Like I said, Trump has no filter when he speaks or tweets. I wonder what news story is being lost in all the noise his wild, random tweets are generating?
Like I said, Trump has no filter when he speaks or tweets. I wonder what news story is being lost in all the noise his wild, random tweets are generating?
Like I said, Trump has no filter when he speaks or tweets. I wonder what news story is being lost in all the noise his wild, random tweets are generating?
People can walk and chew gum at the same time. Standing up for the basic human dignity of transgender people doesn't also mean you can't follow the health care vote and Sessions. That is part of his strategy, but it hardly matters. Trump has his base, and almost no one else. He'll go to any lengths to keep that baseline of support.
You are greatly overestimating the attention span of the average person. Remember--many of your fellow citizens get their news and information from Facebook, can tell you which celebrities are dating each other, but might not be able to point out the State in which they live on a blank map of the United States.
One of the Calexit groups just got approval from California to collect signatures in an effort to get their measure on the next ballot.
You are greatly overestimating the attention span of the average person. Remember--many of your fellow citizens get their news and information from Facebook, can tell you which celebrities are dating each other, but might not be able to point out the State in which they live on a blank map of the United States.
One of the Calexit groups just got approval from California to collect signatures in an effort to get their measure on the next ballot.
Point taken. Probably true. Which probably means we're screwed regardless. Also why I ditched Facebook over 5 years ago. And also probaly why that's where the anti-Hillary propaganda was disseminated.
Like I said, Trump has no filter when he speaks or tweets. I wonder what news story is being lost in all the noise his wild, random tweets are generating?
NAFTA renegotiations.
Canada pretty much balked at what Trump wanted "tweaked" shrugged their shoulders and said "uh no, we're out, see you in the WTO."
Trump's chosen lead man, Wilbert Ross, seems to be now though and Robert Lightizer has taken over after, what three or four days.
@jjstraka34 The point of the post was that racism can easily be applied in an attempt to be inclusive. Hiring someone BECAUSE of their skin color is no less racist than refusing to hire someone for the same reason, no matter how they perform. We should be striving for equal rights, not "oh we better hire this person because their skin color makes us look good." There is already an effort to reverse discrimination, rather than eliminate it. "Lol white privalege" is dangerous rhetoric that dismisses out of hand very real difficulties that people of ANY skin color go through.
For example: I cannot work, because I have to take care of a disabled wife and son, and on top of it we have lost all health insurance. I certainly don't feel any "white privalige" (I swear someday I'll spell that correctly) that I supposedly have, and I don't appreciate rhetoric that dismisses it because of my skin color.
@jjstraka34 The point of the post was that racism can easily be applied in an attempt to be inclusive. Hiring someone BECAUSE of their skin color is no less racist than refusing to hire someone for the same reason, no matter how they perform. We should be striving for equal rights, not "oh we better hire this person because their skin color makes us look good." There is already an effort to reverse discrimination, rather than eliminate it. "Lol white privalege" is dangerous rhetoric that dismisses out of hand very real difficulties that people of ANY skin color go through.
For example: I cannot work, because I have to take care of a disabled wife and son, and on top of it we have lost all health insurance. I certainly don't feel any "white privalige" (I swear someday I'll spell that correctly) that I supposedly have, and I don't appreciate rhetoric that dismisses it because of my skin color.
That is the goal. Affirmative action was a result when that just was not happening. Maybe someday we'll get there but that would take progress in our schools and society and these days we're going backwards (regressing) in that respect in our president's search to make america great again. For example the transgender military ban that basically says its ok to discriminate against trans people.
If someday we get beyond scapegoating classes of people by gender, religion, ethnic status, etc then we wouldn't need to do things like that. The only way that's going to happen is to throw out discriminatory politicians and teach our kids to accept each other.
Transgender people being barred from the military not enough "special treatment" for a minority group for one day?? Well hell, step right up. Right here behind this tent we have the DOJ arguing in favor of employment discrimination against gay people:
Why the HELL would you file an amicus brief just so you can pipe in and say "Screw those gay people"?
Why would you go on Twitter and announce you are banning transgender people from military service, despite the fact that thousands of them are actively serving at this very second?? Why would anyone, anywhere go out of their way to make the lives of the LGBT community harder than they need to be?? Because there isn't a SINGLE tangible thing that a gay or transgender person does by virtue of their sexuality or gender identity that has an ounce of effect on the people who want to discriminate against them. Nothing. Yet it has been a staple of the Republican platform for DECADES. It was so utterly laughable that people thought Trump was going to be different on this issue that it defies belief. "Oh, one thing I know Trump will good on is LGBT rights, he doesn't care about that kind of nonsense." No, he probably doesn't. But he knows a shitload of his voters do, which is all that matters. Trump is, at heart, a predator. He will do anything he deems useful in the moment. To kill the news cycle about healthcare and Sessions, he was willing to demean the service of transgender soldiers, simply so he could get something else on TV for 24 hours. By the way, you know what other leader has used hatred of gay people to consolidate his power, to the point where homosexuality is quasi-illegal in his country?? Yeah, Putin.
As for Sessions, I'll state this now before the same line of attack against liberals that was used when Comey was fired gets thrown at me (which I already know is coming). There are probably not 5 people I can think of that, in my mind, would be worse for the job of Attorney General than Jeff Sessions. I want him out of that position as soon as possible. That said, it is ALSO true that Trump firing Sessions (or pushing him to resign) is a move towards trying to end the Mueller investigation. Jeff Sessions is horrible, a top law enforcement officer of the country who has lied to Congress on at least two occasions under oath and has views on race that walked straight off the plantation. I couldn't possibly ever defend or feel sorry for him. Yet it still remains the case that if he is removed, Trump is one step closer to declaring himself totally above the law.
Ok, so....Scaramucci believes his financial disclosure forms were leaked. By Reince Priebus. The White House Chief of Staff. Who is ostensibly Scaramucci's superior and boss (or would be in any normal Administration). And Scaramucci is planning on reporting him to the FBI. I don't know what this about, if it's a fake distraction, or if they actually hate each other this much. But these people think they are too clever by half. Let's say this forces Priebus out. How useful is it going to be during an ongoing FBI investigation into your campaign and your financial dealing to have a pissed off and disgruntled former Attorney General and Chief of Staff no longer under your umbrella of control?? Someone should tell these people what ended up happening to Richard III.
Besides, by the time whites become a minority in the United States, racism will probably have already vanished from living memory--and resentment only lives as long as the people who feel victimized. After all, BLM itself is complaining about present-day issues like police violence--not about long-since-abolished segregation or slavery. People have been dreading an anti-white backlash for 250 years, and it's never come.
The US is going to cease to be majority white a lot sooner than you seem to think. 2040 will not be out of living memory of today, and racism probably isn't ceasing tomorrow.
(Granted, that's because people pretend Hispanics aren't white, even though they obviously are, because "race" is unscientific subjective claptrap. Just like Irish people weren't white a hundred years ago even though they're pretty much the whitest people outside of Scandinavia.)
That being said, I have to agree with @WarChiefZeke about the nature of the debate today. Hurling around anti-white rhetoric has become irritatingly fashionable in academia and some circles online, and I fail to see the profit in silly games like "No Whites Day" or the occasional white people joke. The white working class isn't fleeing the Democratic party--they've already been a conservative-leaning group for the last several decades--but there's an attitude among certain liberals that anti-racism means anti-white, and that attitude is definitely turning people off. In their minds, white people aren't allies to be won; they're enemies to be defeated or "shut down." Their opinions are ignorant by default; they're all blinded by privilege; they fear equality because "equality feels like oppression to people who have all the advantages." It's the perfect way to dismiss a white person's opinion out of hand, and with few exceptions, that's what these arguments are used for--not to enlighten, but to discredit.
And if a white person does experience discrimination, the response isn't always "Yeah, I've had to deal with that crap, too." Sometimes it's "It doesn't count if you're white" or "Ha! Now YOU know how it feels!"
Somehow, this message fails to resonate with white people.
Somehow, I think the people doing this don't CARE whether the message fails to resonate with white people.
You don't have to be included in their experience.
One of the most unacknowledged white privileges is how virtually everyone else has not held the undying blood vendetta against white people that, morally, they are pretty entitled to. Meanwhile, white people in the US by and large still hate and fear black people (statistically speaking), and this shows up again and again in their prejudices and actions. Anyone who is resentful of jokes and "no white days" but not outraged at the level where police officers murder black people has a pretty twisted sense of outrage (not accusing you of this, though).
The fact is, since minorities in the US are NOT, by and large, hacking up white people with machetes, then they are entitled to express something other than gracious welcoming to a representative of the oppressive overlord class that has shit on them and everyone who looks like them for generations.
And to put in a more serious zone, sometimes that's necessary because even "inclusive" white people often tend to only be inclusive for the groups they are part of. See: feminism, and the many problems caused by white feminists who were in it for white cisgender females only, not POC, or transgender females. White feminists who demand that Muslim women wear what white feminists think they should wear, and not what they choose to wear. Is it any wonder that some sections of feminism are now explicitly not-white?
Being resentful of a minority for not including you may be a natural reaction, but it is petty. You are not owed their solidarity. You have to earn it. Those that are kind and inclusive to you are doing you a favour, not their duty.
Personally, I think my life has been at least a little easier because I'm white. I actually sympathize with the minority/leftist side in almost every policy debate involving race. And I know that even the worst kind of anti-white sentiment isn't going to get me assaulted or killed or discriminated against in the job market or whatever.
It's just the rhetoric that bothers me. When I hear somebody going off about white people, I don't feel like an ally anymore.
With all due respect, being an ally is about your actions and beliefs, not those of others.
Personally speaking, it doesn't bother me if a black person resents me or people of my skin colour in general. I mean, why wouldn't they? It's amazing more don't. I've never harmed them directly, but here I am sitting on land ripped away from another black-skinned group of people, who were hunted like animals just within living memory. The fact any of them DON'T hate people that look like me is a goddamn wonder. It's not as if forgiving genocidal conquering racists is a universally expected virtue: the US entertainment industry goes on and on and on about the Nazis, and yet it is not only for the benefit of LGBT-Americans, Polish-Americans, Romani-Americans, and Jewish-Americans.
If every type of non-white people is expected to forgive and forget everything white people did to them in the last few centuries, then white people can certainly learn to live with the fact that sometimes they too can be excluded, mocked and looked down on (while still being the world's predominant social and economic class).
And besides that, white people ARE the world's predominant social and economic class. It is natural to want to get together sometimes and mock them, just like is done to politicians, entertainers, and any other powerful and wealthy social group.
Why are whites, who had nothing to do with racism or genocide except vague historical connection, genocidal racists who it's a wonder aren't universally hated by other races, while every other race responsible for conquering, slavery, and genocide, which is quite a few of them, get a free pass. Totally undiscussed. I couldn't have expressed all the worst aspects of social justice myself, frankly. It's about relentlessly beating on white folks for things they didn't do and acting like the rest of the world is innocent and demanding all forms of special treatment and acknowledgement. Meanwhile, large parts of the world, and races of the world if we want to use the toxic language of social justice, are involved in unspeakable crimes. Female genital mutilation, slavery, forced marriage, marital rape, child soldiers, the list goes on.
@jjstraka34 The point of the post was that racism can easily be applied in an attempt to be inclusive. Hiring someone BECAUSE of their skin color is no less racist than refusing to hire someone for the same reason, no matter how they perform.
This is, of course, untrue. There is a huge difference between hiring a historically unrepresented group and excluding the same.
And, of course, if people are not forced to hire historically excluded groups, they will by and large not hire (or promote, or pay equally) people of this group. This has been proven over and over and over again.
There is not a market solution for prejudice. What actually works is forcing people to intermingle and work with the people they previously excluded. This has been proven to work in many countries and conditions, regardless of how fair you think it might be as a person who is not in a historically unrepresented group.
For example: I cannot work, because I have to take care of a disabled wife and son, and on top of it we have lost all health insurance. I certainly don't feel any "white privalige" (I swear someday I'll spell that correctly) that I supposedly have, and I don't appreciate rhetoric that dismisses it because of my skin color.
By your logic, I guess since George Burns lived to be 100, that showed that all the statistical evidence about the effect of smoking on lifespan were bunk.
I cannot work, because I am disabled AND I have a disabled wife (no son, though). So we are roughly equivalent aside from the fact I live in a country where needing "health insurance" is a quaint absurdity, but on the other hand, that country is Australia, so we're even again.
So as a fellow disadvantaged white:
If you cannot be bothered to actually learn what white privilege is, maybe you shouldn't have such a strong opinion on it. Your anecdotal unlucky life experience is irrelevant, just like mine is irrelevant. If you don't know why it doesn't matter how your life is, and if you don't realise why bad things happening in your life do not mean you never benefited from white privilege, then you never understood the concept in the first place.
Ok, so....Scaramucci believes his financial disclosure forms were leaked. By Reince Priebus. The White House Chief of Staff. Who is ostensibly Scaramucci's superior and boss (or would be in any normal Administration). And Scaramucci is planning on reporting him to the FBI. I don't know what this about, if it's a fake distraction, or if they actually hate each other this much. But these people think they are too clever by half. Let's say this forces Priebus out. How useful is it going to be during an ongoing FBI investigation into your campaign and your financial dealing to have a pissed off and disgruntled former Attorney General and Chief of Staff no longer under your umbrella of control?? Someone should tell these people what ended up happening to Richard III.
It seems like Trump is corrosive to everyone even *gasp* Republicans. Oh you thought he would only attack Hillary Clinton and Obama? Now that she's out of the spotlight he needs someone else to lash out at and it's going to be whoever is handy. What happens when you play with fire?
Former Republican National Committee chairman Reince Preibus, former longtime Republican Senator Jefferson Sessions, current Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski all get thrown under the bus by Trump regime TODAY.
He needs an oath of loyalty from you and then when you turn around he'll stab you in the back and throw you under the bus the first chance he gets. Stay classy Republicans this is your man.
As for Sessions, I'll state this now before the same line of attack against liberals that was used when Comey was fired gets thrown at me (which I already know is coming). There are probably not 5 people I can think of that, in my mind, would be worse for the job of Attorney General than Jeff Sessions. I want him out of that position as soon as possible. That said, it is ALSO true that Trump firing Sessions (or pushing him to resign) is a move towards trying to end the Mueller investigation. Jeff Sessions is horrible, a top law enforcement officer of the country who has lied to Congress on at least two occasions under oath and has views on race that walked straight off the plantation. I couldn't possibly ever defend or feel sorry for him. Yet it still remains the case that if he is removed, Trump is one step closer to declaring himself totally above the law.
The tactic or manufactured outrage/incident which will finally give Trump the pressure he needs to force Sessions to step down is still being formulated and investigated but should be ready by the time the August recess hits.
Scaramucci knows that Trump likes and trusts him more than he does Priebus, which is why Scaramucci is able to get away with a backhanded attack against his own boss. The unspoken threat here is that Priebus had better maintain at least as much loyalty to Trump as Scaramucci has or he (Priebus) will be looking for a new job while Scaramucci gets a promotion. I don't know which metaphor is more appropriate, "blood in the water" or "house cleaning". Either way, it is clear that Scaramucci has carte blanche to do whatever he pleases.
What is the over/under on some sort of written loyalty pledge that all White House staffers will have to sign in order to retain their jobs being issued by Thanksgiving? How about by Labor Day?
Why are whites, who had nothing to do with racism or genocide except vague historical connection
Yes, because whites sure aren't doing those things right now in the world today, nosiree.
By the by, you benefited directly from all of that so the "historical connection" is actually pretty tight. For instance, there are an enormous amount of economic and health indicators in the Southern United States that can be mapped onto pre-Civil War plantation slavery (for both whites and blacks, but of course it's worse for blacks because it always is).
Oh, and of course the United States itself was built on genocide and theft from the people that had previously lived there, and white Americans most certainly directly benefit from that.
Meanwhile, poor Japan had to give back Korea and Taiwan, which they'd butchered their way to fair and square. People are still telling them to be more properly apologetic about it, too. There's no justice in this world.
BTW, calling "race" part of the "language of social justice" gave me a big laugh, thanks.
Why the HELL would you file an amicus brief just so you can pipe in and say "Screw those gay people"?
There are actually good reasons for that beyond prejudice. Congress has considered, and specifically rejected, past proposals to extend Title VII protection to sexual orientation. The Justice Department brief reads to me more like a turf war than an attempt to promote discrimination. Primarily, it's a warning to the courts not to over-reach their powers. Secondarily, it's a warning to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission not to get too independent ...
What is the over/under on some sort of written loyalty pledge that all White House staffers will have to sign in order to retain their jobs being issued by Thanksgiving? How about by Labor Day?
Back during the campaign Trump had volunteers who worked for him sign an NDA. This is not normal practice, this is a Trumpian practice.
The Daily Dot published the key parts of that Trump NDA. It's a broad gag order that says volunteers "promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly" Trump, his family members, or his companies. The contract is apparently life-long, lasting for the "term of service and at all times thereafter."
Why are whites, who had nothing to do with racism or genocide except vague historical connection, genocidal racists who it's a wonder aren't universally hated by other races, while every other race responsible for conquering, slavery, and genocide, which is quite a few of them, get a free pass. Totally undiscussed. I couldn't have expressed all the worst aspects of social justice myself, frankly. It's about relentlessly beating on white folks for things they didn't do and acting like the rest of the world is innocent and demanding all forms of special treatment and acknowledgement. Meanwhile, large parts of the world, and races of the world if we want to use the toxic language of social justice, are involved in unspeakable crimes. Female genital mutilation, slavery, forced marriage, marital rape, child soldiers, the list goes on.
Social Justice is the opposite of justice.
Because we are talking about the United States in almost every instance in this thread. And white people in the United States 1.) Committed genocide of the native inhabitants of this land and 2.) Enslaved another race to enrich themselves. The last is the main point. Black people in this country have only had equal rights (at least nominally) for about 60 years. Up until that point, there was virtually no way a black family could accumulate wealth to pass down to future generations. Up until the end of the Civil War, it was quite literally IMPOSSIBLE since they weren't paid. All the wealth that was accumulated for the first 150 years this country existed went to people who were white. It is impossible to erase that head start.
We aren't talking about individual people, we are talking how things have been on a macro scale. What special treatment are African-Americans getting in this country?? The right to get murdered by police?? The right to not get a job or an apartment because of their name. Talk to a black mother and ask her about how she fears her son or husband isn't going to make it home because a cop might shoot them just for existing. Talk to a 85-year old widow black widow in Wisconsin, who has voted all her life, living on a limited income, who hasn't driven in 15 years, who is told she can no longer vote until she goes and gets an ID she hasn't had for a decade, the cost of which my break her monthly budget, essentially resulting in a poll tax. What exactly in life has been made harder for you by being white?? You're complaining about things people SAY about white people in some circles. We are talking about tangible, systematic issues that have affected black people from the beginning of this country. And let's not even get started on Native Americans, who were nearly wiped out entirely.
Again, no one is demanding "all forms of special treatment". They are demanding the same treatment you and I have gotten from the start. It SEEMS like they are demanding special treatment because they haven't had equal treatment up to this point. And equality seems like oppression to those who haven't been oppressed.
The ACTUAL definition of social justice (and not the bastardized, Pepe-flavored meme nonsense you take it to be) is:
justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society
This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. It is utterly impossible for African-Americans or Native Americans to even receive social justice, because the way wealth was accumulated and past down in this country for over a century and a half COMPLETELY left them out of the equation. Nevermind the vicious cultural stereotypes and preconceived notions that exist all over this country to this very day. You don't just wave a magic wand and have a country that was founded and gained much of it's wealth based on human bondage and have it all go away. It is at the root of everything that has been built here. Our economy, our social hierarchy, and our politics.
Why are whites, who had nothing to do with racism or genocide except vague historical connection, genocidal racists who it's a wonder aren't universally hated by other races, while every other race responsible for conquering, slavery, and genocide, which is quite a few of them, get a free pass. Totally undiscussed.
There are horrific acts that don't get much attention--the Middle Eastern slave trade and footbinding come to mind--but it's not like non-white folks get a pass. It's not hard to find people, including the left, criticizing war crimes committed by non-white people. Japan has millions of deaths to its name from its imperial days, China has tens of millions from its communist days, and there's no shortage of outrage about the treatment of women and minorities in the Middle East and India, not to mention corruption and oppression in Latin America and violence in Africa.
All of these are well-documented, discussed, and criticized by both whites and non-whites. These things just haven't popped up in this thread lately.
Because we are talking about the United States in almost every instance in this thread. And white people in the United States 1.) Committed genocide of the native inhabitants of this land and 2.) Enslaved another race to enrich themselves.
The distinction is that while the folks who fought the Native Americans were white, and while the folks who owned the slaves were white, white people today committed neither of those things. Those crimes happened before they were even born. I don't think differently of white Americans for slavery for the same reason I don't think differently of Japan for the Rape of Nanking: because the perpetrators are dead.
If you cannot be bothered to actually learn what white privilege is, maybe you shouldn't have such a strong opinion on it. Your anecdotal unlucky life experience is irrelevant, just like mine is irrelevant. If you don't know why it doesn't matter how your life is, and if you don't realise why bad things happening in your life do not mean you never benefited from white privilege, then you never understood the concept in the first place.
I know you weren't addressing me in that comment, but this is what I meant when I said:
Their opinions are ignorant by default; they're all blinded by privilege; they fear equality because "equality feels like oppression to people who have all the advantages." It's the perfect way to dismiss a white person's opinion out of hand, and with few exceptions, that's what these arguments are used for--not to enlighten, but to discredit.
And if a white person does experience discrimination, the response isn't always "Yeah, I've had to deal with that crap, too." Sometimes it's "It doesn't count if you're white" or "Ha! Now YOU know how it feels!"
You can rightly point out that anecdotal evidence isn't convincing on its own, but @ThacoBell's life experience shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just because of the color of his skin.
You're complaining about things people SAY about white people in some circles. We are talking about tangible, systematic issues that have affected black people from the beginning of this country.
True enough. The anti-white stuff is mostly just unfriendly speech; the anti-black stuff goes all the way up to flat-out murder.
Transgender people being barred military not enough "special treatment" for a minority group for one day?? Well hell, step right up. Right here behind this tent we have the DOJ arguing in favor of employment discrimination against gay people:
That is probably because it doesnt protect a person's sexual orientation. espcially if the law is from the 60's, I highly doubt its orginial purpose even considered gay rights.
Most Western Civilizations rectified this by amending their own laws to add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination lists decades ago.
Canada amended their Human's Right Act back in 1996. It is actually baffling that 20 years later, the U.S. hasnt yet.
Police shootings are certainly skewed against blacks, but the recent one of Justine Damond particularly shocked me (and plenty of others who believe that social justice applies to everyone not just to minorities). A woman hears screams and, suspecting rape, calls the police. She followed that up with a further call 8 minutes later. Police arrived and checked the area, but found nothing. She approached the police car in her pyjamas and was shot dead.
At this stage there is a lot of uncertainty about what happened. However, all are agreed that she was shot by a police officer - who is refusing to say anything about the incident. He's currently on administrative leave as a result, but I can't help thinking that this level of protection offered to the police seems too high. It's certainly true that he is still subject to the possibility of criminal charges, but if a civilian had shot someone else in similar circumstances I don't believe they would have been just allowed to go home without at least making a statement.
Scaramucci just called into CNN and it was....surreal. Can't do it justice here, but I'm 80% sure he snorted a few lines of cocaine before doing so.
Well, we all know that Italian expression "the fish stinks from the head down" and apparently the only fish who don't stink are Scaramucci and the President.
First, even with all the movies and TV shows I have seen over the years featuring characters who are Italian or of Italian descent I have never heard that expression before. A friend of mine from middle school through college was from an Italian family and none of his family members ever used that expression, either...but I'll take his word for it since I am not from New York.
Second, when someone is saying, in essence, that the only people who don't stink (or aren't corrupt, or whatever other negative adjective is being discussed) are themselves and one or two other people, that is the logical equivalent of saying that everyone not included in that small, select group is stinky, or corrupt, or whatever other negative adjective is being discussed. The best way to demonize everyone is to set apart a small group of select individuals who are above reproach (in their own opinion) then claim that everyone else is under suspicion.
Scaramucci's job title isn't "chief communications officer" (or whatever ridiculous job title they have given him) and it certainly isn't whatever job title they gave him over at the Export-Import Bank (the job from which he has been on paid leave since the day he started it--what? really?). His job title is "headhunter", and not in the human resources context. His axe is almost sharp and he is about to start swinging it.
Police shootings are certainly skewed against blacks, but the recent one of Justine Damond particularly shocked me (and plenty of others who believe that social justice applies to everyone not just to minorities). A woman hears screams and, suspecting rape, calls the police. She followed that up with a further call 8 minutes later. Police arrived and checked the area, but found nothing. She approached the police car in her pyjamas and was shot dead.
At this stage there is a lot of uncertainty about what happened. However, all are agreed that she was shot by a police officer - who is refusing to say anything about the incident. He's currently on administrative leave as a result, but I can't help thinking that this level of protection offered to the police seems too high. It's certainly true that he is still subject to the possibility of criminal charges, but if a civilian had shot someone else in similar circumstances I don't believe they would have been just allowed to go home without at least making a statement.
This incident was just as tragic as all the others, but you might want to ask yourself why it took a white woman from Austrailia getting killed by a cop for certain people to realize this is a problem. Philando Castillo and Tamir Rice were no less innocent than this woman, nor was Sandra Bland, who I'm still convinced was murdered in that Texas jail.
No one doubts the outright innocence of Justine Diamond. The same courtesy is NEVER extended to black victims of police shootings. To many people (mostly conservatives) they are guilty by virtue of their skin color, thugs to be eliminated, whether they are 12 years old or concealing and carrying legally and doing everything by the book in a traffic stop. My absolute favorite is when conservative media will go looking for what black vicitms had in their system at the time of death, and if they find marijuana they go "see, he was high", as if smoking weed is now grounds for summary execution by the state.
Comments
One of the Calexit groups just got approval from California to collect signatures in an effort to get their measure on the next ballot.
Canada pretty much balked at what Trump wanted "tweaked" shrugged their shoulders and said "uh no, we're out, see you in the WTO."
Trump's chosen lead man, Wilbert Ross, seems to be now though and Robert Lightizer has taken over after, what three or four days.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/nafta-renegotiations-what-do-trump-and-canada-want/article33715250/
http://globalnews.ca/news/3622585/trump-nafta-canada-softwood-lumber/
http://www.plant.ca/economy/169539-169539/
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nafta-trump-objectives-20170717-story.html
http://globalnews.ca/news/3605878/trump-asked-canada-to-drop-duties-on-internet-imports-under-nafta-canadians-should-cheer-say-experts/
For example: I cannot work, because I have to take care of a disabled wife and son, and on top of it we have lost all health insurance. I certainly don't feel any "white privalige" (I swear someday I'll spell that correctly)
that I supposedly have, and I don't appreciate rhetoric that dismisses it because of my skin color.
If someday we get beyond scapegoating classes of people by gender, religion, ethnic status, etc then we wouldn't need to do things like that. The only way that's going to happen is to throw out discriminatory politicians and teach our kids to accept each other.
Why the HELL would you file an amicus brief just so you can pipe in and say "Screw those gay people"?
"President Trump has discussed with confidants and advisers in recent days the possibility of installing a new attorney general through a recess appointment if Jeff Sessions leaves the job, but he has been warned not to move to push him out because of the political and legal ramifications, according to people briefed on the conversations."
...much later in the article....
"Replacing Sessions could be a precursor to firing Mueller as special counsel."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-talks-privately-about-the-idea-of-a-recess-appointment-to-replace-sessions/2017/07/26/2a347d32-723c-11e7-9eac-d56bd5568db8_story.html
And since he's been advised against it, he'll definitely try to do it.
As for Sessions, I'll state this now before the same line of attack against liberals that was used when Comey was fired gets thrown at me (which I already know is coming). There are probably not 5 people I can think of that, in my mind, would be worse for the job of Attorney General than Jeff Sessions. I want him out of that position as soon as possible. That said, it is ALSO true that Trump firing Sessions (or pushing him to resign) is a move towards trying to end the Mueller investigation. Jeff Sessions is horrible, a top law enforcement officer of the country who has lied to Congress on at least two occasions under oath and has views on race that walked straight off the plantation. I couldn't possibly ever defend or feel sorry for him. Yet it still remains the case that if he is removed, Trump is one step closer to declaring himself totally above the law.
(Granted, that's because people pretend Hispanics aren't white, even though they obviously are, because "race" is unscientific subjective claptrap. Just like Irish people weren't white a hundred years ago even though they're pretty much the whitest people outside of Scandinavia.) Somehow, I think the people doing this don't CARE whether the message fails to resonate with white people.
You don't have to be included in their experience.
One of the most unacknowledged white privileges is how virtually everyone else has not held the undying blood vendetta against white people that, morally, they are pretty entitled to. Meanwhile, white people in the US by and large still hate and fear black people (statistically speaking), and this shows up again and again in their prejudices and actions. Anyone who is resentful of jokes and "no white days" but not outraged at the level where police officers murder black people has a pretty twisted sense of outrage (not accusing you of this, though).
The fact is, since minorities in the US are NOT, by and large, hacking up white people with machetes, then they are entitled to express something other than gracious welcoming to a representative of the oppressive overlord class that has shit on them and everyone who looks like them for generations.
And to put in a more serious zone, sometimes that's necessary because even "inclusive" white people often tend to only be inclusive for the groups they are part of. See: feminism, and the many problems caused by white feminists who were in it for white cisgender females only, not POC, or transgender females. White feminists who demand that Muslim women wear what white feminists think they should wear, and not what they choose to wear. Is it any wonder that some sections of feminism are now explicitly not-white?
Being resentful of a minority for not including you may be a natural reaction, but it is petty. You are not owed their solidarity. You have to earn it. Those that are kind and inclusive to you are doing you a favour, not their duty. With all due respect, being an ally is about your actions and beliefs, not those of others.
Personally speaking, it doesn't bother me if a black person resents me or people of my skin colour in general. I mean, why wouldn't they? It's amazing more don't. I've never harmed them directly, but here I am sitting on land ripped away from another black-skinned group of people, who were hunted like animals just within living memory. The fact any of them DON'T hate people that look like me is a goddamn wonder. It's not as if forgiving genocidal conquering racists is a universally expected virtue: the US entertainment industry goes on and on and on about the Nazis, and yet it is not only for the benefit of LGBT-Americans, Polish-Americans, Romani-Americans, and Jewish-Americans.
If every type of non-white people is expected to forgive and forget everything white people did to them in the last few centuries, then white people can certainly learn to live with the fact that sometimes they too can be excluded, mocked and looked down on (while still being the world's predominant social and economic class).
And besides that, white people ARE the world's predominant social and economic class. It is natural to want to get together sometimes and mock them, just like is done to politicians, entertainers, and any other powerful and wealthy social group.
This
Social Justice is the opposite of justice.
And, of course, if people are not forced to hire historically excluded groups, they will by and large not hire (or promote, or pay equally) people of this group. This has been proven over and over and over again.
There is not a market solution for prejudice. What actually works is forcing people to intermingle and work with the people they previously excluded. This has been proven to work in many countries and conditions, regardless of how fair you think it might be as a person who is not in a historically unrepresented group. By your logic, I guess since George Burns lived to be 100, that showed that all the statistical evidence about the effect of smoking on lifespan were bunk.
I cannot work, because I am disabled AND I have a disabled wife (no son, though). So we are roughly equivalent aside from the fact I live in a country where needing "health insurance" is a quaint absurdity, but on the other hand, that country is Australia, so we're even again.
So as a fellow disadvantaged white:
If you cannot be bothered to actually learn what white privilege is, maybe you shouldn't have such a strong opinion on it. Your anecdotal unlucky life experience is irrelevant, just like mine is irrelevant. If you don't know why it doesn't matter how your life is, and if you don't realise why bad things happening in your life do not mean you never benefited from white privilege, then you never understood the concept in the first place.
Former Republican National Committee chairman Reince Preibus, former longtime Republican Senator Jefferson Sessions, current Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski all get thrown under the bus by Trump regime TODAY.
He needs an oath of loyalty from you and then when you turn around he'll stab you in the back and throw you under the bus the first chance he gets. Stay classy Republicans this is your man.
Scaramucci knows that Trump likes and trusts him more than he does Priebus, which is why Scaramucci is able to get away with a backhanded attack against his own boss. The unspoken threat here is that Priebus had better maintain at least as much loyalty to Trump as Scaramucci has or he (Priebus) will be looking for a new job while Scaramucci gets a promotion. I don't know which metaphor is more appropriate, "blood in the water" or "house cleaning". Either way, it is clear that Scaramucci has carte blanche to do whatever he pleases.
What is the over/under on some sort of written loyalty pledge that all White House staffers will have to sign in order to retain their jobs being issued by Thanksgiving? How about by Labor Day?
By the by, you benefited directly from all of that so the "historical connection" is actually pretty tight. For instance, there are an enormous amount of economic and health indicators in the Southern United States that can be mapped onto pre-Civil War plantation slavery (for both whites and blacks, but of course it's worse for blacks because it always is).
Oh, and of course the United States itself was built on genocide and theft from the people that had previously lived there, and white Americans most certainly directly benefit from that.
Meanwhile, poor Japan had to give back Korea and Taiwan, which they'd butchered their way to fair and square. People are still telling them to be more properly apologetic about it, too. There's no justice in this world.
BTW, calling "race" part of the "language of social justice" gave me a big laugh, thanks.
The Daily Dot published the key parts of that Trump NDA. It's a broad gag order that says volunteers "promise and agree not to demean or disparage publicly" Trump, his family members, or his companies. The contract is apparently life-long, lasting for the "term of service and at all times thereafter."
We aren't talking about individual people, we are talking how things have been on a macro scale. What special treatment are African-Americans getting in this country?? The right to get murdered by police?? The right to not get a job or an apartment because of their name. Talk to a black mother and ask her about how she fears her son or husband isn't going to make it home because a cop might shoot them just for existing. Talk to a 85-year old widow black widow in Wisconsin, who has voted all her life, living on a limited income, who hasn't driven in 15 years, who is told she can no longer vote until she goes and gets an ID she hasn't had for a decade, the cost of which my break her monthly budget, essentially resulting in a poll tax. What exactly in life has been made harder for you by being white?? You're complaining about things people SAY about white people in some circles. We are talking about tangible, systematic issues that have affected black people from the beginning of this country. And let's not even get started on Native Americans, who were nearly wiped out entirely.
Again, no one is demanding "all forms of special treatment". They are demanding the same treatment you and I have gotten from the start. It SEEMS like they are demanding special treatment because they haven't had equal treatment up to this point. And equality seems like oppression to those who haven't been oppressed.
The ACTUAL definition of social justice (and not the bastardized, Pepe-flavored meme nonsense you take it to be) is:
justice in terms of the distribution of wealth, opportunities, and privileges within a society
This is EXACTLY what I am talking about. It is utterly impossible for African-Americans or Native Americans to even receive social justice, because the way wealth was accumulated and past down in this country for over a century and a half COMPLETELY left them out of the equation. Nevermind the vicious cultural stereotypes and preconceived notions that exist all over this country to this very day. You don't just wave a magic wand and have a country that was founded and gained much of it's wealth based on human bondage and have it all go away. It is at the root of everything that has been built here. Our economy, our social hierarchy, and our politics.
All of these are well-documented, discussed, and criticized by both whites and non-whites. These things just haven't popped up in this thread lately. The distinction is that while the folks who fought the Native Americans were white, and while the folks who owned the slaves were white, white people today committed neither of those things. Those crimes happened before they were even born. I don't think differently of white Americans for slavery for the same reason I don't think differently of Japan for the Rape of Nanking: because the perpetrators are dead. I know you weren't addressing me in that comment, but this is what I meant when I said: You can rightly point out that anecdotal evidence isn't convincing on its own, but @ThacoBell's life experience shouldn't be dismissed out of hand just because of the color of his skin. True enough. The anti-white stuff is mostly just unfriendly speech; the anti-black stuff goes all the way up to flat-out murder.
Most Western Civilizations rectified this by amending their own laws to add sexual orientation to the non-discrimination lists decades ago.
Canada amended their Human's Right Act back in 1996. It is actually baffling that 20 years later, the U.S. hasnt yet.
At this stage there is a lot of uncertainty about what happened. However, all are agreed that she was shot by a police officer - who is refusing to say anything about the incident. He's currently on administrative leave as a result, but I can't help thinking that this level of protection offered to the police seems too high. It's certainly true that he is still subject to the possibility of criminal charges, but if a civilian had shot someone else in similar circumstances I don't believe they would have been just allowed to go home without at least making a statement.
First, even with all the movies and TV shows I have seen over the years featuring characters who are Italian or of Italian descent I have never heard that expression before. A friend of mine from middle school through college was from an Italian family and none of his family members ever used that expression, either...but I'll take his word for it since I am not from New York.
Second, when someone is saying, in essence, that the only people who don't stink (or aren't corrupt, or whatever other negative adjective is being discussed) are themselves and one or two other people, that is the logical equivalent of saying that everyone not included in that small, select group is stinky, or corrupt, or whatever other negative adjective is being discussed. The best way to demonize everyone is to set apart a small group of select individuals who are above reproach (in their own opinion) then claim that everyone else is under suspicion.
Scaramucci's job title isn't "chief communications officer" (or whatever ridiculous job title they have given him) and it certainly isn't whatever job title they gave him over at the Export-Import Bank (the job from which he has been on paid leave since the day he started it--what? really?). His job title is "headhunter", and not in the human resources context. His axe is almost sharp and he is about to start swinging it.
No one doubts the outright innocence of Justine Diamond. The same courtesy is NEVER extended to black victims of police shootings. To many people (mostly conservatives) they are guilty by virtue of their skin color, thugs to be eliminated, whether they are 12 years old or concealing and carrying legally and doing everything by the book in a traffic stop. My absolute favorite is when conservative media will go looking for what black vicitms had in their system at the time of death, and if they find marijuana they go "see, he was high", as if smoking weed is now grounds for summary execution by the state.