|
walgreenslatino posted:she's blacklisted for supporting Bernie and for saying Al Qaeda is bad I'm not surprised Bernie allows this kind of Islamophobia to spread, typical white male
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
I kinda feel like the best way to go is to just make laws that are not specific to any group of people and apply to everyone regardless of said group whenever possible. You're not going to end racism through legislation. Making something law isn't going to change hearts and minds. Now obviously, there are some exceptions to laws about specific groups, like maternal leave. Stuff like Affirmative Action I'm a little unsure about. Yes, it's good to get people from historically disadvantaged groups into better positions. And the people hiring them might very well discriminate against them. But, by making it law, you give particular groups preferential treatment and that will often cause resentment when someone else who worked just as hard didn't get the job. Is Affirmative Action helping fight racism, or is it making racism worse? I don't know. I fully believe in equality and that all Americans should have equal rights. But, when you try to force equality by gunpoint, is it really equality at all?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:15
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I kinda feel like the best way to go is to just make laws that are not specific to any group of people and apply to everyone regardless of said group whenever possible. You're not going to end racism through legislation. Making something law isn't going to change hearts and minds. I'm a firm believer in equality of opportunity but not equality of outcome.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:I think IDPol will still be well ingrained in the constituency and media, regardless of the message that the party puts out. The lunatics are running the asylum from that perspective. I think most policy-makers realize how self-defeating it was last election cycle and how the far-right co-opting it basically offset any gains it allowed. We're going to get a mostly economical fight in 2020, I think.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:17
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:But, by making it law, you give particular groups preferential treatment and that will often cause resentment when someone else who worked just as hard didn't get the job. As in the application process? It's not like they take a white guys job to give to a minority
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:21
|
|
|
Blue Train posted:As in the application process? It's not like they take a white guys job to give to a minority But there are jobs and schools that will give preferential treatment in the admissions/hiring process to a student/applicant based very much on race before other qualities. If you think that schools or certain employers (the government for example) don't have quotas, that's just naive.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Blue Train posted:As in the application process? It's not like they take a white guys job to give to a minority It's theoretically possible that a more qualified person doesn't get the job because a company has a quota to fill. This is hard to quantify with proof, though.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:33
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:But there are jobs and schools that will give preferential treatment in the admissions/hiring process to a student/applicant based very much on race before other qualities. If you think that schools or certain employers (the government for example) don't have quotas, that's just naive. Of course they have quotas that's kind of the point but if it's two people who are equally qualified I have no problem with preferring minority applicants because I have personally seen people throw resumes out because the name on it was "too ethnic" (incidentally, small business owners are poo poo)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:It's theoretically possible that a more qualified person doesn't get the job because a company has a quota to fill. I would guess this happens extremely infrequently but I would agree that would be hosed up
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Blue Train posted:As in the application process? It's not like they take a white guys job to give to a minority Isn't the H1B visas controversy actually exactly that though?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
Creamed Cormp posted:Isn't the H1B visas controversy actually exactly that though? H1B is companies offering poo poo salaries and benefits with ridiculous requirements then saying they can find no qualified applicants so they need to import someone and has nothing to do with affirmative action
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:41
|
|
|
Blue Train posted:I would guess this happens extremely infrequently but I would agree that would be hosed up I mean, I've actually seen it happen but that's anecdotally. There's no real scientific study backing it up is what I mean, at least to my knowledge. Not saying that the person who was hired was a bad fit for the position, but I knew one of the applicants who didn't get the job and they told her she was overqualified and they couldn't pay her what she deserved, when she was more than willing to accept the base starting rate. Was that inherent bias due to a quota? No idea.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Blue Train posted:Of course they have quotas that's kind of the point but if it's two people who are equally qualified I have no problem with preferring minority applicants because I have personally seen people throw resumes out because the name on it was "too ethnic" (incidentally, small business owners are poo poo) The problem is that two equally-qualified people never happens. No one has the same resume or life experience as another, and I'm a manager who hires people, so I speak from experience. Sure this is common when they send the two resumes that are identical to a company and the one applicant is Patrick O'Flanahan, and the other is Dontrell Ferguson and the white guy gets picked more often; and that's wrong, but I've never had candidates for a position that were so close that it was decided on race OR sex.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:44
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I mean, I've actually seen it happen but that's anecdotally. There's no real scientific study backing it up is what I mean, at least to my knowledge. One example: I know people who have pretty high positions in the Social Security Administration and run the offices in certain regions and they have point-blank told me, and I've seen, that they will promote and hire based on race. They have complained about having to promote one candidate over another (and I know these candidates), because there needs to be a certain number of minority managers/employees, and I can attest that there were people who would have performed the job better and applied, but were turned down, and race was the factor (though the manager can't officially say it). The problem is that everyone will say "that's anecdotal," but it most certainly happens, and saying that things like this are anecdotal is basically equating it to an urban myth.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
Count Freebasie posted:I've never had candidates for a position that were so close that it was decided on race OR sex. The issue is that most people are going to have an unconscious bias, I think most people aren't so racist or sexist that they purposely factor in the race or sex of the applicant. But also of course you are right that no two people are going to have the exact same qualifications but there can be similar work experience and schooling etc VikingSkull posted:I mean, I've actually seen it happen but that's anecdotally. There's no real scientific study backing it up is what I mean, at least to my knowledge. Yea I'm sure it has and does happen and it would be nice to see numbers on it but I have no idea how you'd even conduct a study with legitimate results on that subject
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 15:53
|
|
|
Blue Train posted:Yea I'm sure it has and does happen and it would be nice to see numbers on it but I have no idea how you'd even conduct a study with legitimate results on that subject you are never going to see numbers because these programs are designed to obscure that information
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:21
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I kinda feel like the best way to go is to just make laws that are not specific to any group of people and apply to everyone regardless of said group whenever possible. You're not going to end racism through legislation. Making something law isn't going to change hearts and minds. Legislated equality of outcome (instead of opportunity) is singlehandedly responsible for the rise of lovely people in the last few years. Antifa, ~~~Gender Studies~~~ and Feminism are now the very definition of the establishment. 20 years ago Racism and Misogyny were old fashioned, something you mocked grandma for at dinner. Now that you're fighting (how ironic is this:) "the man" its a cool underground counterculture with flags and symbols that young people want to be a part of. And judging by how these movements change overtime, i expect their numbers to only grow in the future. Left-leaning people in america have held this fantasy for a while that regressive types are dying off and the future is bright blue, forgetting that a new 30 year old is born every year, and that yesterdays "the pill"-popping feminist hippie is tomarrows racist grandma. The only way we get back on track is if the left drops "Erode the social and political power of privileged people" as a core tenant of the democratic party. "A rising tide lifts all boats" is a winning strategy. "We need to put a hole in the white boat" is not. Until then: 
Sebastien Lenorman fucked around with this message at 16:36 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:33
|
|
|
Sebastien Lenorman posted:
James Byrd Jr. was an African-American who was murdered by three men, of whom at least two were white supremacists, in Jasper, Texas, on June 7, 1998. Hmmmm
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:36
|
|
|
Sebastien Lenorman posted:Legislated equality of outcome (instead of opportunity) the code word for this is "equity". if someone starts talking about equity rather than equality or egalitarianism you know they are a snake
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
do you want tim kaine's story, DWS's story or the odyssey of the clintarchs
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:47
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:do you want tim kaine's story, DWS's story or the odyssey of the clintarchs someone tell me how Donna Brazile did nothing wrong and was fired for it lmao
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:51
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:I mean, look at Pepsi's most recent ad, one side of the debate got super angry and the other laughed at it and made it a meme. that ad was attempting to appeal to identity politics while simultaneously making no statements at all about any identity or politics the idpol crowd got mad because they saw the pandering for what it was. it hit too close to home
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 16:55
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:I kinda feel like the best way to go is to just make laws that are not specific to any group of people and apply to everyone regardless of said group whenever possible. You're not going to end racism through legislation. Making something law isn't going to change hearts and minds. yeah well the black panthers sure as hell were able to force equality by gunpoint 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:00
|
|
|
Sebastien Lenorman posted:Legislated equality of outcome (instead of opportunity) is singlehandedly responsible for the rise of lovely people in the last few years. An extremely good post. Also when you try to legislate outcomes based on constructs like race and gender it is inevitably going to piss off a lot of people needlessly even if it kind of works for the targeted demographic. When poor white guy living in a trailer hears about program to assist poor minority X and not him he gets pissed, and then when he says "what the gently caress" he's called racist or "well actually you are privileged" at. Them he goes and votes against his interests because gently caress YOU. If you made a program that just applies solely on economic status it is inherently more equal. Those minorities who have been poo poo on are poorer as a result and will disproportionately qualify of course but since anyone is eligible if they are poor it doesn't divide the working class against itself. lovely racism or whatever still exists but that's what those assault rifle armed black panthers are for  , whose right to bear arms is guaranteed.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
It never ceases to amaze me when giant transnational companies that shape laws worldwide pretend to care about minorities because it's "in" right now and people buy it. You may know some ignorant shitkickers that love inequality, but it's the rich and the business class that benefit the most from racism and bigotry. They don't conjure it up from nothing, but if you pay attention you'll notice they do very little to change it. Nuclearmonkee posted:When poor white guy living in a trailer hears about program to assist poor minority X and not him he gets pissed, and then when he says "what the gently caress" he's called racist or "well actually you are privileged" at. Them he goes and votes against his interests because gently caress YOU. Also this.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:29
|
|
|
walgreenslatino posted:she's blacklisted for supporting Bernie and for saying Al Qaeda is bad It was really funny when Hillarymen would say that Gabbard is bad because she voted no on some meaningless bill saying one Indian political party was bad during the Indian election, but then immediately start complaining about Russia meddling with our election
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
No war but class war.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:41
|
|
bruvs be4 luvs
|
phasmid posted:It never ceases to amaze me when giant transnational companies that shape laws worldwide pretend to care about minorities because it's "in" right now and people buy it. It's almost like the age old strategy of Divide and Conquer has evolved. There's plenty of old-fashioned racists, but that's largely socially unacceptable these days. The more popular form of bigotry in the modern era is disguised as liberal benevolence. It's "the white man's burden." The end result is that you still get poor people fighting among themselves instead of joining together, just like the Southern Strategy. But this time it has a "friendlier face."
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:53
|
|
|
Bernie sanders was eating cereal. Applejacks. His favorite. His loving wife sitting next to him, reviewing his social media presence, when Bernie noticed something amiss. Movement out of the corner of his eye. He sighed andgave three quick taps on the table. His wife's eyes widened and in a snap decision they both flipped the table towards the intruder. They grabbed the two.loaded colt .45 pistols strapped under the table. "I told you they would be coming!" she screamed. Bernie smiled knowingly and wagged his finger. He took a deep breath and fired a shot through the table. There was a loud thud. He heard moaning and crawling. He left cover and put his foot on the injured man's head. He recognized the face. "Goodbye Podesta." He fired another shot, sighed and went to get his shovel.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Gammatron 64 posted:It's almost like the age old strategy of Divide and Conquer has evolved. The Southern Strategy is exactly what came to mind, I had just forgotten the phrase. Thanks for reminding me. The frustrating part is that it's not some aspect of human nature that is immutable, it's not that people have their lot and so they should just get used to their stratum. Everything would change under the right conditions and there's really only a small fraction of people who are lined up to stop it. They come from all kinds of backgrounds, but their interests are what make them cohere. Even though I think words like "equality" and "brotherhood" etc. are nonsense jargon, there is a sentiment that the real enemy is the hand holding one down. That hand isn't a race or an individual. It is a crafted system. People made it, they can break it if they want to. Though the so-called elite claim they have to use power to protect us from threats (including ourselves) there is no reason for wholesale oppression at all - unless you're scared shitless that you might lose all your ill-gotten money and power. Race was an interesting key point in the election, because everybody was talking about it. It was something to hear black people getting called racist when they didn't support Hillary. I don't know how it works in the megalopoli like NY, but in the midwest, many black voters I talked to didn't buy Obama and they didn't give much of a poo poo what white people thought this time around either. There was kind of an unspoken thing where they knew it's all bullshit and it didn't need to be pointed out. I can picture some woke dope trying to jar them out of such thinking, because those people have all kinds of prejudice that their own self-righteousness prevents them from seeing. Enough people shouting, everyone stops listening. And the people who organized the chaos keep moving tons of money from public funds in to private accounts, unnoticed. Where's the media? By now I think most of us can agree - that's in their pocket, too.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:12
|
|
|
The fun thing about NY is a lot of the PoC's there are immigrants, and fairly conservative on some issues. Ask a Jamaican dude what he thinks about LGBT issues if you want a laugh.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:26
|
|
|
VikingSkull posted:The fun thing about NY is a lot of the PoC's there are immigrants, and fairly conservative on some issues. If you want a real laugh, you should have gone back in time to California around when Proposition 8 was passed and then inquired about whose votes were instrumental in that passage.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
ay my bredren naw gwan be a bumboy
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 19:31
|
|
|
If You're a socialist, if you pause meaningful reform to make a system you intend to destroy more equal rather than dismantling it and replacing it with a more equal system, you're playing to a bunch of liberal egomaniacs who have no intention of helping you once they get theirs. It's utterly self defeating for a leftist to work for equity in an unfair system, therefore anyone who settled for HRC can suck the fat one
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:01
|
|
|
Dismantling systems has a real bad track record. I'm an incrementalist
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Im an accellerationist
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
OXBALLS DOT COM posted:Dismantling systems has a real bad track record. I'm an incrementalist pol pot did nothing wrong
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:08
|
|
|
basic hitler posted:you're playing to a bunch of liberal egomaniacs who have no intention of helping you once they get theirs. This is more accurate than you know. Some years ago, a state legislator in NY tried to pause a gay rights bill in order to ensure that trans rights were added to it. He was excoriated from almost all sides left and right. I read an editorial that could be charitably summed up as "gays need rights now, trans rights can be worked on later". Tallgeese fucked around with this message at 20:15 on May 3, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
I used to go to a laundromat run by first generation immigrants from...somewhere in Africa. I remember overhearing the owners say that when gay marriage was ruled constitutional they burst into tears. Like, I don't know what country they came from but I was on the verge of asking if they thought it would be better to burn gay people alive.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 01:34 |
|
|
phasmid posted:I used to go to a laundromat run by first generation immigrants from...somewhere in Africa. I remember overhearing the owners say that when gay marriage was ruled constitutional they burst into tears. Like, I don't know what country they came from but I was on the verge of asking if they thought it would be better to burn gay people alive. That's bigoted
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2017 20:19
|
|