glassjester
Well-known member
Who looked the other way? I would have said something to her about her comment if, as TH described it, it was obviously racist.
Do you speak up when you witness racism? I do.
Is White Privilege Real?
- Thread starter glassjester
- Start date
Who looked the other way? I would have said something to her about her comment if, as TH described it, it was obviously racist.
Do you speak up when you witness racism? I do.
annabenedetti
like marbles on glass
You couldn't support your answer so you resorted to acting like sod.
I'm not interested in posting to you after this, so you can breathe a sigh of relief.
Your thread is nothing more than an apology for racism.
What do you mean by 'institutionalized'?
The liberal white woman has managed to jump on the Oppressed Express.
With the feminist hypnosis ongoing in society, the result is Anna riding in on others' so called injustices and being carried out on a gilded litter. Women like her can't get enough of it.
Neither could Jezebel.
The Eve is strong with them.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
applied by authority, either explicitly or implicitly
and instead of the tack others have been taking by pointing to the smoke of statistics and demanding that there must be a fire, show me a fire
glassjester
Well-known member
No, sociopathy and poor values in the minds of the offenders make acts of racial violence possible.
No, you need a better insight into the mob mentality and the insinuation of irrational racial assumptions into the cultural backdrop. The South wasn't filled with sociopaths. Neither was Germany. That's the easy answer, but it isn't the right one. The real answer is more frightening and the potential for that evil rearing its head in any culture that writes it off the way you did is dangerously present.
glassjester
Well-known member
The common thread between the South and Nazi Germany is the racial violence being condoned by authority.
Is that happening in the USA now?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
I think maybe the perception of AA is a part of it.
What affirmative action is supposed to mean is that certain employers who are covered by the requirements are expected to take positive steps (i.e. "affirmative action") to hire people who have traditionally been excluded. This is supposed to involve things like outreach programs and training. If a company only ever hires out of the usual channels, a lot of opportunities will never be available to entire demographics of people, which only reinforces a segregated status quo. If you are hiring unqualified people to try to meet those expectation, you're doing it wrong.
AA never was supposed to be color blind. It is a recognition that in order to counter segregationist policies of the past, positive steps must be taken to ensure inclusion.
I think there's been an alarming surge in racism. I can't help but notice that it coincides with the first black presidency.
I think we're seeing two things happening at the same time. On the one hand, policy changes made in the 1960s have facilitated something America was very unaccustomed to: the success of people of color. Rich people who are black, and Hispanic, and women. It used to be that all of the rich people, or almost all of them, as well as nearly all the political leaders, would have been white. And at the same time, we've seen a massive 30-year consolidation of wealth. There are fewer rich people, but those few are much richer. And more and more, people are being pushed out of the middle class. And the result of these two things happening at the same time, is that the comfortable position that white people were in in prior generations, where they might not be rich, but they could still count on being better off than all the black people no longer holds. And that just isn't true anymore. Now, white people who can't get ahead, who find themselves without prospects, often addicted to drugs look at the people of color they see succeeding, and they feel a sense of dispossession. And so they turn to really extreme resentments toward people of color.
Of course, the collapse of the middle class has a lot less to do with the success of minorities and a lot to do with a tremendous effort to change policies to favor the wealthy and increase income inequality. And because white people have been trained to believe in individualism, they don't allow themselves to see the real causes of their pain.
I think that's very unfair and inaccurate. I went to see him speak during the 2008 campaign in North Dakota, a state he knew very well he wasn't going to win. He got literally millions of Americans, especially toward the lower end of the economic spectrum, health insurance. He saved the economy from collapsing, which would have impacted all of the masses.
I just don't know where you get that.
I do think that there is a body of the American population that sees themselves as representing the whole thing, and they tend to characterize anything that benefits other groups as some sort of sop to minorities.
How? He didn't even get the most votes. And no one got a majority of them. I think he represents a surge in white resentment, i.e. a whitelash. But they don't represent even a bare majority, let alone a vast one.
I don't necessarily disagree, but by far the more activist media is on the Right. Don't think network news reflects your views? There's Fox News for that. Still feel like that's too politically correct? You've got Breitbart. And then you can graduate to InfoWars. And then the Daily Stormer. These outlets keep popping up, and each new one is more extreme, more white nationalist than the last, and they start on the fringes and then become mainstream as white Americans become more and more radicalized and resentful. There's no comparably activist trend on the Left. Left-wing activist media mostly comes in the form of satire.
It seems to me that the problem is that news is too commercialized. It's a lot harder to justify the kind of public service journalism that never turns a profit, and so it ends up being funded by whatever can bring in money. Frequently, that's ads from drug companies, eager to market their overpriced wares.
How do you know the entertainers don't simply reflect the culture that produces them? They wouldn't succeed if they didn't resonate with someone, right?
Religion is getting less important to people. I think a part of the reaction that Trump represents is a rejection of that trend.
Thanks for responding.
:cheers:
Last edited:
Not necessarily, at least at the onset. All good people have to do is nothing. An unwillingness to become involved when it speaks to you can lead to the point where it speaks for you. But even accepting your premise, stop and consider how a society gets to the point where that's the case. It's not because of a mob of sociopaths. It's a world where people like that woman in the window move the margins and the envelope continues to be pushed beyond them.
Ask the Anti-Defamation League or the Southern Poverty Law Center, but be prepared to dislike the news. As the Jewish reporter who was speaking to an uptick in anti-Semetic violence since the inauguration (and he wasn't blaming Trump, who misunderstood and thought he saw an enemy among enemies instead of a friend with a concern). But he was short sighted. I don't believe a hard look at the data can support it being a Trump phenomena. I don't believe he meant to act as a causal agent, but he benefited from it.
Consider the emboldened feelings of some of the less palatable Alt-Right preserved on video now in the wake of Trump's election.
There's been an increasingly angry climate in the country and that anger will always run downhill, find the easiest, simplest and most accessible thing to blame and act against. So everyone, Trump included, needs to be aware of it and mindful of it in how they approach changing that tide.
He spoke in a way that sounded a whole lot like ~the government has a fundamental obligation to serve and protect Jews~
Of course Trump took it the wrong way. Any conservative President would have.
The country has a fundamental obligation to protect its citizenry.
He missed the point because he didn't listen for it.
After the Jews
The sooner you all understand the Jewish religion and it's goal, the better. I mean seriously :chuckle:
Nah, he understood it perfectly.
He was there for the same reason the black woman who preceded him came there- to shove their agendas down his throat like he has to prove he's not racist.
That's why he's consistently bringing up the media, because he sees what's going on. It's funny how you all have amnesia- think back to what he was saying before he went into office. The narrative hasn't changed anymore than what it speaks of.
No, that's your bigoted assertion. I stepped it back into the rational and in doing it doubled the frame on your myopic concentration and its root. Everyone has a right to be protected from the acts of evil men. When a community is increasingly targeted it is their right to ask the leader of our nation what will be done.After the Jews
No, he was there to ask a question of concern about his community, the one he largely reports to inform. They're justifiably alarmed and it was a great opportunity for Trump to speak to that concern and lend assurance on the point, to undo the rhetoric of those who paint him as at best insensitive to the concerns of minorities.
Instead of getting the point he put his eye out with it while an ally shook his head.
No, he brings up the media because he needs an enemy and apparently he won't (for some unknown reason) see Russia as that until their spy ship docks in New York.
Lon
Well-known member
As I said, I'm no political guru, but I don't see a few of your points ringing true. "Politically correct?" Sure. I try to do my politics based on some commonality of observation BUT I've no degree for this. Just some things don't look right or mesh with the data I'm seeing. All I can give is from such perspective, but I 'think' some of my feedback might at least help. For instance, it isn't just white 'income' that is the problem. That'd be a hasty and imho wrong conclusion or estimation. Getting to it...
17% of the country is black. That's about 1 or two programs in ten. I think that is better reflected. Many kids literally have to talk 'minority' or 'sexual identity' outside of themselves to be acceptable or politically correct. They are losing their identity and 'becoming' those they are championing. Well, there is a difference in races. I don't have a problem with that as long as I can celebrate my differences too. We don't have to do everything together. It isn't necessary.
Not when you say it isn't supposed to be colorblind. I realize the issue is separating by necessity BUT such is only concerned with self ("what about me?"). It would and will continue to cause a more stark divide in this country, not fix it. It can't.
It is one bigot railing against another bigot...on a organizational scale. It imposes upon non-bigots. I agree with you it may have been needed at one time. Now it is simply dysfunction imho. Realize the 'reaction' is because of color too. It necessarily is going to carry bigoted action and response. It is, imho, the 'wrong' way to fix issues. It's why we are in the mess we are in. That and removing prayer, prayer books, mentions of God, and Christianity etc. from our schools. History, biased, rewritten, and censored is an attack.
I think part of the problem is that it is being done wrong.
I don't think that's it. Whites AND blacks are better than all of our nonAmerican counterparts. Even in debt, we aren't starving. There are a few more living on the street than usual, but I think that problem has more to do with the cost of housing being beyond one's ability. It used to be housing was only 1/4 or 1/3 of a single working parent income. Now it is closer to 3/7 or 4/7 of the income of two parents (in my area). Even at less, I'm happy with what I have, by comparison.
Correlation. I'm not certain of causation. I 'think' part of it is buying on credit and the inability of single-parent-working homes.
As I said before, I think some of this might be a bit of where we happen to live. I don't think he was any worse than other presidents, he just didn't talk much to families. There was a LOT of attention on gays (still is). I'm not complaining. It is simply an observation. My family and I don't watch a lot of news anymore, nor even regular television. We simply 'opted out.' However, I did listen to a few of Obama's speeches as well as the way media catered to and outlet him. There didn't seem to be a lot of 'help families' messages to me. America on the whole, didn't think so either, whether its very fair or inaccurate. I have no control over perception but don't think it unfair or inaccurate. It is perception.
See:
I think you DO know where I got that but didn't look close enough for depth. 65% of media is devoted to gay subject matter, yet only 1% of the country are of this persuasion. That # is skewed among media members, but even there, such in-equitability is a bit much.
17% of the country is black. That's about 1 or two programs in ten. I think that is better reflected. Many kids literally have to talk 'minority' or 'sexual identity' outside of themselves to be acceptable or politically correct. They are losing their identity and 'becoming' those they are championing. Well, there is a difference in races. I don't have a problem with that as long as I can celebrate my differences too. We don't have to do everything together. It isn't necessary.
Again, if 'skin' is the reason, we are out of balance. Percentages of accurate representation would seem advisable. 1% would get 1% of everything, no more. 17% - same. I don't care if the numbers are exact. 2% of America is Mormon. They have never had and "LDS" channel on Cable, Netflix, or Hulu. We are out of balance as a nation. I'm not sure if a thing will change. I'm of the mind that I have to affect my own area of influence. It is the prayer of serenity.
Because the rest of us didn't vote for him but didn't vote for Hilary either.
Then there would be no representation of either of us. The media rarely reflects my values, either the news, or entertainment. Disney seems to be trying again. They lost their way imho, there for awhile. They still don't include cussing for children, unlike DreamWorks. At least they know a lot of parents won't buy it.
Only 35% of America, across board, trusts the news. You'd think they'd take a hint.
Entertainment sells because of entertainment value. I simply don't watch what offends me. I don't watch a LOT of TV or Films. Imho, it is getting worse and disproportionate.
:nono: The opposite is true. There are signs, but I don't believe they point to what some people think it does.
Again, I'm no guru on politics. I simply am giving a perspective and it is colored by 'what I see.' I haven't kept up in the political 'know' and so it simply reflects a bit of interest as well as observations from what amount I actually do take in. Part of it, I think, is that more people are talking politics than they used to. I'm seeing a lot more of it on Facebook for instance. It's good. It gets us all talking instead of doing more stuff that separates us further as a society and nation. When it comes to color, if the whole group happened to be 'not my color' I'd take them over mediocrity. I guess I'm saying I'm into excellence, not skin color. On a spiritual point, I'm concerned with those following Him. I've told my kids, I'd rather see them pick anybody of strong faith at the neglect of any skin color than someone that happens to be their own shade. I realize you aren't of faith, but 'character' would be about the same in conveyance. I'm not sure what it has to do with the thread other than not really caring about skin color that much, other than when others are wrongly concerned about it (one way or the other).
You're trying to skew the point- the Jewish reporter spoke as if the government has an exclusive obligation to the Jews, and that made Trump upset.
Case closed.
Manipulative people have tried to squeeze submission into a man they internally believe is against them. It is one of the things liberal press does best, you saw it through the entire election process and you're seeing it now.
This worship and defensive philosophy of a nasty media, such as what you perpetuate, is something which originated in the UK- as soon as it went full on liberal.
Trump has had to deal with these people from the beginning and feels that the media cannot be trusted with anything.
And he's justified in that- I stopped watching nation-wide news since the election and get all of my information elsewhere. They are all a joke.
You have thoughtful discussions?
:think:
Because it seems more like you just dance around every discussion whether you begin them or enter one
Rather, we elect leaders to represent us and we have the right, even the obligation to question the form that leadership will take. A reporter asked a question that was important to his community of readers. But it was important for everyone, standing as it did in the larger principle of the president's obligation to each of us. He made no claim to exclusivity. Your anger and your ignorance are a poison that will consume you unless you abandon them for reason and compassion.