|
Robviously posted:So, yeah, the base is already riled and depending on how they do in the mid-terms, I'd say the chances aren't that terrible that we could hear more of the talk spring up. Most of what's being said by Republican rank and file about Benghazi is conclusions, not questions. They're not even asking if the administration covered something up, they're flat out saying it. So I guess Fox News and the GOP have graduated from asking loaded questions "Did the White House do nothing to stop Benghazi???!?!" to just making statements now. That's sad. I always enjoyed Fox News' little murder-mystery-esque headlines.
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 15:11
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
The Midniter posted:Even more sadly, I can see why Fox News kills CNN just from a production standpoint. CNN is so loving garbage, it is visually painful to watch. The production difference between the two (and compared to other news stations) is one of the topics I found interesting in Gabriel Sherman's recent media blitz on his recent book on Roger Ailes (Fox News president), The Loudest Voice in the Room. Roger Ailes comes from television and uses Fox News as a story-telling, drama-dispensing channel that's more about being bombastic than enlightening people and keeping them up to date on the news. The polished production folds into this view of a successful news channel and, sadly, has only encouraged other major news stations to try and keep up rather than focus on objective, data-based reporting (except C-SPAN because C-SPAN).
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
inthesto posted:Any update on projections for the Senate next year? Like, are people still expecting Republicans to take the majority? 548/Nate Silver is still projecting a 60% chance for GOP majority in the Senate after this next election cycle, last I heard. And the GOP has taken that and run with it. Apparently we're due for a new Red Wave. EDIT: And I believe that's for a simple majority, not supermajority. EDIT2: Dystram posted:The difference is that most Democrats don't hold monstrous, inhuman viewpoints. Case in point.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Cimber posted:One last thing before we go back to modern civil war. When I lived in Florida a few years back I was driving home late one night and was listening to AM radio. They had a few 'scholars' on talking about the war, and more than one person called in and referred to it as "the War of Northern Aggression." Very very weird. The Civil War was referred to as "The War of Northern Aggression" consistently by multiple high school teachers of mine in South Carolina when I was there. And this wasn't in some po-dunk nowhere part of SC, this was the rich white conservative part of Lexington County in one of the best high schools in the state (and then I went into their IB program and the term became a joke among teachers and students). EDIT: This isn't including the many colorful characters I met around SC who fervently believed that it was indeed the War of Northern Aggression.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
I was listening to C-SPAN this morning discussing the Nigerian kidnappings/Boko Haram issue there, and most callers were asking two questions: 1) "These are girls! Why haven't we intervened sooner!" Well mostly because the Nigerian government has a pretty good idea where Boko Haram is hiding but they've decided not to do anything about it because the government is corrupt. 2) "Why hasn't Western media focused more attention on this?!" Because nobody cares about Africa, CNN is still looking for flight 370 and it happened around the same time a ferry capsized near Korea. We care more about Korea than Nigeria. And what burned me the most is the media correspondent (can't remember who) was basically saying "Well I'm disappointed the media didn't pick this up sooner but at least it's picked it up now and helped drum up support along with the Twitter hashtags." Oh, great, a month after the event took place when many of the girls have been scattered to the four winds, we start focusing on it. I mean yeah better late than never but come on.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
I'd take it as an av with the words "Cruz'n for a Bruisin'" underneath.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2014 22:54
|
|
|
Can we go back to higher education talk for a sec? There was an interesting discussion on C-SPAN this morning with Charles Cook of the National Review, talking about the "fetishization of college education" in the US. Apparently he wrote/is writing an article for the NationalReview on this similar to an original he wrote here. Now getting past the issue of defending Scott Walker because he didn't go to college, I thought the actual discussion this morning was fairly interesting. At least one person that I caught called in talking about his student loans he'd be paying off until he dies and Cook just went "Sorry, I have no sympathy for you, you knew what you were paying and what you were paying for." which while callous, I agree with. Neither of my parents graduated from college. I was saturated through both my family and the media of "If you get a college education, you will make more money and be happier" with multiple correlation-equals-causation bar charts comparing lifelong earnings of high school and college grads from a time when college grads were <30-40% of the workforce. But nobody told me to be financially irresponsible. Nobody told me to go to an expensive university, or the best local university - people told me essentially "get a degree and don't bankrupt yourself." I guess I was lucky in this respect. Others were probably pushed toward particular universities and told not to worry about the paycheck. This is another reason I think personal finance classes should be mandatory in high schools and more money should be poured into getting more high school student counselors who know about the college application process, but I digress. I agree with Cook's sentiment though on the "fetishization" of higher ed, even though I wouldn't use that term. While I disagree that glorifying college education necessarily means alternative paths will be looked down upon as a result, I do think this is what has happened. I grew up in suburban South Carolina right next to the rural areas and even in my high school (good 50/50 split for rural/suburban) the suburban and middle class kids always looked down on those who were going to the technical school we had at the high school. Learning small machines or building houses was essentially "dirty" work. Now those kids are making bank and the ones looking down, half of them are in debt for liberal arts degrees they don't use. Pohl posted:As I am planning my enrollment in Graduate school for the fall, I'm also dealing with the reality that my undergrad loans are coming due soon. Holy poo poo this is a nightmare. I'm going to have to buckle down in the next few days and call the federal loan service and work out an extension so that I don't have to worry about it, or try and get income based repayment set up. I know you mentioned this in another post about moving away from a manual labor job due to age, but I still don't understand why you think a grad degree would help with this. Why not do some personal learning? Learn a trade, learn a programming language and tinker with it, learn some basic web development principles, learn some basic management skills, etc. All of this can be done for free with Internet and local library resources. You have a degree to get past the new "normal" of having at least a bachelor's, why does it make financial sense to you to go into debt for an education that is probably unnecessary? Warchicken posted:E: I'm halfway through my doctor of musical arts and pedagogy degree and will probably clear 100 grand in debt when all's said and done, but if I can have a living wage I'm fine with paying it back. As long as I can live a simple life with the bills covered while being a professional musician and educator I'm fine, I don't need to be rich or even middle class. But I have a feeling that even with three loving degrees and an extreme level of expertise that's not gonna be a possibility without working myself to death, and that's a big part of my desire to emigrate too because I really don't give a poo poo if it hurts a bank. Same thing here: Why is it that you felt a doctorate was necessary for something you probably didn't need a degree for in the first place? What does having a degree in how to teach music give you that simply being self-taught and teaching at a local studio doesn't? I'm speaking out of ignorance here in your two cases - obviously I don't know all the facts and context in your life and I'm not trying to pretend to. I just don't understand the idea of getting post-grad degrees and then coming back and complaining about student loan debt. Please don't mistake this for "victim blaming" or arguing with you - I just want to understand your thought process a little more because on the outside I just don't see the impetus for it. EDIT: And while I think having an educated, well-rounded populace is a noble goal, let's not forget that you'll likely forget much of what you learned in college some years out, especially if you get a job in an area that isn't related to your major. So you're bankrupting yourself over an education that you will likely not use (at least not use all/most of it) and which you will likely forget before you even pay off your loans. Amergin fucked around with this message at 15:30 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 15:27
|
|
|
Nessus posted:It's kind of telling that the implicit route to financial - not even success, but basic security, here - is basically 1. skilled trade you can learn about on the internet(??), 2. program a computer two different ways, and 3. management(?? because getting a management job is of course inherently portfolio-based and not networking-based). It is at the point where I feel as though someone's going to start saying "coding macht frei" and start advocating for the replacement of all higher education with Ruby on Rails boot camps. To your first point, those were just some examples I came up with off the top of my head. Learning a new language, learning an instrument to teach on the side, tutoring students on the side are all other ways to get supplemental income that isn't labor-intensive. Also with "well, if we push people to go through specific routes in college that tend to have higher chances of getting a job, we might as well become a Nazi-inspiried worker-creating bootcamp factory." That's just silly cynicism, but it did make me laugh so thanks for that.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 15:40
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Learning a new language, practicing a new instrument, and tutoring students on the side is rather labor intensive. It may not be tilling the soil but all of these tasks do not require trivial effort. Oh, don't get me wrong, I understand they do require a lot of effort. I just meant in a "physical labor that gets more difficult with age" sense. Nessus posted:As for the latter part, I don't know if it's silly cynicism because I have heard (even before the collapse) a cavalcade of "oh, ha ha, your degree that wasn't in (insert a surprisingly narrow slice of STEM fields here) is useless!" I imagine the shoe will be on the other foot once the supply of those STEM fields is sufficient. Perhaps there will be an issuance of bootstraps, then. While I don't agree with the whole STEM>all other majors and if you're a liberal arts major you should feel bad sentiment, I also can't really sympathize with those who come out with a liberal arts degree and thousands of dollars of debt, can't find a job, then complain about it. Again, it's partly misinformation/people pushing the whole "get a job you love never work a day in your life #justnaivethings" logic, I'm not necessarily blaming the student, but I really don't think they have a legitimate reason to complain to anyone but themselves.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 16:18
|
|
|
Kanos posted:You seriously don't feel any sympathy for someone trapped in what is potentially a life-long inescapable debt sandpit because they picked wrong at college when they were likely a dumb loving teenager? How easy do you think it is to predict what jobs will be necessary when you finish your four year degree? Do you just expect them to change majors halfway through(and load even more debt on) if the current "graduate with this degree and make E-Z-MONEY" trend changes? I 1) did some cursory research to see which job markets were doing well and which paid the best in terms of entry-level positions, 2) went to a college the offered to pay my full tuition after busting my rear end in high school, over many other colleges that I would have preferred, 3) worked summer internships every year while in college at local companies, and 4) switched majors from Comp Sci to Psych with 1.5 semesters left as Comp Sci wasn't teaching me anything useful and, through my internships, I already had a guaranteed entry-level position waiting for me upon graduation. This isn't to toot my own horn, I'm just saying that busting my rear end in high school and doing some research on job markets really helped me out in choosing a college route. This SHOULD have been provided for me via a high school counselor but unfortunately ours were overwhelmed and thus not very reachable or useful. Now I still took out loans to pay for living expenses, but had I lived at home I wouldn't have even needed that. I'm thousands of dollars in debt, paying it off at a steady clip and have no complaints because I understand MY decisions lead me to debt, but they also helped me secure my employment after school. Hell I could have done two years at a community college and transferred for even less debt. All I'm saying is there are options available. In many cases the cards are so stacked against you that you can't really be blamed, sure. In many other cases it's due to laziness or a lack of wanting to research other options. I'm not accusing those in this thread of either one, I just wanted to know more context.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Fair enough to advocate on looking at ways to do things now, but there's a difference between "Why not consider picking up a skill or trade for free/cheap in your free time?" Which is exactly what my original post was, "Why are you doing grad school instead of considering picking up a skill or trade to supplement your income and help pay for loan debt?" zoux posted:I just think it's kind of hosed up that we expect 18 year old kids to make rational decisions about their future straight the gently caress out of high school. I would've done college so differently if I'd have had the slightest inkling where I would end up and what my professional interests would be in my mid-thirties. But then again, I expect the vast majority of people feel the same way. I agree completely. The current resources given to 18 year olds to prepare them for making large decisions like going to college/which college is pitiful. Student loan debt needs to be fixed, I agree, but a lot of debt could be avoided if we put more effort and resources into personal finance classes in high school coupled with more and better counselors to help students (and their parents) make these decisions. And the article/C-SPAN discussion I referenced was talking about your second point: Should we keep going down this path of making post-secondary education mandatory while simultaneously implicitly (arguably explicitly) steering kids away from trades, apprenticeships and other forms of post-high school education? Because to me, the idea of "solving the student loan issue" can easily be coupled with "make college education 'free'" (Scandinavia!) which is only going to discourage people from trades more, or at the very least waste their time for four years before they consider going into a trade. Rather than absolving people of their debt, let's help future generations make better, more informed decisions and give them more choices and encourage them to explore those other choices.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Why are these things mutually exclusive? Because how are you going to tell future generations "Yeah, we absolved your parents/grandparents of their debt because of a combination of a terrible system, lack of information and their poor financial choices. YOU still have to pay for college and have the ability to get into debt, and we won't absolve you of it, but we'll help you make more informed to make better choices." How will that not lead to "Well if I get into an expensive university without the intention of paying for it, it's cool since the government will pay for it down the road anyway."? Stultus Maximus posted:Actually, 3. is only reasonable if you have a full ride scholarship or full ride parents so you don't have to work at Hardees during the summer in order to afford food during the school year. Those internships were paid, not for credit. I worked hard to help pay for college and had essentially no spending money for pretty much my entire college career.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 17:57
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:I did research into the job market, did my first two years at community college to save money, switched out of a STEM major to a more rare STEM major and went to the one of the few schools in the country that offers it, worked 40 hour weeks while still going to classes full time, took on 10's of thousands of dollars in debt, did internships, got high grades and a good paying job out of school which allows me to pay down my debt comfortably. Exactly, I agree entirely (and I know I got lucky). My point is, instead of tackling student debt as the problem, why not tackle mis-/a lack of information and guidance for students in high school as the cause of that high debt (couple with trying to get universities to cut down costs). And if we try to focus on other options (trades, apprenticeships, alternative education to college/BA degree+) then maybe the job market wouldn't have such a hardon for making a four year degree required for picking your nose.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Because mis/lack of info is not the problem. Universities aren't going to cut costs because they're trying to make money. You're not going to guide people to the "right" majors because there isn't a right major. There's just ones that that happen to be hiring 4-5 years after you went to school, which is never going to be the answer for millions of people and is notoroiously hard to predict. That is why I said you got lucky. But (and I know I'm trying to apply simplified economic theory to an issue that is way more complex), in theory if your guidance counselors understand that whichever university you go to is largely irrelevant in the job market with a small set of exceptions, they can steer you to cheaper options (or, rather, options more suited to your financial situation), thus driving up demand to the cheaper schools and reducing demand to the more expensive schools. The more expensive schools then, in theory, either reduce costs or offer more scholarships to lure more students in. The cheaper schools can, with their new influx of students, start increasing prices but then your guidance counselors are keeping up with this and can redirect future students to the other cheap schools. In effect you would be trying to highlight price as a discriminating factor to both students and parents. You could also couple this with advice on majors, such as "here's the unemployment rate for these job markets in the local area/area around the targeted college, here's what majors seem to be in the most demand, here is some information about up-and-coming jobs in the area." I think that applying personal solutions to future generations will help reverse/curb the societal problem... what societal solutions would you suggest instead?
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 19:20
|
|
|
News alert: SCOTUS Justices are biased!  EDIT: Ghost of Reagan Past posted:Education is a systemic problem, not a personal one. When 18 year old kids are told again and again that the only way to get a decent career is to go to college and take out loans to do it, the problem isn't that the kids are failing to be responsible adults, it's that everyone around them is selling them a lie. People are getting rich off selling that lie; look at the extraordinary growth of administrators and their inflated wages, and the construction companies that are always building something new on campus. Blaming them for believing it when an entire industry wants them to believe it and tying them down with undischargeable debt that will sooner or later come crashing down on the US economy is foolish. It's completely unsustainable, and literally the best thing anyone can do to stop it is massive debt forgiveness, or to make them dischageable in bankruptcy. Telling the next generation to go into trades or to not go to college isn't going to change the impending disaster. The problem isn't bad advice, it's that the whole loving thing is broken. There's basically no advice that can be given that doesn't, in the end, boil down to luck. There's no way the US education system can continue the way it has if it wants to survive. Again, if you change the system so kids aren't being fed the lie, you're changing the system. If a kid says "I want to go to school X in state Y for an art degree even though art-related unemployment is 70% there" and your counselor tells you "You're a loving moron, go to school A which is a helluva lot cheaper and in state B where the unemployment isn't nearly so high" then you're curbing that kid's debt and improving his chances of paying any debt back before the kid makes his/her decision. I keep hearing "The problem is we're being fed a lie so the system is broken" and I'm saying "So let's get kids better info and stop lying" and the response seems to be "But that's a personal solution to a systemic problem." I'm sorry, I must be missing something here because that isn't telling me anything. Amergin fucked around with this message at 19:35 on May 13, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
Zeitgueist posted:Have the government pay for college. Increase funding for education below college level. Provide jobs for people with majors that aren't directly applicable to private enterprise(research, teaching, etc). Have an economy where jobs aren't so incredibly scarce that you have millions of people chasing the same few majors. How do we pay for government-paid college? How do we pay for increased funding for education pre-college? And how do we create paid jobs out of thin air for people whose skills aren't applicable to the private market? And how do we magically create an economy where there is a jobs surplus, or at the very least a job for every person? I'm not arguing with you because I disagree with your ideas - I would love more focus on pre-college education and to live in an economy with jobs galore, and free university education would be wonderful assuming taxes don't skyrocket - the problem is I see goals but no way to get there. To me, a solution that isn't politically viable isn't a solution unless you somehow change the politics. I would love to absolve all student loan debt and make it a non-issue, but how we pay for that and how we get it through our political system is a mystery. Thus I proposed easier solutions to swallow to curb future student loan debt growth.
|
|
#
¿
May 13, 2014 19:44
|
|
|
Mr Interweb posted:I find it odd that Ambassador Stevens was the one and only one person in Obama's entire administration who Republicans just absolutely adore. Hillary? Nope. Holder? Nope. Sebellius? Nope. Not to mention that, as far as I know, they've kept all blame away from the CIA Director at the time (I think Petraeus?). Because heaven help you if you criticize a General of our Glorious Military.
|
|
#
¿
May 14, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
I was having a conversation with a Chinese person the other day on differences in education practices between China and the US. One of the interesting differences is in regards to the idea of "being able to learn something/being good at something," especially when applied to math. In the US I think we bend over backwards (or try to/would like to if resources/time allow) very often to try and find new ways of explaining mathematical principles to kids to get them to "grok" math and leverage it in future math classes. In China, this isn't the case - memorization and heavy practice/lots of homework are used instead of trying to explain it 50 different ways until you hit the "magical understanding" for each child. Instead of the teacher being in charge of finding ways of explaining things, students/parents are in charge of doing it until you understand it. There's no notion of "well I'm just not good at math so I'll accept C/D grades in it." This also ties into other education principles, such as fostering competition and publishing grades and test results, but I think the idea that "memorization is bad because some kids just don't learn that way" can be taken as "We just don't want to tell our kids 'Tough poo poo, you'll repeat it until you understand'." Not saying either way is better but I think the Canadian results indicate that sometimes it's easier when kids are young to focus on memorization, speed and pattern recognition rather than waiting for them to grok mathematical principles - that can wait until high school or college.
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 21:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Keep in mind Chinese children are literally in school for 10 hours a day, it's not like this method is necessarily the most efficient one. True, and their students are doing homework the rest of the time, are stressed out beyond belief, and have exams to see how good of a high school/college they go to which then helps lead into jobs. The entire education system is different. However, I did think it was interesting that we in the west care so much about the child, getting the child to understand, and teaching the child in the way he/she learns best... in China, not so much. And yet in worldwide testing, China kicks our rear end (except in confidence).
|
|
#
¿
May 15, 2014 21:15
|
|
|
Mr Ice Cream Glove posted:Look at the loving glee on these peoples faces Have you ever fired a gun? poo poo's fun as hell. Wolfsheim posted:Where's that dick with the Ted Cruz avatar when you need him? You need to say my name three times.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 15:23
|
|
|
djw175 posted:Even beyond the mom thing, the shirtless female mannequin with her hands in a surrender position is still pretty drat iffy. The pants around the ankles at the end did it for me. EDIT: But hands in the air makes the target bigger, right?
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
zoux posted:Why are gun rights such an important issue in the US? I was thinking about this the other day, but what makes people care about guns above all other political concerns. If a Republican candidate is listing his or her conservative credentials, the first thing they mention is their NRA rating. It's a personal freedom/responsibility thing in my mind. I want to be able to defend myself therefore I need to carry a concealed handgun at all times. The US is like the wild west compared to Europe except not really. Also guns are fun and strike fear in both camps (fear in conservatives of not being able to fight tyranny, fear in liberals because the loving crazy conservatives are armed) so it's an issue that pops up in and stays in the media for long periods of time. Amergin fucked around with this message at 17:56 on May 16, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 16, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:lolbertarians are basically Republicans, except with weed and gold, as previously mentioned. Actual libertarians are further right than Republicans on economic policy, and about as far left as Democrats socially. But they are a dying breed. Youth conservative votes will likely steer more and more libertarian/socially liberal as the older, more religious-conservative generation dies off. I'd say in 20-30 years the "social" differences between the right and left parties will focus on guns and immigration rather than abortion, LGBTQXYZ rights and weed.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 19:45
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:The average republican is unaware of the term fiat as it relates to money whereas the libertarian is able to parrot that it is bad. Unfortunately as no good arguments exist for a gold standard they have nothing to parrot and are forced to come up with dumb reasons as to why fiat money is bad. Fiat money is bad because it's created out of nothing and, similar to the Universe, You Cannot Create Something From Nothing. (but God can)
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 19:55
|
|
|
Miltank posted:The message that is ultimately Wouldn't that mean that any intended negative consequences of terror activities that could ever have any collateral damage would be an "unintentional terror campaign"? If I do as another person said earlier, if I drop boxes of books, and one of them accidentally hits a dude on the head and kills him, and now there's exactly one other person - say the dead dude's cousin - terrified of being outside while I'm droppin' knowledge, does that make it a "terror campaign"? I feel like you're taking a very loaded term and applying it in a vague way because people are scared.
|
|
#
¿
May 19, 2014 21:58
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Oh, and NPR just axed Tell Me More and fired 28 people who worked on it to "reduce their deficit" I listen to TMM on a daily basis (it lines up with my hour commute home) and I have to say that while I enjoyed 90% of the content, sometimes I felt it tried too hard to focus on race in issues with other variables involved. It also had certain segments or guests that seemed to just be racebaiting. I remember a time when they had a professor on discussing the Trayvon Martin case and... the boy who got shot for having his music too loud, can't remember the name - anyway the professor basically said it's a sign of "white people (as a stereotyped group but it's okay 'cause we white) being afraid and uncomfortable having a black president" to which Martin made a comment to add context describing George Zimmerman as a "white male who shot a young black man" - he's as white as our "black president" but obviously we can't say it's "latino-on-black" crime because that would be laying the blame on someone other than a white man. That was my main criticism of the show was that it seemed to try and portray every story in an "us-versus-them" or "pity the minority" perspective (even though "minority" to TMM was essentially "black or latino" - Asians are too successful to be involved in the discussion of the white man keeping others down I guess). On the one hand it added much needed perspective to a lot of news stories, but on the other hand having an hour block dedicated to why Being Black/Latino in the US Sucks and We Should Blame White People just gets old after a while. I think smaller chunks throughout the day would be better. This is coming from a white male perspective, of course. Hold on, let me check my privilege... yup, still there.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Angry Boat posted:TMM probably was not spotless in its editorial content, but what distinction are you making? White Latinos and Hispanics exist. My point was that they go out of their way as defining Obama as "black" while defining George Zimmerman as "white," while my understanding (which could be wrong) is that both are half-white. joeburz posted:Why can they stereotype whites but i cant do it back??? -John "Amergin" Roberts I laughed but honestly how about we try not to stereotype as much, period?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 21:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Agreed. Is it okay with you if we go ahead and add "fight stereotyping of straight white Christian men" to the very, very, very gently caress-off end of the social justice list? Because I bet you by the time we make it all the way down there it will have solved itself once There you go again with your TMM definition of "minority." I jest. I'd like to reduce stereotyping of everyone equally at the same rate. I'd also like a box of lavender sea salt caramel treats.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 21:18
|
|
|
Alter Ego posted:Seeing as how you have no idea what life is like as a member of a minority group (and thus have not spent any part of your life being told that you are "less" than white people in one manner or another), I'm confused as to how you think you have any right to judge them for feeling like they're being used as scapegoats. I've been told for most of my life by Christians (white, black, brown, all of the above) that I'm "less" than they are because my parents are Wiccan and we lived in the southeast US (this was along with our pets being killed, house being TPed, cars being egged, rituals being protested, etc). But please, continue to assume it's impossible for me to have experienced prejudice because I'm white and male. Sword of Chomsky posted:Why do I, as a white male, have to listen about the problems that non-white people have? - A serious question. I have no problem listening about the problems and possible solutions minority folks face. I DO have a problem with editorializing these problems in a way that encourages an "us versus them" mentality or "whitewashing" (HAH!) other variables in these issues in favor of focusing on racial differences. Like I said, most of the content was pretty objective, interesting and insightful. However now and then they get a professor who tells me that I'm afraid because our president is black and I just have to roll my eyes.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 21:55
|
|
is the only appropriate response.
|
Zwabu posted:Your "understanding" IS wrong, and, I suspect, not entirely honest either. She could have said he was a "Hispanic male who shot a young black man" is all I'm saying. But she didn't. Because he skipped the tanning salon that day.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 22:05
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:You didn't answer my question about how you would identify someone who looked just like Barack Obama to a police or emergency services dispatcher. As black. And I would identify George Zimmerman as a "hispanic male with a voracious appetite."
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 22:09
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:She also didn't say "George Zimmermann murdered Taryvon Martin" which would have been even more accurate. So what's your point? My point is that I expect better from NPR than "this person killed a black kid and is half-white therefore he's white." Alter Ego posted:OK, tell me something. Knowing nothing other than the physical description of George Zimmerman, how would you have described him to police? Amergin posted:And I would identify George Zimmerman as a "hispanic male with a voracious appetite."
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
Pohl posted:Our tax dollars. Getting a full set of zombie definitions is exactly why we shouldn't cut defense spending. I also want more details on "occult/evil magic".
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 22:29
|
|
|
Stultus Maximus posted:Yohoho and a bottle of Night Train also gave a Coach-like "I never took anything from anybody" except you know, that time he was on food stamps. But he earned those foodstamps unlike those other mooching poors.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 23:08
|
|
|
Koalas March posted:Zimmerman identifies as white. (Its on his court docs, iirc) and Obama identifies as black. Also White hispanics are a thing that exist. "On voter registration forms, George Zimmerman identified himself as Hispanic, as did his mother. His father, Robert, listed himself as white on voter registration forms. Zimmerman's mother, Gladys, is originally from Peru." And for some extra input: To be blunt, Zimmerman's skin tone is the same as mine, a medium brown. But I would not personally identify as white. My heritage is 100 percent Mexican. My maternal great-grandfather left Mexico for Texas in 1890 and my paternal grandparents migrated from Mexico in the 1920s. If a Mexican is pale enough can I call him/her white and laugh at people who try to tell me differently?
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 23:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Splendid, I didn't think I could be any more annoyed by TMM's cancellation. Now I've read Amergin holding forth about how problematic it was because it tried "too hard" to focus on race. Pressed for examples he went full Zimmerman. Splendid! Were you drunk when you were reading my posts? Because I think you were.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2014 23:50
|
|
|
At this point can we write off Christie as a 2016 contender?Who What Now posted:No, he's right. You're a straight up privilege-blinded idiot that gets super uncomfortable when people mention race and you don't know why. I know you think you know why. (It's 'cause I'm white) (That's racist)
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 00:07
|
|
|
anonumos posted:SHUT UP! Why? Because this thread was calling a Hispanic man "white" but I'm apparently the racist?
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:No I'm not? He's saying that TMM was "racebaiting" when it had a guest on that said the Martin and Davis cases were fueled by racism against black people. Like it's ridiculous that a Latino person could hold racist preconceptions about a black person. I said they oversimplified ethnicity and overplayed the whiteness of Zimmerman to create a narrative. The guest didn't say it was racism, he said white people as a whole are afraid because we have a black president. Of course I think Latinos can be racist, anyone can be racist. But when you describe Zimmerman as "white" but Obama as "black" I think you're using a double standard to fuel a narrative, and I expect better from NPR. Edit: Also to all the "it's ETHNICITY not RACE GAWD" posts, I'm pretty sure you understood my post but decided to argue against my semantics rather than my point. If you guys are so anal now I can't wait until I discuss my support for eugenics with y'all. Amergin fucked around with this message at 16:04 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 05:04 |
|
|
baw posted:Looks like the next Benghazi will be this VA thing. They'll still be able to use it as she was a "part of the administration" (even though the issue came up after her departure) under which the VA's problems came to light (and therefore is part of the cause of those likely long-standing problems, purely by association). When you're running for president you can't, while in a debate, pass the responsibility to someone else even if it legitimately wasn't your area. You're a leader, so you're supposed to lead.
|
|
#
¿
May 21, 2014 17:09
|
|