someone without that same contact with those ideas wouldn't have.

I can apply this logic to Indian Hindus or Buddhists, but strangely not Levantine Christians or Jews, probably because Islam kept both under their thumb for the last millennium and a half in the Levant itself. In Europe? Yes, there was significant strain on Catholicism, which caused the Protestant Reformation. But in Israel itself? Orthodoxy remains dominant there, even when most of the rest of it is either Jewish or Muslim.

[Life]

I can apply this logic to Indian Hindus or Buddhists, but strangely not Levantine Christians or Jews, probably because Islam kept both under their thumb for the last millennium and a half in the Levant itself. In Europe? Yes, there was significant strain on Catholicism, which caused the Protestant Reformation. But in Israel itself? Orthodoxy remains dominant there, even when most of the rest of it is either Jewish or Muslim.

There are sizable Christian/Bedouin/Druze communities here. And Tel Aviv is a very secular city with a surrounding population of nearly 4 million people (that includes the suburbs of course). I'd wager around 80% of people living within that sphere are secular.

Outside of Tel Aviv, you'll find more religious communities. Both the South and far North are heavily religious but the population is pretty sparce over those areas.

Just pointing that out. Continue.

[Lord Raven]

Rapier, something's messing up on my end and for some reason I can't post my response to your post. Hold up, let me try something.

EDIT: I think I got hit by an anti-terrorism censor. Hilariously, I just changed the wording of one sentence. What in the fuck is this lmao

Not sure why fundamentalism exists and why people resist change (I think I am missing the point, but I'm not sure). I guess that's a natural psychological reaction to that which is new and strange/different? And if we talk about the countries of origin, being isolated plays a big part on why they resist change and stick to fundamentalism. I'm sure the perspective of a muslim that lives and follows his religion on France or the USA is very different from someone on Qatar. The interactions with a new, more secularized world and its ideas influences one's perception of their faith (or, well, any other idea, in general), leading to different interpretations that someone without that same contact with those ideas wouldn't have.

So my thing is that you're saying the ideology "resists" change from its fundamentals, but the things I've been reading (see the thing I posted on the previous page) actually had an inclination towards said societies being on the verge of change, buuuuuuuut they kinda got screwed over. There's also a lot of stuff in this (very) simplified timeline of the middle east which basically shows rebellion after rebellion after rebellion, and it's been especially poignant since 1979 and 1980 during the Iranian Revolution and Hussein's rise to power in Iraq. These people can and have played to religion to rile the people up, and justify their wars as some sort of holy war.

War is kind of where people end up going back to preaching the fundamentals, not to resist change but to garner support and to somehow justify their actions. In a region as war torn as the Middle East, it's kind of hard to move on from that when everything around you is in turmoil. I don't think they're intentionally ignorant or resisting change. That's kind of where I stand on this, because there's no way many of them would want to stay in the country they live in - but who knows, I honestly don't have any evidence to really back this up outside of refugees.

Edited August 21, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Life]

So, let's talk about the actual election.

Trump actually had a really good week while Hillary had a terrible weekend.

But when you need to backtrack and admit that you've used the Clintom Foundation as a "pay-to-play" organization, that's not really fraud because she's Hillary Clinton.

In all seriousness, Trump's speach on race on Friday was spot on the money. The Democrats have consistantly failed black communities in large municipal centers. You'd think that Obama would have cared more because he's also black but... evidence says otherwise.

[Moblin Major General]

In short: "What harm is there in voting for me? Hell, you might be pleasantly surprised." Not that I believe him, though. Also, Tim Kaine is coming to Nashville this week, so that's a thing.

[Time the Crestfallen]

So, let's talk about the actual election.

Trump actually had a really good week while Hillary had a terrible weekend.

But when you need to backtrack and admit that you've used the Clintom Foundation as a "pay-to-play" organization, that's not really fraud because she's Hillary Clinton.

In all seriousness, Trump's speach on race on Friday was spot on the money. The Democrats have consistantly failed black communities in large municipal centers. You'd think that Obama would have cared more because he's also black but... evidence says otherwise.

I'm amazed at just how bias the media is in favour of Hillary. It's like Rupert Murdoch all over again...

Anyway, I won't deny that black communities, especially in municipal areas have a lot of problems that need to be addressed. The thing is though that I'm not sure that Trump actually gives a damn (well, morose than the usual non-local politician). Mostly since pretty much all of the problems come back to education in some way and I can easily see Trump making some effort to diminish or abolish programs that aid black students, especially at the College level, for the sake of promoting 'meritocracy'. I'll wait and see if he says more on the matter, but I'm right now I'm reminded of the broken clock analogy.

[Life]

In short: "What harm is there in voting for me? Hell, you might be pleasantly surprised." Not that I believe him, though. Also, Tim Kaine is coming to Nashville this week, so that's a thing.

He's really not wrong when he's talking to blacks in big cities.

The black communities are worse off now than they were 25 years ago. If we want to blame "racism" and "white privilege", let's not forget that Democrats mostly held the power (entirely on a municipal level and with the exception of Bush, also federal).

The Democrats do not care about the Black Communities as long as they can allow those communities to feel like victims and blame "white oppression". That way, they can continue gathering votes.

If that sounds rather sinister to you, it's because it is. But the way that it plays out in the media is shocking.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/obama-louisiana-flooding-visit-227209

Weren't liberals up in arms that Bush didn't fly down to New Orleans in 2005? Why the hypocrisy?

I know that this is a play for votes for Trump but Obama decides to fly down to Baton Rouge after Trump's already there? And suddenly Obama is a hero? Really?

[HF Makalov Fanboy Kai]

at the very least, showing up over there means that Trump is, at worst, pretending to care, and at the best, legibly cares about the flooding victims.

Which any of those true motives is a lot better then just not showing up in general, i really do think even tho Obama might fly down there now, this all still makes Clinton look lame and low energy by not even visiting.

Edited August 23, 2016 by HF Makalov Fanboy Kai

[Phoenix Wright]

He's really not wrong when he's talking to blacks in big cities.

The black communities are worse off now than they were 25 years ago. If we want to blame "racism" and "white privilege", let's not forget that Democrats mostly held the power (entirely on a municipal level and with the exception of Bush, also federal).

The Democrats do not care about the Black Communities as long as they can allow those communities to feel like victims and blame "white oppression". That way, they can continue gathering votes.

If that sounds rather sinister to you, it's because it is. But the way that it plays out in the media is shocking.http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/obama-louisiana-flooding-visit-227209

Weren't liberals up in arms that Bush didn't fly down to New Orleans in 2005? Why the hypocrisy?

I know that this is a play for votes for Trump but Obama decides to fly down to Baton Rouge after Trump's already there? And suddenly Obama is a hero? Really?

can you be more specific about your metrics used in comparing these communities from 25 years ago to now?

[Noma9]

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/politics/obama-louisiana-tour-criticism/index.html

"(Governor) Edwards, who greeted Obama when he landed Tuesday, had previously said that he hoped the President would wait a few weeks before making his visit to the state, given the entourage and Secret Service personnel that comes with presidential trips that would have strained resources while officials were coping with the floods." It also mentions Hillary's plans on visiting eventually, as well as how well Trump's visit has been viewed.

But let's not pretend that tragedies aren't constantly used as political opportunities. And Trump has a hell of a lot to gain.

[Life]

can you be more specific about your metrics used in comparing these communities from 25 years ago to now?

Certainly.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://nces.ed.gov/pubs95/95765.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwiN9o6wjtjOAhWGOsAKHXO5BZsQFgg6MAA&usg=AFQjCNEg5IeK06EVyboNKzTN2Cb3a4Snzw

I hope that links to the government PDF that I'm looking at but if not, Google search "black education rates 1994 usa". Really that easy.

The report (issued in May of 1995) shows that blacks are enrolling in school, attrition rates are dropping and other trends that indicate positive results.

Two things do jump out. First of all, white students were doing better than blacks but we can blame segregation for that because these statistics start from 1970 (just after segregation formally ended). The second thing is that the increase during the Reagan and H.W. Bush years are not as significant as the increases before them but they are still increases.

In summary, black educational standards was on the rise even through the "War on Drugs" which was supposedly aimed at marginalizing black communities (again, the statistics do not reflect this).

Now compare to the 2014 report.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014083.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwjnpd_LltjOAhVJWhQKHfLMB4oQFggdMAE&usg=AFQjCNE5526QURNzJIMyY8xJbW2NgxKmXA

Graph on page 23 clearly indicates that the high school diploma completion for blacks has completely stagnated but white education completion has started to drop. Thanks Democrats (and Bush)!

An interesting point (has nothing to do with my comments before) is how the Native American population generally lives in more poverty than Blacks. But then again, they don't make up about 15% of the total population. Again, nothing to do with my original point but definitely interesting to note. Those charts are around page 44 or so.

Page 57 has another interesting chart; The projected percentage of elementary public school education through the next 10 years. Aside from the deep South outliar, check out the states that are slated to decrease. That includes Illinois and New York. That means that cities like Chicago and NYC have education on the down.

Page 79 shows that black enrollment in public school is decreasing, either at a steady rate or a significant one in about 2010. That's not necessarily bad but I don't think that drop-off is because they're suddenly getting into private schools.

Page 89 starts the good stuff. More and more kids live in increasing poverty. These are numbers measured after 8 years of Bush and 4 years of Obama. Again, Bush might have fucked it up for us Conservatives but Obama wasn't making the situation any better. In fact, I'd love to see 2016 results.

Page 118 shows that reading education has barely budged for blacks, starting with Clinton's administration. In 22 years (on a scale of up to 500), black reading comprehension at Grade 8 has risen only by 13 points. That's 2.5%.

If blacks complain about their schooling now, it isn't significantly better than it was 22 years ago under Clinton.

In fact, it was worse. Page 134 shows that average black scores in reading dropped (or stagnated) under Clinton and Obama while rising under George W. Bush. Oops, maybe No Child Left Behind wasn't such a colossal failure? Next page is Mathematics and more of the same.

As per page 159, 68% of blacks are graduating Grade 12. That's tied with Native Americans for the lowest ethnicity.

Page 163 has attrition rates. Notice that the black attrition rate between 1992 and 2000 are virtually the same (13% and under Clinton). George W. Bush brought that down to under 10%. Sure, the rates dropped under Obama but Bush laid the groundwork.

Page 170 shows how terrible Clinton really was for education and that Bush was far and away better. I won't even spoil it; go look for yourself.

When Trump tells the Black community that the Democrats have failed them, he's not blowing smoke. Even George W. Bush did more good for education than both Clinton and Obama.

Thank you for making me fact check that statement, Phoenix. You may have just convinced me to reverse my opinion on No Child Left Behind (that maybe it wasn't a steaming pile of crap). So thank you very much.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/23/politics/obama-louisiana-tour-criticism/index.html

"(Governor) Edwards, who greeted Obama when he landed Tuesday, had previously said that he hoped the President would wait a few weeks before making his visit to the state, given the entourage and Secret Service personnel that comes with presidential trips that would have strained resources while officials were coping with the floods." It also mentions Hillary's plans on visiting eventually, as well as how well Trump's visit has been viewed.

But let's not pretend that tragedies aren't constantly used as political opportunities. And Trump has a hell of a lot to gain.

Again, wasn't Bush villified by the media for NOT going to New Orleans immediately? Edited August 23, 2016 by Right Wing Nut Job

[Moblin Major General]

This video, while it hasn't changed my views, has opened my eyes to the flaws that most progressives and liberals have. Being a Christian, I am no stranger to the idea of compassion, as that is what Jesus did when he was executed. And I do believe liberals have lost focus in their goal because so many are either the target of or hate Christians. I would rather be hated and deny myself for doing something good for the poor than inflate my ego by doing something that many think will help, but will only make things worse. In this vein, I see myself as a more conservative liberal, keeping to the changing times, but making sure we still hold our ideals dear and do the right thing at the right time.