First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
Post Reply MLK Jr. Day
35756 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / U.S.A.
Offline
Posted 1/16/18 , edited 1/17/18

sundin13 wrote:


Humms wrote:

Blood is thicker than water

People saying others just don't seem to care

Hmmm did you look at your smart phone today? Did you use a computer? Did you ask Google what the weather is. Hmm wonder why nobody cares

I have a dream. Yeah so do so MR king! Did you ever think about that?


...what?

So I am not the only one. Thought I went senile for a moment.
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 1/16/18 , edited 1/17/18

MrAnimeSK wrote:

I mean how we judge people based on the colour of their skin rather than by the character of the individual. And yes, left wingers who defend POC or Muslims no matter what are doing just that.
It's not really any different to a racist judging someone in a bad way because of the colour of their skin. Defending a bad person because you dont want to be racist or offensive and want to be virtuous is still not judging a person by character, but by skin colour. (yes Muslims are nott a race but usually are black, Arab or Asian)


Nah. I understand completely.

If you want to get over race, you have to act as if race doesn't exist. You have to be blind to it in a way that understand that some people are silly enough to judge someone based on their physical bodies rather than just seeing them as human.

The left is guilty of what is referred to as "positive racism". (you need only look to the movie "Get Out" that came out a year or two ago to point to exactly what I mean)

It has broader issues when it comes to affirmative action policies which are meant to help minority groups by either giving preference or by lowering the standards to allow more in to meet racial quotas.

Some people have no issue about it, but in preferring someone for a race is still being racist, lowering the bar for a race or gender is essentially saying that they can't cut it and make grade unless you ask for less, and racial quotas are just downright offensive.

Then there's the victim culture which exacerbates things by creating excuses for and encouraging one's inability to cope and move forward... Essentially erasing one's agency and ability to act or decide freely on their own.

I'm not saying that I'm a staunch individualist who believes anything you want can happen with enough grit and determination, but nevertheless I believe the left removes a lot of this in their push forward..

And the censorship... Oh god the censorship...........

(and you're also right, there's no need to talk of conservatism: they were already there).

118 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M
Offline
Posted 1/16/18 , edited 1/16/18

MrAnimeSK
I mean how we judge people based on the colour of their skin rather than by the character of the individual. And yes, left wingers who defend POC or Muslims no matter what are doing just that.
It's not really any different to a racist judging someone in a bad way because of the colour of their skin. Defending a bad person because you dont want to be racist or offensive and want to be virtuous is still not judging a person by character, but by skin colour. (yes Muslims are nott a race but usually are black, Arab or Asian)


In theory, if we would only look at a single action somebody does, you might be right. But, you should know that many of the actions people take are a reaction to what someone else has done.

If it is obvious and can be shown through multiple large-scale studies/experiments, that certain groups of people (e.g. blacks) are systematically disadvantaged, for example by getting invited to less job interviews, by getting less promotions etc., even though they have identical academic achievements, job experience etc. (such as was the case in the experiments where as much as possible was kept the same between the groups), then it very much so seems that this group of people are often disadvantaged not because of their character but because e.g. the color of their skin.

If this is so, then it would be stupid to say that because I do not want people to be judged by the color of their skin, but by their character, I do not need to help anyone specifically. If one group of people is disadvantaged by others, this should be recognized and tried to be corrected, since it is not through the fault of the individual that he is being disadvantaged but through the prejudice of the one who is doing the disadvantaging.
This, of course, does not mean that just because one group of people is being disadvantaged, they should be defended no matter what they do. However, this does also not mean that they shouldn't be helped if injustice is being done to them. The reason we try to help these groups of people specifically is not because we are "positively racist", but because others are racist and we have to stop this injustice of these racists. If others specifically target black people, we have to specifically help black people.
12670 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18
One person really just dose not get it(qwueri), one really dose(serifsansserif).
And above post, yeah, well i understand what you're saying but at the same time there are companies that really go out of their way to be diverse and promote diversity and some have diversity quotas and get bonuses for employing POC.
Dont get me wrong, iam not from America and i know stereotypes exist and that in some cases a black person may be less likely to be considered for a job or trusted, but there is also the side that i just mentioned.

Here, admittedly you dont see many Aborigines with jobs but i actually see a lot of Africans working. I know in some parts of my country though Africans have that reputation of being criminals, and the statistics back it up.

I really do not ever want to be someone who plays victim or pulls race card but whites seem to be pretty much labelled as racist and blamed for the past, based on the actions of a few or those that were here before our life times, rather than judged on individual character.

We all have stereotypes, we all have bad eggs, but yeah, going easy on someone or letting them off based on thinking oh poor them because of their race rather than having the same sentence and treatment for all is the same as in the past when blacks were treated like criminals even if they were not.
It's still a form of looking at them as inferior. IMO anyways.

Iam not sure what the answer is but forever saying sorry and giving special treatment wont get us anywhere in the long run.








runec 
41056 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18

MrAnimeSK wrote:
And above post, yeah, well i understand what you're saying but at the same time there are companies that really go out of their way to be diverse and promote diversity and some have diversity quotas and get bonuses for employing POC.
Dont get me wrong, iam not from America and i know stereotypes exist and that in some cases a black person may be less likely to be considered for a job or trusted, but there is also the side that i just mentioned.


The problem is the side you just mentioned is taking a mole hill and arguing we shouldn't give the mountain any credence because they're obviously the same size. It is a minuscule problem compared to the problem it's trying to solve. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the approaches being used to try and solve it.

With America for instance this isn't even an argument. It is a proven fact that non-whites are systematically disadvantage on several levels. That part is not up for debate. It's also not exactly a secret that Fortune 500 companies in the US are predominately white and male. Really, it's only Silicon Valley that even makes any noise about diversity and even then they like to pat themselves on the back just for saying diversity out loud rather then doing anything that effectively tackles the problem.





11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18

runec wrote:

The problem is the side you just mentioned is taking a mole hill and arguing we shouldn't give the mountain any credence because they're obviously the same size. It is a minuscule problem compared to the problem it's trying to solve. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the approaches being used to try and solve it.

With America for instance this isn't even an argument. It is a proven fact that non-whites are systematically disadvantage on several levels. That part is not up for debate. It's also not exactly a secret that Fortune 500 companies in the US are predominately white and male. Really, it's only Silicon Valley that even makes any noise about diversity and even then they like to pat themselves on the back just for saying diversity out loud rather then doing anything that effectively tackles the problem.



but the problem is a cultural problem with not helping out the poor, Black people have been held back by previous segregation and race laws. This has led to a disproportionate number of black americans being in the lower income bracket (you are now seeing more minorities in positions of power and wealth, and despite the hyperbolic claim that republicans are racist, there are a share of ethnic minorities that hold positions in the republican party, including former cabinet members).

That's where the disadvantage began. New racially positive laws aren't going to "balance" that out, but further reinforce negative racism and false expectations due to lower barriers of entry. We're essentially just switching out who gets the advantages.

It's much better to simply help the poor not be SO poor, and combat the self destructive cultural cycle that exists within it. You end up helping EVERYONE out, and, oddly enough, you'll help out primarily the racial majority of poor. (cause there's poor white people, asians, indians, and hispanic people too...)

It's really that simple...
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18

runec wrote:


MrAnimeSK wrote:
And above post, yeah, well i understand what you're saying but at the same time there are companies that really go out of their way to be diverse and promote diversity and some have diversity quotas and get bonuses for employing POC.
Dont get me wrong, iam not from America and i know stereotypes exist and that in some cases a black person may be less likely to be considered for a job or trusted, but there is also the side that i just mentioned.


The problem is the side you just mentioned is taking a mole hill and arguing we shouldn't give the mountain any credence because they're obviously the same size. It is a minuscule problem compared to the problem it's trying to solve. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the approaches being used to try and solve it.

With America for instance this isn't even an argument. It is a proven fact that non-whites are systematically disadvantage on several levels. That part is not up for debate. It's also not exactly a secret that Fortune 500 companies in the US are predominately white and male. Really, it's only Silicon Valley that even makes any noise about diversity and even then they like to pat themselves on the back just for saying diversity out loud rather then doing anything that effectively tackles the problem.



Your metrics are bad.

The top .001% are not representative of the makeup of overall trends and distribution across different income brackets.

Your time frame is also out of whack. You're expecting people to go from being treated as subhuman to making up 50% of the top 500 wealthiest people in the world (the forbes list I believe is worldwide BTW, as you tend to see an arab oil baron or two on the list) in merely a generation or two.

Progress WAS being made for a while, then it was set back (thanks to Reagan and his "young buck" speech), and then started again, and now is regressing at quite a pace.

And you talk about focusing on molehills...
12670 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Australia
Offline
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18

runec wrote:



The problem is the side you just mentioned is taking a mole hill and arguing we shouldn't give the mountain any credence because they're obviously the same size. It is a minuscule problem compared to the problem it's trying to solve. Regardless of anyone's opinion of the approaches being used to try and solve it.

With America for instance this isn't even an argument. It is a proven fact that non-whites are systematically disadvantage on several levels. That part is not up for debate. It's also not exactly a secret that Fortune 500 companies in the US are predominately white and male. Really, it's only Silicon Valley that even makes any noise about diversity and even then they like to pat themselves on the back just for saying diversity out loud rather then doing anything that effectively tackles the problem.







In Australia i will admit that in many cases it will be tough for Aboriginals to get certain jobs because their reputation is so bad.
It is a big problem.
They get paid to go to school, they get more welfare than any other race, low interest loans, in some cases free housing, etc. Basically shit loads of hand outs.
Some of them make a lot of money for land rights.

Now i can most definitely see the perspective that well so they should, it was their country first. But then there is the other side of the coin, why would you work then? why would you want to? what incentive do you have?
How will they ever better themselves?
We're always having to say sorry. Now some want the date of Australia day to be changed (lots of white lefties are to blame for that though).

American blacks and Australian blacks are fairly different. Some Aboriginal people still like to live in the outback and sleep outside and by bond fires and that. (some).
But both have in common a past that was at the hands of white people. But for Africans it was also by other black people and by Muslim Arabs, etc

In Australia pretty much any form that you fill out whether it be medical or employment related, finance related, etc part of the form is whether you are of Aboriginal or Torrens state Island heritage.

So really they are treated differently and separately.

Buy yeah i dunno, you see so many African American millionaires, so many. Not just athletes or people in the entertainment industry either.
So they cant be that oppressed?
The Aborigines have a long way to go to catch up to them. I think culture and education is a big part.

Anyways i feel iam drifting off topic a little. I will add though, i was just watching the cricket watching white Australians playing along side Indians, Africans/people from the west Indies, and a player from Afghanistan, etc. In that environment we're all equal at least... and can get along..




qwueri 
24916 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
32 / M / TN
Online
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18

serifsansserif wrote:

but the problem is a cultural problem with not helping out the poor, Black people have been held back by previous segregation and race laws. This has led to a disproportionate number of black americans being in the lower income bracket (you are now seeing more minorities in positions of power and wealth, and despite the hyperbolic claim that republicans are racist, there are a share of ethnic minorities that hold positions in the republican party, including former cabinet members).

That's where the disadvantage began. New racially positive laws aren't going to "balance" that out, but further reinforce negative racism and false expectations due to lower barriers of entry. We're essentially just switching out who gets the advantages.

It's much better to simply help the poor not be SO poor, and combat the self destructive cultural cycle that exists within it. You end up helping EVERYONE out, and, oddly enough, you'll help out primarily the racial majority of poor. (cause there's poor white people, asians, indians, and hispanic people too...)

It's really that simple...


It's not really an 'either or' issue. Yes, helping to lift people out of poverty regardless of their race (should) help with inequality. However laws and policies encouraging and enforcing diversity also helps break down barriers of who is seen as a 'normal' employee. It's not as if racism has magically gone away in the past few decades, it's just not as acceptable to be spoken in public. To break down racist hiring practices integrated hiring practices are necessary.
Humms 
13864 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / M / CAN, ON
Online
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18

sundin13 wrote:


Humms wrote:

Blood is thicker than water

People saying others just don't seem to care

Hmmm did you look at your smart phone today? Did you use a computer? Did you ask Google what the weather is. Hmm wonder why nobody cares

I have a dream. Yeah so do so MR king! Did you ever think about that?


...what?



Settle down, I'm just joking

Yes MLK was a Good man, and black people are treated equal just like anyone else.

Was that a good enough answer without my piss poor excuse at a joke/ comedy
9906 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M / Enemy Territory
Offline
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18

MonoDreams wrote:


geauxtigers1989 wrote:

One of the greatest Americans to ever live.


Opinion, just saying.


Let’s be real. What reasonable person would say otherwise?
runec 
41056 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18

serifsansserif wrote:
Your metrics are bad.

The top .001% are not representative of the makeup of overall trends and distribution across different income brackets.

Your time frame is also out of whack. You're expecting people to go from being treated as subhuman to making up 50% of the top 500 wealthiest people in the world (the forbes list I believe is worldwide BTW, as you tend to see an arab oil baron or two on the list) in merely a generation or two.

Progress WAS being made for a while, then it was set back (thanks to Reagan and his "young buck" speech), and then started again, and now is regressing at quite a pace.

And you talk about focusing on molehills...


Er, you seem to have grossly misunderstood something about my post. The Fortune 500 does not refer to individuals. It refers to companies. SK was talking about companies. I responded within that context. You're confusing Fortune with Forbes. You're also making a pretty big strawman there about my supposed "expectations". As I made no such argument.




MrAnimeSK wrote:
In Australia i will admit that in many cases it will be tough for Aboriginals to get certain jobs because their reputation is so bad.
It is a big problem.
They get paid to go to school, they get more welfare than any other race, low interest loans, in some cases free housing, etc. Basically shit loads of hand outs.
Some of them make a lot of money for land rights.


Over here in Canada we also struggle with how to handle our native population. As does the US. There aren't many good answers there. Yes, in Canada, there are a number of social programs one could bitterly classify as "free shit" for first nations people. But by the same measure they've been screwed over and mistreated for generations and still are to this day. It's a problem with no good or easy answers.



MrAnimeSK wrote:
Buy yeah i dunno, you see so many African American millionaires, so many. Not just athletes or people in the entertainment industry either.
So they cant be that oppressed?


Even you have to admit that's a pretty piss poor and entirely subjective argument, dude.






10065 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / Palm Coast, Florida
Offline
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18

geauxtigers1989 wrote:


Let’s be real. What reasonable person would say otherwise?


Ok.
16212 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M
Offline
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18

Humms wrote:


sundin13 wrote:


Humms wrote:

Blood is thicker than water

People saying others just don't seem to care

Hmmm did you look at your smart phone today? Did you use a computer? Did you ask Google what the weather is. Hmm wonder why nobody cares

I have a dream. Yeah so do so MR king! Did you ever think about that?


...what?



Settle down, I'm just joking

Yes MLK was a Good man, and black people are treated equal just like anyone else.

Was that a good enough answer without my piss poor excuse at a joke/ comedy


My issue wasn't with what you said, it was that I literally couldn't understand a single thing that you were trying to say.

That said, racism isn't quite dead yet.
11316 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
36 / M
Offline
Posted 1/17/18 , edited 1/17/18

qwueri wrote:

It's not really an 'either or' issue. Yes, helping to lift people out of poverty regardless of their race (should) help with inequality. However laws and policies encouraging and enforcing diversity also helps break down barriers of who is seen as a 'normal' employee. It's not as if racism has magically gone away in the past few decades, it's just not as acceptable to be spoken in public. To break down racist hiring practices integrated hiring practices are necessary.


Not really. Creating racially slanted laws creates more resentment and exacerbates racism and makes it more overt... Or are you not living in a world where Trump is president following an election where leftists had pushed harder than ever before for such policies?

As for it being either/or, you're trying to push a false dichotomy here. I'm actually saying the best option isn't to leave racial policies in place, nor am I pushing for a reversal of roles as to which race is getting the benefits.

I'm saying that the government should be blind to race/sex/gender/age/etc.
Strike the rules that even make passing mention of these things from the laws and make it finally an amendment enforcing that policy cannot favor anyone. Justice is supposed to be blind after all.

No more laws defining rape as something that can only happen to women. No more favoritism for anyone in the court of law. No lighter or heavier sentences based on circumstances that do not pertain to the cases. No more weighted admissions. None of it.

And when it comes the economy the focus should be making raising the poorest and most disenfranchised, regardless of who or what they might be, to a level that anyone can find bearable.

There's fair and equal and those are often two different things. I favor fairness over equal parity.




runec wrote:

Er, you seem to have grossly misunderstood something about my post. The Fortune 500 does not refer to individuals. It refers to companies. SK was talking about companies. I responded within that context. You're confusing Fortune with Forbes. You're also making a pretty big strawman there about my supposed "expectations". As I made no such argument.



Fine. Companies. Nitpicky, but still.

What IS your expectations then? Obviously if you are trying to make a point about the ethnicity of the people who run these companies being primarily white, the fact still stands that you are taking a select minuscule portion of the population and making a point about it not being "equal" enough for you,

What are you looking for then? and why use such a strange minuscule selection of the population?

First  Prev  1  2  3  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.