I find it so ironic hearing CNN talk about John McCain like he's some kind of Saint now. They had nothing good to say about him when he was running against Obama.
True. But given the rest of these clowns we have now, he IS a saint compared to them.
Hell, Nixon would be a saint compared to some of these.
So a black person who doesn't trust white people is just as bad as an employer who tosses resumes if the name on the resume looks "too black" them?
No, because the black person in your example isn't actually discriminating against anyone. He or she is merely suspicious of people; they're not throwing out a resume based on apparent race. Merely being suspicious of someone would qualify as racism if not discrimination. They're not equally bad because action is more impactful than thought.
I would say, "A white employer who throws out a resume for having a "black sounding" name is just as bad as a black employer who throws out a resume for having a "white sounding" name."
The former is much more common, which means the former is a larger problem for us as a society, but the individual examples are equal in magnitude.
If you've got 100 buckets of red paint and 10 buckets of white paint, you can have a lot more red paint even if the buckets are the same weight.
So a black person who doesn't trust white people is just as bad as an employer who tosses resumes if the name on the resume looks "too black" them?
No, because the black person in your example isn't actually discriminating against anyone. He or she is merely suspicious of people; they're not throwing out a resume based on apparent race. Merely being suspicious of someone would qualify as racism if not discrimination. They're not equally bad because action is more impactful than thought.
I would say, "A white employer who throws out a resume for having a "black sounding" name is just as bad as a black employer who throws out a resume for having a "white sounding" name."
The former is much more common, which means the former is a larger problem for us as a society, but the individual examples are equal in magnitude.
If you've got 100 buckets of red paint and 10 buckets of white paint, you can have a lot more red paint even if the buckets are the same weight.
Racism is a form of discrimination, so if something is racist it's also discrimination. But the thing is this happens extremely often to black people and very rarely to white people.
If there are black people discarding white people's resumes it's not a pervasive thing and a white person is still far more likely to get a callback from someone. Which is to say any such discrimination against white people is incidental whereas such discrimination against black people has been shown to be systemic and pervasive. In the US I believe any discrimination against anyone on the basis of race is supposed to be illegal but catching people at them is not always easy.
These are thus not equal in magnitude because If a white person sends out a hundred resumes and ten of them prompt no callbacks because they're white and a black person sends out a hundred resumes and 100 of them prompt no callbacks, the situation is actually much worse for the black person. Each individual instance would ideally* be treated equally under the law if found out, but overall this means it is much harder for the black job seeker to get a job than it is for the white job seeker. Numbers chosen because of buckets of paint.
If anyone has the impression that I'm advocating for legal discrimination against anyone because of the color of their skin, then they are in fact deeply mistaken. What I am saying is that racism is a system that is in place for the benefit of white people. There is no such system deployed against white people.
Also, I forgot to quote it: There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" and even phrasing it as such is kinda racist. It's either discrimination or it's not and yes white people can be discriminated against for being white. It's just not racism as it has been constituted since people began writing and talking about it in the late 19th century.
Not sure why anyone wants to be a target of racism, though. There are far better things to want.
* The legal system is not designed to benefit people who seek legal redress from corporations. It is designed to do the exact opposite.
I've heard those studies before, and the findings are just so disturbing. Getting a job is dicey and random enough as it is. How many qualified black applicants have missed out on life-changing opportunities due to some random bias? How many promising careers have been set back years because of a name?
The interesting thing is that even black recruiters exhibit the same biases; a black employer is also more likely to reject an application with a "black-sounding" name on it, just like a white one. Those prejudices can infect anyone.
Resumes really should be viewed with the name hidden before an interview is granted. Honestly, that should be a law. It's not like knowing someone's name gives you any reliable data about who they are as a worker, and no one benefits when there's a bias in hiring. It's not just American workers that suffer from this; a company also doesn't profit when it misses out on a valuable employee. It would be better for businesses as well as for workers.
Anyway, racism is prejudice + power, and skin color is a metric used to claim that some people are lesser than others. The United States was founded on white supremacy (the 3/5ths compromise, protections for slave owners, slave owners writing the Constitution) and when the post-Civil War Reconstruction began many white men donned sheets and started murdering black people to disrupt said reconstruction and insure another century of Jim Crow BS until the civil rights movement started making headway.<...>.
And now, is US an racist country? My guess is that only whites and asians suffers from INSTITUTIONALIZED racism, like affirmative action programs
Discrimination against white people might not be relevant in a country with a white majority but it could be a major problem in a country with a white minority. This is precisely why there should be no differentiation between races when discrimination is investigated. It doesn't matter 'who' is discriminated against!
Exactly
my mother was raised in a state where whites are so rare that she was the unique white on her classroom.
And she received a lot of racial slurs, like "leite azedo"(sour milk) because she was the unique white girl on her classroom. She only din't suffered more harsh bully like physical aggression because my uncle was very tall for Brazilian standards(in Netherlands, he will be considered average). An older friend of my mother din't had the same lucky, one time an woman with envy of her light brown straight hair, destroyed her hair cutting her hair and "assaulted" her, he got beaten many times during the school. Lucky, my family moved to South, where is different, i live in a city where 70% identify as white but the real whites(someone that can pass as a native in a European country) are probably around 40%. Here i never suffered racial slurs, the worst thing that happened racially motivated was some people said that i need to "tan" because i an "too white". Nver suffered what my mother suffered, but i had some hard time thanks to the lefitism and afrocentrism. My cousin will not study medicine due affirmative action programs. I only entered college 6 months later due affirmative action programs.
When dealing The media in particular is extremely dishonest. For eg, on the news below
Is not uncommon from people on other countries to adopt children here and an black person would feel like an stranger if adopted by blonde Danish parents.
That brown parents prefer adopt brown children too
That they prefer adopt girls than boys (why have an gender preference is different than an racial one?)
My cousin will not study medicine due affirmative action programs. I only entered college 6 months later due affirmative action programs.
How do you know that either of these were due to affirmative action programs? Isn't it possible that your applications were rejected on their own merits?
My cousin will not study medicine due affirmative action programs. I only entered college 6 months later due affirmative action programs.
How do you know that either of these were due to affirmative action programs? Isn't it possible that your applications were rejected on their own merits?
Here the process of "application" is different than on US. You do an yearly or some times an test available each 6 months and those with higher score occupy the "slots", if my cousin was black, with her score, she should be able to join in an good university without paying an single cent.
In some states, the difference in the "cutting score"(if there are 50 slots, the 50th highest score is the cutting score, those above cutting score join, those bellow are in a waiting list if someone changes his mind) between people eligible for affirmative action and people ineligible are extremely high. Mainly in states where few people identify as an minority since Politicians had the "amazing" idea of reserving the same amount of slots, on an continental country ignoring the regional differences.
And now, is US an racist country? My guess is that only whites and asians suffers from INSTITUTIONALIZED racism, like affirmative action programs
Guess again.
Where is he wrong? I can't point to any law that discriminates against anyone on the basis of race, other than the one in question, and only against the aforementioned groups. I'm guessing again, but I feel like there should be an example that exists.
This stuff will probably be ruled on by the Supreme Court soon, anyway, and almost certainly so if Trump gets a second term imo. There's already a lawsuit against Harvard due to this alleging discrimination against asians, which is almost certainly true. They have the highest test scores, apply at the highest rates, and have the lowest rates of admittance. Imagine defending that. It's so obviously and offensively wrong.
Whites are affected by this discrimination too, but the left wing of this country wouldn't lift a finger in the interests of a white person if they were on fire and the bucket of water was in their hands. So the end of this racist practice will be because it affects a different minority.
I can't point to any law that discriminates against anyone on the basis of race, other than the one in question, and only against the aforementioned groups.
What law in question? Affirmative action isn't a law. There are laws against affirmative action.
I suppose it depends on how you define "institutional" racism. The criminal justice system is an institution that dramatically penalizes blacks and Hispanics. Laws passed by Congress ostensibly only discriminate indirectly, because the Constitution bans Congress from doing so intentionally or directly. Our university system is an institution that shows preference for minority candidates in some ways, but nonetheless admits a disproportionate number of whites and Asians. Affirmative action in the U.S. isn't actually strong enough to make college admission rates equal to each race's percentage of the American population; blacks still get in less often than whites.
Of those three institutions, one of them actively penalizes nonwhites, another one actively promotes nonwhites, and another is supposed to be neutral in practice.
I find it so ironic hearing CNN talk about John McCain like he's some kind of Saint now. They had nothing good to say about him when he was running against Obama.
This isn't at all true. McCain had long been praised as a bipartisan statesman (McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform) and as a "maverick" within his own party. He was *always* widely adored by media outlets.
His freaking daughter scored television gigs based on nothing more than that fact alone, and she won it years ago. The persecution complex some folks have... It's just amazing to me.
I can't point to any law that discriminates against anyone on the basis of race, other than the one in question, and only against the aforementioned groups.
What law in question? Affirmative action isn't a law. There are laws against affirmative action.
Affirmative action is a law. It's a federally regulated program, and one based upon faulty premises, I may add. As it says, it is based on the assumption that all positions will naturally reflect the demographics of the population of the hiring pool, absent discrimination. There are plenty of reasons as to why that may not the be case. For example, Asian Americans, who succeed at higher rates then average, and thus their percentage in top positions would be higher than their percentage in the overall demographics.
Neither of those pages describes a law. One has links to three laws that are on the general topic of affirmative action, broadly defined, and I don't know which one concerns you. To be concrete, can you specify a particular law that you believe discriminates against white people on the basis of race?
If I had to guess, I would guess that some law exists somewhere in the U.S. that enshrines the specific kind of affirmative action that gets discussed most -- preferentially treating some applicants more favorably on the basis of race -- in some narrow scope. But so far I'm not even sure what we're talking about.
I can't point to any law that discriminates against anyone on the basis of race, other than the one in question, and only against the aforementioned groups.
What law in question? Affirmative action isn't a law. There are laws against affirmative action.
Affirmative action is a law. It's a federally regulated program, and one based upon faulty premises, I may add. As it says, it is based on the assumption that all positions will naturally reflect the demographics of the population of the hiring pool, absent discrimination. There are plenty of reasons as to why that may not the be case. For example, Asian Americans, who succeed at higher rates then average, and thus their percentage in top positions would be higher than their percentage in the overall demographics.
How many whites are on NBA? The NBA is not being racist against whites.
@BelleSorciere "So, is there any particularly burning reason that prejudice against white people needs to be considered equal to the many ways violence, discrimination, imprisonment, genocide, enslavement, murder, disenfranchisement, and more have been done to people of color?"
That's easy. Racism of any kind is bad and should be treated with zero tolerance, regardless of the target. To suggest anything else is to encourage racism against "more acceptable" targets.
So a black person who doesn't trust white people is just as bad as an employer who tosses resumes if the name on the resume looks "too black" them? Even though said black person may have had numerous, probably hundreds or even thousands of experiences of racism against him and people like him over his lifetime and may simply be tired of dealing with racist white people? And the employer's negativity toward black people is likely constructed entirely from stereotypes and negative bias?
What I described isn't a new definition of racism. That was always the definition of racism but many white people decided that "reverse racism" was a thing that happened to them if a person of color got a promotion they wanted or got hired over them or whatever. What racism is has been a topic of black scholarship for over a century. Try reading someone like W.E.B. DuBois, or look up Sojourner Truth,
And there's only one kind of racism and it's never done to white people. It's just plain old prejudice in that case. And often, when you think a person of color is being racist to white people it's because they're sick of the racism they get from white people. Why do you need a word coined to describe the mistreatment of people of color in countries predominantly populated or colonized by Europeans to describe the times a latino might have been rude to you? It's nonsense.
Further, we have "scientific" racism - pseudoscience about skull shapes (phrenology) being one glaring example, but "The Bell Curve" is also an example of this. Or the modern "human biodiversity (HBD)" movement.
There is no point at which any kind of bias against white people can be remotely considered to be "equally bad, regardless of target." Unless of course Aamer in the video in my previous post can get that time machine.
@BelleSorciere, as far as the wider world is concerned, I think yours is a niche definition of racism - though I agree it is somewhat more accepted in the US. Here are the first 3 dictionary definitions of racism I get from Googling.
Merriam-Webster
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Oxford
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Cambridge
The belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races
None of those definitions are consistent with the idea racism can only exist where there's a power imbalance. I have a bit more sympathy with @jjstraka34's view that we should use the term institutional racism to describe this situation, but I still think this would be much better tackled by looking at the impact on the individual. That's partly because individual disadvantage may not just relate to current prejudice, but the legacy of past prejudice. Even if we were in a situation where there was no intent to discriminate against blacks in the US today, most of them would still face more hurdles to success - as a result of not having had the opportunities to build up the same financial, social and educational capital in the past. However, the same argument can be made about some white people (and I think should be if the aim is to promote equality of treatment).
If you're not focusing specifically on the US situation then it's not difficult to see examples of racism elsewhere in the world. For instance I've recently been following stories from Kenya about violence triggered by elections. That's been an increasing problem for a number of years as a result of political parties taking on more tribal allegiances over time - exacerbating racial tensions. I expect you're aware of the genocide in Rwanda in the early 1990s, but there are plenty more examples of less horrific racism in Africa.
Racism can be found everywhere in the world. We've discussed before current racist attitudes in Japan for example, though I think things are better there than in the past where Koreans were often treated as sub-human. I've also mentioned previously the attacks on the Rohingya in Myanmar and we've had some discussion of the treatment of Palestinians in Israel. There are examples of racism pretty much anywhere you look.
The point is that racism was never and is not now just a 'white on black' issue and using an argument that concentrates on that may help conceal more than reveal wider racial problems. I do understand the argument that you can define the same action as racism where there's a power imbalance one way, but prejudice where it's the other. However, as I said before I think it's unhelpful to allow actions to be portrayed differently - if our aim is to encourage fairness we should not start by accepting an imbalance in the way we describe racism. Rather than helping to highlight racism, this may just provide some people with a way to excuse their racist behavior.
The point is that racism was never and is not now just a 'white on black' issue and using an argument that concentrates on that may help conceal more than reveal wider racial problems. I do understand the argument that you can define the same action as racism where there's a power imbalance one way, but prejudice where it's the other. However, as I said before I think it's unhelpful to allow actions to be portrayed differently - if our aim is to encourage fairness we should not start by accepting an imbalance in the way we describe racism. Rather than helping to highlight racism, this may just provide some people with a way to excuse their racist behavior.
This is good and I can pretty much agree with it all. The only clarification that I'd add is that the context of history is always important. In the US context at least, I think it's true that there's still a lingering institutional racism that, on average, tends to produce worse outcomes for black people than white people.
We can see this in law enforcement of drug possession for one example. And even if you believe that not a lot of people in the US hold racist views in their head, I still think you have to acknowledge the inertial forces of racism's past. Which wasn't that long ago! Segregated schools was only about a generation and a half ago -- some of the first integrated kids are still alive and not even that old.
I think having parents and grandparents who, on average, had better opportunities for education and professional work undeniably has produced disparate outcomes. Not to mention the wealth of stuff written recently about the lack of good housing opportunities for black families, a practice that continued well beyond legal segregation.
So I think when people talk about public policy and the issue of racism, I'm sorry, but any kind of anti-white animus that might exist today just doesn't strike me as a serious impediment.
But yeah, I'll for sure agree that behaviors need to be marked as racist, regardless of who is involved. It's silly to define the term in any other way. As you said, it would lose meaning in a global context, or in a context where whites are absent. And this is very much how hate crime laws are enforced in states that have them, you can commit hate crimes against whites.
Very soon if not IMMEDIATELY after a group of people have been subjugated for decades if not centuries attain nominal equal rights, you will start hearing about how "unfair" it is if anything is done to remedy the problem. Which is simply code for "what are you complaining about?? I mean, we let you do everything now, like vote and eat at the same restaurants as us and look at white women on the street without getting lynched. You should be grateful we don't go back to the way it used to be." There is ALWAYS the assumption in American culture that if any minority complains about anything, they are being "ungrateful" which carries the implicit historical context of "hey, we could make it alot worse for you if we wanted." If you don't believe me check out the reaction to every African-American athlete who has ever spoken up about anything. Also, I know those mentioning it mean well, but the housing discrimination in this country going back well over a century is best described as mass theft and fraud of epic proportions that robbedany chance at generational wealth. It was a fundamental part of the piece on reparations I posted, and if anyone CARES to dive deeper, they read "The Warmth of Other Suns" about the Great Migration, where southern blacks fled the south to have any hope for their children and found things just as insidious in their new homes up North.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's been mentioned many times that the #1 factor for how successful someone will be is how much money their parents had. Where is most of that wealth tied up?? Their homes. I'd say affirmative action is the most weak-sauce alternative imaginable to having essentially NO way to build generational wealth for over 75% of the history of the country.
Very soon if not IMMEDIATELY after a group of people have been subjugated for decades if not centuries attain nominal equal rights, you will start hearing about how "unfair" it is if anything is done to remedy the problem. <...>
Are you talking about who?
Japanese descendants who got send into concentration caps by FDR administration
Polish descendants who got sold to USSR by FDR after FDR promised independence to then
Jews who fled an genocide and come to US with almost nothing but reached higher income than the average Us citizen in two generations
Eastern Europeans who suffered the biggest genocide in human history and the revolution received a lot of capital from US
Citizens of countries which US destabilized to maintain the FED interests
My mother has an cousin who is US citizen(naturalized), she has two daughters, one blonde, one with light brown hair, both with fair eyes and ... Both could use affirmative action programs on US, i can trace my mother family "lineage" to an Baron 5 generations ago, before the republican coup, and yes, white woman, descendant of an aristocrat can play the victim card just by her mother birthplace. Hell, even Otto Adolf Eichmann descendants(the organizer of the holocaust who fled to Argentina and got executed decades later on Jerusalem) would be eligible to this broken as hell program, but the actual victims of A. Eichmann would be ineligible.
The government needs to be color blind, maybe affirmative action to help the poor. But even affirmative action to help the poor would result in problems, like someone being poor in a city but rich on another.
Comparing other groups to African Americans is just a failure to understand US History. Jews, Poles, and Eastern Europeans were not parts of a visible minority that was being actively oppressed, both with literal laws, private discrimination, and selective enforcement of the law. We have literal audio tape of two US presidents calling black people monkeys. One of them was president as late as 1988!
It's simply false to make these comparisons and it speaks to either a selective or simply incomplete understanding of US history.
Not making an argument for reparations here, but it is important to add that interred Japanese Americans did receive reparations. So if you want to cite them as an example of an oppressed minority rising up... well, you ought to own all the logical consequences of that.
Not making an argument for reparations here, but it is important to add that interred Japanese Americans did receive reparations. So if you want to cite them as an example of an oppressed minority rising up... well, you ought to own all the logical consequences of that.
Yes, you are right. Anyway, there are a difference. You can see EXACTLY who got into this camps and repair the person/descendants. With race, the unique way to it not being exploited is if you create an racial tribunal... And canan 1/4 or 1/8 black person use it? Not going to extreme cases that i mentioned.
Not making an argument for reparations here, but it is important to add that interred Japanese Americans did receive reparations. So if you want to cite them as an example of an oppressed minority rising up... well, you ought to own all the logical consequences of that.
Yes, you are right. Anyway, there are a difference. You can see EXACTLY who got into this camps and repair the person/descendants. With race, the unique way to it not being exploited is if you create an racial tribunal... And canan 1/4 or 1/8 black person use it? Not going to extreme cases that i mentioned.
Yes, reparations for black people, if done, would have to be done differently than it was for interned Japanese. No serious advocate has said otherwise.
Trump wants to host the next G7 meeting at his own hotel.
This is very unconstitutional. Trump should take his duty to protect and defend the Constitution a little more seriously than he does.
The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that prohibits federal officeholders from receiving gifts, payments, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. This should make it clear why hosting the event at his own goddamned hotel is totally unconstitutional.
Also he wants to get Russia added to G7 (srsly). If only he worked as hard for America as he works for Russia - and supposedly there's no direct collusion yet he really really loves doing Putin's bidding against America for some reason. Maybe the compromat that Putin has on Trump will leak in the future.
Trump wants to host the next G7 meeting at his own hotel.
This is very unconstitutional. Trump should take his duty to protect and defend the Constitution a little more seriously than he does.
The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that prohibits federal officeholders from receiving gifts, payments, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. This should make it clear why hosting the event at his own goddamned hotel is totally unconstitutional.
Also he wants to get Russia added to G7 (srsly). If only he worked as hard for America as he works for Russia - and supposedly there's no direct collusion yet he really really loves doing Putin's bidding against America for some reason. Maybe the compromat that Putin has on Trump will leak in the future.
He did say he wouldn't make any money on hosting the G7. If he wants to host it at his resort for free, I don't see that as a big deal. He'd better foot the bill himself though...
As far as Russia goes, keeping them out of the G7(8) is not going to get them to give back the Crimea. Nothing we do is. Bringing them to the table might not be all bad. We need to negotiate with them eventually.
Trump wants to host the next G7 meeting at his own hotel.
This is very unconstitutional. Trump should take his duty to protect and defend the Constitution a little more seriously than he does.
The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that prohibits federal officeholders from receiving gifts, payments, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. This should make it clear why hosting the event at his own goddamned hotel is totally unconstitutional.
Also he wants to get Russia added to G7 (srsly). If only he worked as hard for America as he works for Russia - and supposedly there's no direct collusion yet he really really loves doing Putin's bidding against America for some reason. Maybe the compromat that Putin has on Trump will leak in the future.
He did say he wouldn't make any money on hosting the G7. If he wants to host it at his resort for free, I don't see that as a big deal. He'd better foot the bill himself though...
As far as Russia goes, keeping them out of the G7(8) is not going to get them to give back the Crimea. Nothing we do is. Bringing them to the table might not be all bad. We need to negotiate with them eventually.
There is zero chance he will host it without pocketing money. Zero. If he says something, you can safely assume the opposite is true 90% of the time.
Trump wants to host the next G7 meeting at his own hotel.
This is very unconstitutional. Trump should take his duty to protect and defend the Constitution a little more seriously than he does.
The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that prohibits federal officeholders from receiving gifts, payments, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. This should make it clear why hosting the event at his own goddamned hotel is totally unconstitutional.
Also he wants to get Russia added to G7 (srsly). If only he worked as hard for America as he works for Russia - and supposedly there's no direct collusion yet he really really loves doing Putin's bidding against America for some reason. Maybe the compromat that Putin has on Trump will leak in the future.
Well, Russia used to be in what was the G8 until they invaded the Crimea.
He did say he wouldn't make any money on hosting the G7. If he wants to host it at his resort for free, I don't see that as a big deal. He'd better foot the bill himself though...
Trump wants to host the next G7 meeting at his own hotel.
This is very unconstitutional. Trump should take his duty to protect and defend the Constitution a little more seriously than he does.
The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that prohibits federal officeholders from receiving gifts, payments, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. This should make it clear why hosting the event at his own goddamned hotel is totally unconstitutional.
Also he wants to get Russia added to G7 (srsly). If only he worked as hard for America as he works for Russia - and supposedly there's no direct collusion yet he really really loves doing Putin's bidding against America for some reason. Maybe the compromat that Putin has on Trump will leak in the future.
He did say he wouldn't make any money on hosting the G7. If he wants to host it at his resort for free, I don't see that as a big deal. He'd better foot the bill himself though...
As far as Russia goes, keeping them out of the G7(8) is not going to get them to give back the Crimea. Nothing we do is. Bringing them to the table might not be all bad. We need to negotiate with them eventually.
There is zero chance he will host it without pocketing money. Zero. If he says something, you can safely assume the opposite is true 90% of the time.
I agree. I will happily make a bet with anyone who believes otherwise. My expectation, based on the changes in his statements on many issues while in office, would be that Trump would maintain positions something like the following:
- ahead of the meeting he would say that he wasn't charging.
- faced with evidence (such as invoices and bank statements) that he was in fact charging, he would probably pivot to a position that he was only recovering costs.
- faced with evidence against that (such as a demonstration that he was charging participants in the conference more than other customers), he would refer to additional costs (like security).
- if anyone is able to demonstrate that was untrue (such as additional bills being charged to the government for security costs), Trump would blame clerical error.
- the final stage if it was clear this was intentional (like memos between staff) would be to say that it doesn't matter anyway as it was every American's god-given right to make a profit on their business and the constitution was misleading/irrelevant/wrongly interpreted on this issue. If a case to test that ever came to SCOTUS I think there's a decent chance they would back him up on that one.
Incidentally, we've discussed the US governance arrangements for the use of nuclear weapons before - the President has considerably more direct power over those than over conventional weapons. Is anyone the tiniest bit worried about the prospect that Trump really might try and nuke a hurricane or two to see what happens?
Incidentally, we've discussed the US governance arrangements for the use of nuclear weapons before - the President has considerably more direct power over those than over conventional weapons. Is anyone the tiniest bit worried about the prospect that Trump really might try and nuke a hurricane or two to see what happens?
If he was to give this order, whoever does push the switch would probably ignore it.
Incidentally, we've discussed the US governance arrangements for the use of nuclear weapons before - the President has considerably more direct power over those than over conventional weapons. Is anyone the tiniest bit worried about the prospect that Trump really might try and nuke a hurricane or two to see what happens?
If he was to give this order, whoever does push the switch would probably ignore it.
I agree that's a likely outcome, but the idea of a power battle over who controls nuclear codes is not exactly a comforting one anyway.
To broaden this issue out, it's clear over and over again that Trump has a poor understanding of reality. That can be a valuable trait - some of you have probably experienced brainstorming sessions where apparently ludicrous ideas have eventually led to something worthwhile. However, it's a valuable trait where someone is contributing ideas. Where that person is potentially controlling outcomes it becomes dangerous.
While I don't think it's likely that Trump will get to use nukes as a toy, he is implementing other dangerous policies based on lack of understanding of physical realities. Climate change would be a good example, but I'm sure some of you are tired of me harping on about that ...
Comments
True. But given the rest of these clowns we have now, he IS a saint compared to them.
Hell, Nixon would be a saint compared to some of these.
I would say, "A white employer who throws out a resume for having a "black sounding" name is just as bad as a black employer who throws out a resume for having a "white sounding" name."
The former is much more common, which means the former is a larger problem for us as a society, but the individual examples are equal in magnitude.
If you've got 100 buckets of red paint and 10 buckets of white paint, you can have a lot more red paint even if the buckets are the same weight.
Racism is a form of discrimination, so if something is racist it's also discrimination. But the thing is this happens extremely often to black people and very rarely to white people.
https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/
If there are black people discarding white people's resumes it's not a pervasive thing and a white person is still far more likely to get a callback from someone. Which is to say any such discrimination against white people is incidental whereas such discrimination against black people has been shown to be systemic and pervasive. In the US I believe any discrimination against anyone on the basis of race is supposed to be illegal but catching people at them is not always easy.
These are thus not equal in magnitude because If a white person sends out a hundred resumes and ten of them prompt no callbacks because they're white and a black person sends out a hundred resumes and 100 of them prompt no callbacks, the situation is actually much worse for the black person. Each individual instance would ideally* be treated equally under the law if found out, but overall this means it is much harder for the black job seeker to get a job than it is for the white job seeker. Numbers chosen because of buckets of paint.
If anyone has the impression that I'm advocating for legal discrimination against anyone because of the color of their skin, then they are in fact deeply mistaken. What I am saying is that racism is a system that is in place for the benefit of white people. There is no such system deployed against white people.
Also, I forgot to quote it: There is no such thing as "reverse discrimination" and even phrasing it as such is kinda racist. It's either discrimination or it's not and yes white people can be discriminated against for being white. It's just not racism as it has been constituted since people began writing and talking about it in the late 19th century.
Not sure why anyone wants to be a target of racism, though. There are far better things to want.
* The legal system is not designed to benefit people who seek legal redress from corporations. It is designed to do the exact opposite.
The interesting thing is that even black recruiters exhibit the same biases; a black employer is also more likely to reject an application with a "black-sounding" name on it, just like a white one. Those prejudices can infect anyone.
Resumes really should be viewed with the name hidden before an interview is granted. Honestly, that should be a law. It's not like knowing someone's name gives you any reliable data about who they are as a worker, and no one benefits when there's a bias in hiring. It's not just American workers that suffer from this; a company also doesn't profit when it misses out on a valuable employee. It would be better for businesses as well as for workers.
And now, is US an racist country? My guess is that only whites and asians suffers from INSTITUTIONALIZED racism, like affirmative action programs
Exactly
my mother was raised in a state where whites are so rare that she was the unique white on her classroom.
And she received a lot of racial slurs, like "leite azedo"(sour milk) because she was the unique white girl on her classroom. She only din't suffered more harsh bully like physical aggression because my uncle was very tall for Brazilian standards(in Netherlands, he will be considered average). An older friend of my mother din't had the same lucky, one time an woman with envy of her light brown straight hair, destroyed her hair cutting her hair and "assaulted" her, he got beaten many times during the school. Lucky, my family moved to South, where is different, i live in a city where 70% identify as white but the real whites(someone that can pass as a native in a European country) are probably around 40%. Here i never suffered racial slurs, the worst thing that happened racially motivated was some people said that i need to "tan" because i an "too white". Nver suffered what my mother suffered, but i had some hard time thanks to the lefitism and afrocentrism. My cousin will not study medicine due affirmative action programs. I only entered college 6 months later due affirmative action programs.
When dealing The media in particular is extremely dishonest. For eg, on the news below
Preference for white and blonde children hampers adoption. Only 8.4% of Alagoas children in the adoption queue are of this profile.
They just ignored that >
Guess again.
How do you know that either of these were due to affirmative action programs? Isn't it possible that your applications were rejected on their own merits?
Here the process of "application" is different than on US. You do an yearly or some times an test available each 6 months and those with higher score occupy the "slots", if my cousin was black, with her score, she should be able to join in an good university without paying an single cent.
In some states, the difference in the "cutting score"(if there are 50 slots, the 50th highest score is the cutting score, those above cutting score join, those bellow are in a waiting list if someone changes his mind) between people eligible for affirmative action and people ineligible are extremely high. Mainly in states where few people identify as an minority since Politicians had the "amazing" idea of reserving the same amount of slots, on an continental country ignoring the regional differences.
Where is he wrong? I can't point to any law that discriminates against anyone on the basis of race, other than the one in question, and only against the aforementioned groups. I'm guessing again, but I feel like there should be an example that exists.
This stuff will probably be ruled on by the Supreme Court soon, anyway, and almost certainly so if Trump gets a second term imo. There's already a lawsuit against Harvard due to this alleging discrimination against asians, which is almost certainly true. They have the highest test scores, apply at the highest rates, and have the lowest rates of admittance. Imagine defending that. It's so obviously and offensively wrong.
https://nces.ed.gov/pubs2017/2017051.pdf
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2018/10/19/acceptance-rates-by-race/
Whites are affected by this discrimination too, but the left wing of this country wouldn't lift a finger in the interests of a white person if they were on fire and the bucket of water was in their hands. So the end of this racist practice will be because it affects a different minority.
What law in question? Affirmative action isn't a law. There are laws against affirmative action.
Of those three institutions, one of them actively penalizes nonwhites, another one actively promotes nonwhites, and another is supposed to be neutral in practice.
This isn't at all true. McCain had long been praised as a bipartisan statesman (McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform) and as a "maverick" within his own party. He was *always* widely adored by media outlets.
His freaking daughter scored television gigs based on nothing more than that fact alone, and she won it years ago. The persecution complex some folks have... It's just amazing to me.
Affirmative action is a law. It's a federally regulated program, and one based upon faulty premises, I may add. As it says, it is based on the assumption that all positions will naturally reflect the demographics of the population of the hiring pool, absent discrimination. There are plenty of reasons as to why that may not the be case. For example, Asian Americans, who succeed at higher rates then average, and thus their percentage in top positions would be higher than their percentage in the overall demographics.
https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/hiring/affirmativeact
https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=3b71cb5b215c393fe910604d33c9fed1&rgn=div5&view=text&node=41:1.2.3.1.2&idno=41
If I had to guess, I would guess that some law exists somewhere in the U.S. that enshrines the specific kind of affirmative action that gets discussed most -- preferentially treating some applicants more favorably on the basis of race -- in some narrow scope. But so far I'm not even sure what we're talking about.
How many whites are on NBA? The NBA is not being racist against whites.
Walter Willians has an interesting point about how to erase the effects of slavery. At 1:20 >
@BelleSorciere, as far as the wider world is concerned, I think yours is a niche definition of racism - though I agree it is somewhat more accepted in the US. Here are the first 3 dictionary definitions of racism I get from Googling.
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
2a : a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b : a political or social system founded on racism
3 : racial prejudice or discrimination
Oxford
Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.
Cambridge
The belief that people's qualities are influenced by their race and that the members of other races are not as good as the members of your own, or the resulting unfair treatment of members of other races
None of those definitions are consistent with the idea racism can only exist where there's a power imbalance. I have a bit more sympathy with @jjstraka34's view that we should use the term institutional racism to describe this situation, but I still think this would be much better tackled by looking at the impact on the individual. That's partly because individual disadvantage may not just relate to current prejudice, but the legacy of past prejudice. Even if we were in a situation where there was no intent to discriminate against blacks in the US today, most of them would still face more hurdles to success - as a result of not having had the opportunities to build up the same financial, social and educational capital in the past. However, the same argument can be made about some white people (and I think should be if the aim is to promote equality of treatment).
If you're not focusing specifically on the US situation then it's not difficult to see examples of racism elsewhere in the world. For instance I've recently been following stories from Kenya about violence triggered by elections. That's been an increasing problem for a number of years as a result of political parties taking on more tribal allegiances over time - exacerbating racial tensions. I expect you're aware of the genocide in Rwanda in the early 1990s, but there are plenty more examples of less horrific racism in Africa.
Racism can be found everywhere in the world. We've discussed before current racist attitudes in Japan for example, though I think things are better there than in the past where Koreans were often treated as sub-human. I've also mentioned previously the attacks on the Rohingya in Myanmar and we've had some discussion of the treatment of Palestinians in Israel. There are examples of racism pretty much anywhere you look.
The point is that racism was never and is not now just a 'white on black' issue and using an argument that concentrates on that may help conceal more than reveal wider racial problems. I do understand the argument that you can define the same action as racism where there's a power imbalance one way, but prejudice where it's the other. However, as I said before I think it's unhelpful to allow actions to be portrayed differently - if our aim is to encourage fairness we should not start by accepting an imbalance in the way we describe racism. Rather than helping to highlight racism, this may just provide some people with a way to excuse their racist behavior.
This is good and I can pretty much agree with it all. The only clarification that I'd add is that the context of history is always important. In the US context at least, I think it's true that there's still a lingering institutional racism that, on average, tends to produce worse outcomes for black people than white people.
We can see this in law enforcement of drug possession for one example. And even if you believe that not a lot of people in the US hold racist views in their head, I still think you have to acknowledge the inertial forces of racism's past. Which wasn't that long ago! Segregated schools was only about a generation and a half ago -- some of the first integrated kids are still alive and not even that old.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Bridges
I think having parents and grandparents who, on average, had better opportunities for education and professional work undeniably has produced disparate outcomes. Not to mention the wealth of stuff written recently about the lack of good housing opportunities for black families, a practice that continued well beyond legal segregation.
So I think when people talk about public policy and the issue of racism, I'm sorry, but any kind of anti-white animus that might exist today just doesn't strike me as a serious impediment.
But yeah, I'll for sure agree that behaviors need to be marked as racist, regardless of who is involved. It's silly to define the term in any other way. As you said, it would lose meaning in a global context, or in a context where whites are absent. And this is very much how hate crime laws are enforced in states that have them, you can commit hate crimes against whites.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe it's been mentioned many times that the #1 factor for how successful someone will be is how much money their parents had. Where is most of that wealth tied up?? Their homes. I'd say affirmative action is the most weak-sauce alternative imaginable to having essentially NO way to build generational wealth for over 75% of the history of the country.
Are you talking about who?
My mother has an cousin who is US citizen(naturalized), she has two daughters, one blonde, one with light brown hair, both with fair eyes and ... Both could use affirmative action programs on US, i can trace my mother family "lineage" to an Baron 5 generations ago, before the republican coup, and yes, white woman, descendant of an aristocrat can play the victim card just by her mother birthplace. Hell, even Otto Adolf Eichmann descendants(the organizer of the holocaust who fled to Argentina and got executed decades later on Jerusalem) would be eligible to this broken as hell program, but the actual victims of A. Eichmann would be ineligible.
The government needs to be color blind, maybe affirmative action to help the poor. But even affirmative action to help the poor would result in problems, like someone being poor in a city but rich on another.
It's simply false to make these comparisons and it speaks to either a selective or simply incomplete understanding of US history.
Yes, you are right. Anyway, there are a difference. You can see EXACTLY who got into this camps and repair the person/descendants. With race, the unique way to it not being exploited is if you create an racial tribunal... And canan 1/4 or 1/8 black person use it? Not going to extreme cases that i mentioned.
Yes, reparations for black people, if done, would have to be done differently than it was for interned Japanese. No serious advocate has said otherwise.
This is very unconstitutional. Trump should take his duty to protect and defend the Constitution a little more seriously than he does.
The emoluments clause, also called the foreign emoluments clause, is a provision of the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8) that prohibits federal officeholders from receiving gifts, payments, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives. This should make it clear why hosting the event at his own goddamned hotel is totally unconstitutional.
Also he wants to get Russia added to G7 (srsly). If only he worked as hard for America as he works for Russia - and supposedly there's no direct collusion yet he really really loves doing Putin's bidding against America for some reason. Maybe the compromat that Putin has on Trump will leak in the future.
He did say he wouldn't make any money on hosting the G7. If he wants to host it at his resort for free, I don't see that as a big deal. He'd better foot the bill himself though...
As far as Russia goes, keeping them out of the G7(8) is not going to get them to give back the Crimea. Nothing we do is. Bringing them to the table might not be all bad. We need to negotiate with them eventually.
Wanting something is not unconstitutional, only doing something can be.
There is zero chance he will host it without pocketing money. Zero. If he says something, you can safely assume the opposite is true 90% of the time.
Well, Russia used to be in what was the G8 until they invaded the Crimea.
Why do I not believe this? Hrm...
I agree. I will happily make a bet with anyone who believes otherwise. My expectation, based on the changes in his statements on many issues while in office, would be that Trump would maintain positions something like the following:
- ahead of the meeting he would say that he wasn't charging.
- faced with evidence (such as invoices and bank statements) that he was in fact charging, he would probably pivot to a position that he was only recovering costs.
- faced with evidence against that (such as a demonstration that he was charging participants in the conference more than other customers), he would refer to additional costs (like security).
- if anyone is able to demonstrate that was untrue (such as additional bills being charged to the government for security costs), Trump would blame clerical error.
- the final stage if it was clear this was intentional (like memos between staff) would be to say that it doesn't matter anyway as it was every American's god-given right to make a profit on their business and the constitution was misleading/irrelevant/wrongly interpreted on this issue. If a case to test that ever came to SCOTUS I think there's a decent chance they would back him up on that one.
Incidentally, we've discussed the US governance arrangements for the use of nuclear weapons before - the President has considerably more direct power over those than over conventional weapons. Is anyone the tiniest bit worried about the prospect that Trump really might try and nuke a hurricane or two to see what happens?
If he was to give this order, whoever does push the switch would probably ignore it.
I agree that's a likely outcome, but the idea of a power battle over who controls nuclear codes is not exactly a comforting one anyway.
To broaden this issue out, it's clear over and over again that Trump has a poor understanding of reality. That can be a valuable trait - some of you have probably experienced brainstorming sessions where apparently ludicrous ideas have eventually led to something worthwhile. However, it's a valuable trait where someone is contributing ideas. Where that person is potentially controlling outcomes it becomes dangerous.
While I don't think it's likely that Trump will get to use nukes as a toy, he is implementing other dangerous policies based on lack of understanding of physical realities. Climate change would be a good example, but I'm sure some of you are tired of me harping on about that ...