U.S. Politics: Having a Good Time

[Kalbear]

4 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

@Kalbear, serious question, or anyone who wants to field it, as admittedly I'm not as well versed in some of the nuances of these topics.  2 years ago, my daughter's high school had college visitation day, but she was was not allowed to visit the university she wanted to because she wasn't a minority.  That's what the students were told.  Is that fair game, bigotry, racism?  

I'm not sure what you're asking, honestly. Is it fair to tell her not to visit a university because she wasn't a minority? Depends a lot on why she wanted to go and why they told her not to. 

It is certainly a form of racism, though without knowing more details it's hard to say if it's racism like not being allowed to join the NAACP. 

It also depends a lot on who told her. Was it the school officials? The university officials? Some random recruiter? 

Was it that that day was for minorities to visit with certain schools? 

Could she have visited the school and talked to them outside of her high school?

 

[BloodRider]

20 hours ago, Martell Spy said:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/supreme_court_dispatches/2017/10/will_gill_v_whitford_kill_partisan_gerrymandering.html

http://www.slate.com/Is Partisan Gerrymandering Dead?
Not quite. But the Supreme Court appears poised to put a stop to the nation’s most egregious political redistricting.

Man I reeeeeahahaheeeaaallyyyy hope so.

 

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

It's not at all fair. It's a call for non-violence made in support of Free Speech. It has nothing to do with Nazis. Nazis are the extreme example that is floated here to justify violence and the glorification of violence, and to justify the blocking of speech. That's always been my position.

As I said, it ultimately doesn't matter why you choose to support the Nazi side, only that you do so. 

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

You just keep right on equating that to nazi-sympathizer and apologist if it makes you feel superior. Never asked for an apology, I've asked Dr. Pepper to stop referring to me in that way, but clearly the desire to not be offensive towards others in the name of political correctness does not apply to those who disagree with her. 

Calling you a nazi sympathizer because you sympathize with nazis is not by itself enough to be stricken from the record. That's on you for being offended. Again, if you want to stop being called a nazi sympathizer, stop sympathizing with nazis. 

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Tywin said that most white people are highly unlikely to experience institutional racism (ans I agree) but that doesn't mean they are incapable of experiencing racism. So a brick to the side of the head doesn't qualify?  

Since Tywin didn't say that, I still don't know why you brought it up in the context of institutional racism, and I figure it's about you wanting to say alllivesmatter again. 

[Kalbear]

11 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

I would never compare the racism that I have experienced as a middle class white person to that of any other person, particularly a person of color.  I am aware of both my privilege in terms of rarely having to confront racial barriers and my inability to fully understand another person's experience and the challenges they've faced.  However, when someone says "white people aren't experiencing racism", it is both disorienting and offputting, like someone is claiming that they know better than me what my life has been like. 

Which is why I brought up the whole issue of whether racism must include an institutional element, because I feel it does not and should not.  The explanation that what white people experience is prejudice, not racism, strikes me as a distinction without a difference. 

And that's why I stated it the way I did. Because SoD rightly is tired of explaining to white people how the racism he experiences is different than the racism a white person does, and when he's talking about racism he doesn't care about how white people are experiencing it, because it is entirely immaterial to the conversation he wants to have. He is done explaining to people who can go look this shit up for themselves what he means, and he is really, really done having people demand it of him, as he's done enough emotional labor already. 

If you want to get a chrome add-on that changes every instance of SoD's 'racism' to 'institutional racism', that might be helpful to you.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

21 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

That seems unfair to Manhole, who seems from all the posts I've read over the years like a democrat/liberal.  Defending freedom of speech isn't nazi-sympathizing, in my opinion.

Yeah, I identify as a moderate liberal. I'm having trouble understanding how anyone who calls themselves a liberal can be in favor of blocking the speech of others. It's kind of baked into the definition of the word. 

[Bonnot OG]

7 minutes ago, BloodRider said:

Man I reeeeeahahaheeeaaallyyyy hope so.

 

I do as well, but I have zero hope with a Trump lapdog being in there. Which btw, idk if anyone saw this article yesterday, but he got slap down by Ginsburg lol. When I first saw the headline I thought she may have literally slapped him. 

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/ginsburg-slaps-gorsuch?mbid=social_facebook

Gorsuch is pure scum. He is as prickish as his reputation paints him to be and as scummy as his face shows him to be. He is also as shit as his supporters are.

[Dr. Pepper]

17 minutes ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

 

What are some of the ways in which white people benefit from white supremacy?

 

This could be a 100 page thread if we start from scratch.  These are pretty basic concepts.  I'll just direct you to the university of google to save time.

https://www.google.com/search?q=how+do+white+people+benefit+from+white+supremacy&oq=how+do+white+people+benefit+from+white+supremacy&aqs=chrome..69i57.7649j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Quote

Yes it is. By benefiting from white supremacy, you're tacitly suggesting that whites are racist by proxy. The stipulation discrimination + power only works if every member of the group you determine to be "supreme" functions as a cohesive, monolithic unit. If not, then you must admit that there's something other than whiteness that produces supremacy.

No, I'm suggesting that white people benefit from white supremacy.  Period.  You're making these leaps.  One can benefit from something without engaging in the behavior that provides them that benefit.  Not sure how you are confused by this.  

 

13 minutes ago, King Ned Stark said:

@Kalbear, serious question, or anyone who wants to field it, as admittedly I'm not as well versed in some of the nuances of these topics.  2 years ago, my daughter's high school had college visitation day, but she was was not allowed to visit the university she wanted to because she wasn't a minority.  That's what the students were told.  Is that fair game, bigotry, racism?  

I find it hard to believe that your child was prevented from visiting a college or speaking with colleges.  What more likely happened is that the college or colleges had a special day geared around getting more minorities into their schools.  Minorities already have huge obstacles when it comes to attending higher education.  The truth is another obstacle is a fear they will not see themselves represented on a campus. 

So yes, this is fair game.  I'm sure you'd want your own daughter to not have legs up over her peers simply on the basis of her skin.  This is a way to help level the playing field. 

[polishgenius]

13 minutes ago, Sword of Doom said:

I don't have to engage people just because you want me to haha.

I never said you had to. But all I said at the start was that you're only interested in prolonging the problem. You seemed to have a problem with this, but that's what we've come back round to: you don't want to talk with anyone, you just want to shout at people and make yourself feel big and righteous.

You're right, I'm not contributing particularly strongly at the moment either. Kalbear's saying pretty much what I would more elegantly than I could have put it, so I should probably bug out for now, but I'll leave you with the note that I am not, and don't think I ever have (though I'm open to correction), deliberately tried to sabotage the dialogue the way you do.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

14 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Since Tywin didn't say that, I still don't know why you brought it up in the context of institutional racism, and I figure it's about you wanting to say alllivesmatter again. 

That's exactly what he wrote.

[ljkeane]

18 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

As I said, it ultimately doesn't matter why you choose to support the Nazi side, only that you do so. 

Calling you a nazi sympathizer because you sympathize with nazis is not by itself enough to be stricken from the record. That's on you for being offended. Again, if you want to stop being called a nazi sympathizer, stop sympathizing with nazis.

That's extremely disingenuous.

Firstly I'm sure you're well aware that most people who aren't, you know, fascists are going to be offended by being called a nazi sympathizer. Secondly if you're going to use supporting a position with a massive range of implications for multitudes of different groups like freedom of speech to call some a nazi sympathizer because they benefit to some degree along with many, many others the term loses all meaning.

'Nazis use the internet to promulgate their message. If you support the existence of the internet you must be a nazi sympathizer!'

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 hours ago, Tywin et al. said:

This is flatly inaccurate. Being the dominate race does not mean that an individual of said race cannot experience racism in a given situation. What it does mean, as I said before, is that it’s highly unlikely that a white person will experience institutional racism.

That was the quote.

[polishgenius]

7 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I identify as a moderate liberal. I'm having trouble understanding how anyone who calls themselves a liberal can be in favor of blocking the speech of others. It's kind of baked into the definition of the word. 

 

Nah. I think you get hard done by on here with some of the discussion, to be sure, but I think you're wrong on this and that that's only true if you accept the widest possible definition of 'freedom of speech'. Basically there's no such thing as absolute freedom- you're either somwhat limiting someone's right to speak, or you're allowing them the right to step on other people's rights.

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Yeah, I identify as a moderate liberal. I'm having trouble understanding how anyone who calls themselves a liberal can be in favor of blocking the speech of others. It's kind of baked into the definition of the word. 

I'm curious - why do you think liberal means this? And if we call ourselves progressive is it a different thing?

That said, my stance is that tolerance of speech is emphatically not about allowing all speech all the time; it is a peace treaty. I am absolutely willing to tolerate your speech provided that your speech is not saying 'end the rights of these other people'. I will happily tolerate your odd customs and shitty food and weird music, but I don't have to tolerate your saying that my life should end, and I will not. 

This is, IMO, a fundamental requirement of liberal democracies, because without it the tolerance is a built-in failure function that will always end in the Democracy's destruction. You cannot tolerate speech that wants to end the democratic principles. You simply can't if you want to keep existing as a democracy. 

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

And that's why I stated it the way I did. Because SoD rightly is tired of explaining to white people how the racism he experiences is different than the racism a white person does, and when he's talking about racism he doesn't care about how white people are experiencing it, because it is entirely immaterial to the conversation he wants to have. He is done explaining to people who can go look this shit up for themselves what he means, and he is really, really done having people demand it of him, as he's done enough emotional labor already. 

If you want to get a chrome add-on that changes every instance of SoD's 'racism' to 'institutional racism', that might be helpful to you.

SoD wasn't the one that said "white people aren't experiencing racism", that was Dr. Pepper.  And the reason I called out SoD's post is that he was calling out white people for being unable to discuss racism, in the middle of a discussion about racism.  Maybe it wasn't the particular discussion of racism that he'd prefer, but if so he can either not participate or try and bring it towards something he wants to discuss.  Instead he insulted white people as being too fragile to discuss racism. 

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

That was the quote.

Okay, let's break down the sentence.

Quote

This is flatly inaccurate. Being the dominate race does not mean that an individual of said race cannot experience racism in a given situation.

 

You appear to agree with this.

Quote

What it does mean, as I said before, is that it’s highly unlikely that a white person will experience institutional racism.

You then used your response as a counter to this statement. Which doesn't make sense, and why I asked what institution the brick represented. Tywin explicitly stated that white people can experience racism but they do not almost ever experience institutional racism. And you appeared to disagree. Why?

[Mother Cocanuts]

32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

They're more likely to have better chances to get jobs, to get into drug rehab, and less likely to be jailed for the same crimes.

Do you have a reference which states that white homeless people have better chances to get jobs, to get into drug rehab, and less likely to be jailed for the same crimes? Because I'd like to see/read it.

32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

What language is your entertainment in? If you find a book, what are the chances that it's translated into English? If you watch a movie, what are the chances that it has English subtitles or dubs? 

If you go to any random store, what are the chances that the makeup in it has colors that work with your skin? 

If you go to a barber shop, will they have people who can take care of your hair?

If you use a soap dispenser, what are the chances that it works for your skin color?

All a result of whites being the majority demographic. It would make no sense that a movie aimed at customers of the majority demographic wouldn't have an English translation; it wouldn't make sense that if the majority of your consumers are white that the majority of your inventory wouldn't cater to them, i.e. make up or soap dispensers. But I don't see how watching movies with English dubs, wearing make-up catered to their skin color, or having one's hair cut makes one a beneficiary of white supremacy.

32 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

This doesn't make sense at all. I benefit from being a US citizen, but that doesn't mean that I am America First or think that way. I benefit strongly from being a white heterosexual man in the US. That does not imply that I am necessarily sexist, racist, or a bigot.

No, this makes no sense. Because your benefiting from white supremacy has nothing to do with you, your attitudes, or your actions. Therefore, you and the dominance are completely divorced. A white person benefiting from the racism of other whites is a non-factor. To use an analogy along the lines of yours, it's like saying that I benefit from being an American citizen; therefore, I can't experience Xenophobia. Indirect benefits from a sub-section of a group only matter if you're arguing that white people are actively perpetuating this supremacy; hence they're actively racist.

3 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

No, it means that it's a bigger problem for black populations than white ones. It is far from being useless; it's actually predictive.

Why is it a bigger problem for black populations? And no, it's not predictive. Statistics don't tell the future.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

That's extremely disingenuous.

Firstly I'm sure you're well aware that most people who aren't, you know, fascists are going to be offended by being called a nazi sympathizer.

They should probably stop sympathizing with nazis then. 

6 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

Secondly if you're going to use supporting a position with a massive range of implications for multitudes of different groups like freedom of speech to call some a nazi sympathizer because they benefit to some degree along with many, many others the term loses all meaning.

'Nazis use the internet to promulgate their message. If you support the existence of the internet you must be a nazi sympathizer!'

I'd argue that if you support the internet and think it's perfectly acceptable of nazis to use it to promote their message you are, indeed, a nazi sympathizer. And that one can have the internet AND ALSO restrict the types of speech on it.

Put it another way: if someone said that the internet should allow child porn, they would be a child porn sympathizer. This really isn't hard.

[Bonnot OG]

10 minutes ago, ljkeane said:

That's extremely disingenuous.

Firstly I'm sure you're well aware that most people who aren't, you know, fascists are going to be offended by being called a nazi sympathizer. Secondly if you're going to use supporting a position a massive range of implications for multitudes of different groups like freedom of speech to call some a nazi sympathizer because they benefit to some degree along with many, many others the term loses all meaning.

'Nazis use the internet to promulgate their message. If you support the existence of the internet you must be a nazi sympathizer!'

You'd be surprised. Actual nazis have doxxed a friend of mine specifically for calling their kind nazis. They'd rather be labeled a part of the alt right, which is just "kinder gentler"  "family friendlier" nazism. 

No, the term doesn't really lose meaning just because some fragile ass white people think it does.

A place like reddit and twitter certainly are nazi and white supremacist enablers and could be called apologists for how they make excuses for keeping their accounts and subreddits up.

And calling someone like Manhole a nazi apologist / sympathizer extends for beyond him sticking up for the rights of nazis to propagate and recruit, which is what they do when they take advantage of free speech rights and when they lean on the free speech absolutists for help them "protect their rights."  It has to do with how adamant he is in respecting their rights while whining about people that confront nazis with direct action which also has a lot to do with how he doesn't see them as a threat and just thinks they are cosplayers. 



 

[ljkeane]

Just now, Kalbear said:

They should probably stop sympathizing with nazis then.

Ok then. Good luck with that.

[Kalbear]

Just now, Mother Cocanuts said:

Do you have a reference which states that white homeless people have better chances to get jobs, to get into drug rehab, and less likely to be jailed for the same crimes? Because I'd like to see/read it.

I'll see what I can find, but honestly? Do some heavy lifting of your own some time.

Just now, Mother Cocanuts said:

All a result of whites being the majority demographic. It would make no sense that a movie aimed at customers of the majority demographic wouldn't have an English translation; it wouldn't make sense that if the majority of your consumers are white that the majority of your inventory wouldn't cater to them, i.e. make up or soap dispensers. But I don't see how watching movies with English dubs, wearing make-up catered to their skin color, or having one's hair cut makes one a beneficiary of white supremacy.

Whites aren't the majority demographic in the world. This is how myopic you are; I didn't say anything about a book in the US. If you go abroad chances are excellent you will be able to find books, entertainment, makeup, barbers, and all sorts of things in English. 

The reason this is the case is that English is recognized as the default, despite only a couple of nations having English as their mother tongue. 

Just now, Mother Cocanuts said:

No, this makes no sense. Because your benefiting from white supremacy has nothing to do with you, your attitudes, or your actions. Therefore, you and the dominance are completely divorced. A white person benefiting from the racism of other whites is a non-factor. To use an analogy along the lines of yours, it's like saying that I benefit from being an American citizen; therefore, I can't experience Xenophobia. Indirect benefits from a sub-section of a group only matter if you're arguing that white people are actively perpetuating this supremacy; hence they're actively racist.

I disagree. I can recognize that I benefit from white supremacy without being a white supremacist. It in fact often does have a lot to do with my attitudes or my actions. As an example, I know that I can drive around the affluent suburbs looking for Pokemon and I am not remotely afraid that people are going to call the police - and if they happened to do so, I am confident that I won't get shot by the police and will, in fact, be able to explain that I am looking for Pokemon. If I were black, there is no way in fucking hell I would do this.