Meryl Streep; Keith Olbermann

[BigSqwert]

That's a stretch to say the least. You're making it easier for one group of people to get a job than another group of people. That's discrimination. Simple and plain. If African Americans (your example) were being desegregated in 2010 your argument would be relevant.

 

 

We're talking about discrimination in hiring and college and you provide a link about the genocide of American Indians from hundreds of years ago with a smartass comment...

 

Discrimination against minorities hiring/applying in the workplace, in University, in America, in this decade. Relevance...consider it.

 

I am sure there's an instance of an individual claiming racism here and there but there's multiple people in this thread implying there's widespread systemic racism that needs to be made up for it. Where is it? What's the basis?

 

 

Maybe you should have read the article instead of skimming only the first paragraph. It covers hiring discrimination as well.

 

Here's a snippet:

racism against this community remains and is manifested in more subtle ways today. For example, the Washington, DC, Fair Employment Practices Commission has found that blacks face discrimination in one out of every five job interviews. The American Sociological Association notes that, “today employers use different phases of the hiring process to discriminate against minorities (e.g., recruiting from primarily white schools instead of through job training programs) and offer higher status jobs and pay to white employees. Reports of job discrimination against African Americans are correlated with darker complexion, higher education, immigrant status, and young age.”.

[caulfield12]

Where are the examples on the macro level that a disproportionate number of powerful white men are not running the US?

 

Well, we could look at the numbers of non white male presidents, and that would be one area.

 

If it weren't for Obama's white maternal grandparents sacrificing financially to send him to Punahou School in Hawaii, nobody would have even heard his name. Now if you want to argue that Occidental, Columbia and HLS gave special treatment to his applications, you're welcome to make that case, but those (if you want to argue he was given preference over more deserving candidates) Affirmative Action policies also just gave us one of the few presidents in modern American history to leave office with a 60% approval rating.

 

 

 

Maybe watching Hidden Figures or Fences would help to put words into pictures, or prose into poetry...but that would only lead to the "that was all supposedly solved fifty year ago by JFK, LBJ and MLK" argument.

Edited January 18, 2017 by caulfield12

[Jenksismyhero]

Where are the examples on the macro level that a disproportionate number of powerful white men are not running the US?

 

Well, we could look at the numbers of non white male presidents, and that would be one area.

 

If it weren't for Obama's white maternal grandparents sacrificing financially to send him to Punahou School in Hawaii, nobody would have even heard his name. Now if you want to argue that Occidental, Columbia and HLS gave special treatment to his applications, you're welcome to make that case, but those (if you want to argue he was given preference over more deserving candidates) Affirmative Action policies also just gave us one of the few presidents in modern American history to leave office with a 60% approval rating.

 

Ends justify the means. Still discrimination.

[illinilaw08]

That's a stretch to say the least. You're making it easier for one group of people to get a job than another group of people. That's discrimination. Simple and plain. If African Americans (your example) were being desegregated in 2010 your argument would be relevant.

 

African Americans are still being discriminated against in hiring. Discriminatory housing (and other) policies over the last 50 years make it more difficult for African Americans as a demographic to obtain the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts. Society has a moral obligation to level that playing field. Remedying discrimination by providing opportunities to the group that was discriminated against is not discrimination (that sentence made my head hurt).

 

ETA: The point here is that an act needs to be unjust to be discriminatory. Thus, policies that provide greater employment and educational opportunities to minorities are not, in fact, discriminatory.

Edited January 18, 2017 by illinilaw08

[Jenksismyhero]

African Americans are still being discriminated against in hiring. Discriminatory housing (and other) policies over the last 50 years make it more difficult for African Americans as a demographic to obtain the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts. Society has a moral obligation to level that playing field. Remedying discrimination by providing opportunities to the group that was discriminated against is not discrimination (that sentence made my head hurt).

 

ETA: The point here is that an act needs to be unjust to be discriminatory. Thus, policies that provide greater employment and educational opportunities to minorities are not, in fact, discriminatory.

 

That's pretty subjective.

[caulfield12]

Ends justify the means. Still discrimination.

 

if the government gave every freed person 40 acres and a mule 151 years ago like they had promised (the equivalent of let's say $120-140,000 usd), there would be a stronger basis for your reverse discrimination argument. Instead they got Jim Crow, lynchings and the KKK in the South.

Edited January 18, 2017 by caulfield12

[illinilaw08]

That's pretty subjective.

 

Which part is subjective? It's objective that African-Americans are still discriminated in hiring. It's objectively true that discriminatory policies against African Americans over the last 50 years make it more difficult for African Americans, as a demographic, to obtain the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts. It is objectively true that the dictionary definition of discrimination defines discrimination as "unjust."

[StrangeSox]

if the government gave every freed person 40 acres and a mule 151 years ago like they had promised (the equivalent of let's say $120-140,000 usd), there would be a stronger basis for your reverse discrimination argument. Instead they got Jim Crow, lynchings and the KKK in the South.

Don't let the North or the West off the hook here, either. Chicago remains one of the most segregated cities, and Oregon didn't allow non whites originally to give two examples.

[caulfield12]

Which part is subjective? It's objective that African-Americans are still discriminated in hiring. It's objectively true that discriminatory policies against African Americans over the last 50 years make it more difficult for African Americans, as a demographic, to obtain the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts. It is objectively true that the dictionary definition of discrimination defines discrimination as "unjust."

 

Not to mention housing discrimination pushing minorities and immigrants/refugees into the most undesirable public housing and, almost invariably, demonstrably inferior public school districts.

 

Mr. Trump's father was acutely aware of this invisible line in the sand...and, of course his son just gave us Dr. Ben Carson, who will surely pull everyone up by the bootstraps.

Edited January 18, 2017 by caulfield12

[Soxbadger]

"The problem is you keep making it about your specific situation" *spends next three paragraphs speaking about personal experience.*

 

Please provide support for your argument that minorities don't get jobs because of their race. If that were true they could get a lawsuit settlement that outweighs any potential earnings that job would offer in this litigious society. The media would be all over it with support drumming up more race tension too.

 

Using your argument, I should be able to get a chance to be employed in the NBA because historically my culture has been underrepresented in that field right? My people are underrepresented and have been subjugated to stereotypes that they lack athleticism compared to the black majority for decades. This country 6% black men but the NBA is 75% black men. Where's the affirmative action? Where is the outcry? There is none. In sports, people accept the meritocratic process. Sports don't see any color but green. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. With no regard or preference for the beneficiaries or the faux-victims.

 

The funniest part of your initial retort to me was the snide remark of maybe I should be taking personal accountability. Heed your own advice. Is it fair to write off entire group(s) of millions of people lack of financial success due to a theory called white privilege? You can question my personal accountability over a few posts on a message board but when a minority group(s) achieves less than other minority groups you can chalk it all up to the majority group (who is a middle-of-the-pack performer aggregately) having privilege? I'd like to see some accountability there. Maybe some judging too? But your line of thinking doesn't harbor independent thought like that. Your line of thinking says people like me can't voice their opinion because I'm too privileged to understand what it's like. I will say that I am privileged - not because I am white though. I am privileged because I was taught personal responsibility. My parents got married with the intention of having kids and planned on having me. They raised and supported me together. They raised me to be able to take care of myself and be a contributor to society one day.

 

Nowadays, when we aren't using loose academic theory as the crux of our arguments, we have cold, plain numbers. They show us the socioeconomic factors and results that explain many outcomes sans any sensitivities or altruistic, self-validating premises rooted in fallacy. The numbers show us a few a things. If you are a new born baby, your financial future/potential is highly dependent on a few things:

 

1.) Is your mother single? Married?

2.) Does your mother/father have a high school degree?

 

So if you're born to a single mother who is a 17 year old high school drop out you're probably not going to split the atom. If you get arrested 18 years later for selling pot and your mother is cashing welfare checks, you're probably not going to get bailed out, she's probably not going to get you a lawyer and you're probably going to get in trouble. However, if you're born to two parents who planned to have you and are educated in the bare minimum, they will probably bail you out and take care of you like you alluded yours did. Your parents took personal accountability for you when you got caught with weed (guessing with Cudi lyrics in the sig). Taking personal responsibility for children is not something white people do particularly well in America. White people are getting worse annually in regards to the destruction of the family. Though it's diametrically opposed to the theory of white privilege, the groups that are most likely to keep a family together are minority groups. I guess the evil whites chose not to levy their white privilege on the minorities like the Jews, the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs, etc. Perhaps these groups were subjected to discrimination at one points. Maybe the evil whites did subjugate these people but these people persevered, bonded together and supported one another in a classical familial structure. There's no reason any other culture can't do the same.

 

This is completely no responsive to anything I have said. First I never said that minorities dont get jobs because of race, I said "I do believe that there is some evidence that all things being equal a company is likely to hire a non-minority over a minority."

 

Here is "some evidence" https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/eco...gap-in-america/

 

Now Im not saying its the best evidence or even provable, just that "some evidence" exists.

 

I have no idea how the NBA has anything to do with this situation. Its a complete red herring. It would be like saying that the NHL is under representing black people. It is completely misconstruing the purpose, which is to level the playing field. IE Jackie Robinson is as good or better than other players, but he isnt being hired because of his race.

 

The next paragraph isnt at all what I have said or ever said. In fact it goes against everything I stand for, as you say " Your line of thinking says people like me can't voice their opinion because I'm too privileged to understand what it's like." I consistently say that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it." Just because I dont agree, just because I am not sure you really can understand what life is like as a minority, is not the equivalent of saying "you cant voice your opinion." You can voice your opinion about anything, but others have the right to question your opinion.

 

I thought about responding how can I take your post seriously when you cant even do a google search on my signature line, as the quote is Kanye not Kid Cudi. Youre assumptions arent really correct, my parents have never "bailed me out", and there is no way to factually prove my conclusion, but I believe that the reason I got out of a lot of trouble was due to being a white boy from the suburbs or a white man from the city.

 

I mean its hard to even take this seriously when you say things like "maybe ... these people were subjugated." Really? Maybe slavery was subjugation?

 

Jenks,

 

I'm talking more about the situations where the state only accepts bids if you're a woman or minority (Rauner just did this in the fall and i'm pretty certain the City of Chicago has a similar program: http://www.govtech.com/budget-finance/Illi...usinesses.html). Or where schools create specific gender or race or religious related scholarships or grants. But even with affirmative action it's not as simple as "diversity is great!," it's putting in place application procedures to give preference to minority candidates. O'Connor literally called it a "racial preference" in her opinion.

 

What bothers me is that on a macro level that seems fair and just - whites get the vast majority of the business or spots in school, minorities don't, so why not increase that number? The problem is on the micro level when individual white applicants are screwed based on nothing more than their color, something we're not supposed to be ok with. The argument is basically "get over it, you're privileged" which is bulls*** because that person might not be.

 

I agree that in some instances the pendulum has swung to far the other way, although my favorite case is when "white male" owner gave his wife 51% of the company so that hed qualify for M/WBE Program. Then wife/husband gets in a fight and now wife wants the business and the husband is trying to argue that he really never gave her ownership.

 

And I absolutely agree that there is some problems with the current system, and I am even willing to say that maybe we have gone to far. But in my opinion if we are to make a mistake, Id rather the mistake be we went too far to help minorities, than we didnt do enough.

 

Now that is just my fundamental philosophy. But anytime I start reading arguments about how maybe minorities were subjugated in the past, it just makes me think that our society still is unwilling to recognize that the majority has done a lot of s***ty things.

 

 

[Jenksismyhero]

Which part is subjective? It's objective that African-Americans are still discriminated in hiring. It's objectively true that discriminatory policies against African Americans over the last 50 years make it more difficult for African Americans, as a demographic, to obtain the same educational opportunities as their white counterparts. It is objectively true that the dictionary definition of discrimination defines discrimination as "unjust."

 

What you or I believe is just or unjust in a given scenario.

[caulfield12]

It's very simple. Nobody is going to change their point of view, any more than if you were talking about abortion or the death penalty.

 

The GOP should come right out and say they don't believe it's a fundamental right for all Americans to have health care.

 

Germane to this discussion, assert/claim/argue that it's NO LONGER just or fair to continue Affirmative Action policies...whenever that seemingly arbitrary deadline passed to continue them (realistically, it stopped in the 1980's with the Reagan/Bush years for many African-Americans).

 

Fwiw, I teach in an international school here in China (we just had 9 admitted to Oxford/Cambridge) and we constantly have this discussion about having to be 25% better than African-American, Hispanic and Native American students to receive Ivy League or Top 30-50 US university admission letter. In fact, the State of California system is currently attempting to limit the number of Chinese students admitted (even though their parents subsidize state residents' lower tuition with the highest international tuition expenses) to provide more opportunities (another form of protectionism) for local California residents, even if their test scores don't necessarily merit it.

 

(Another example, the city of Vancouver is now forbidding Chinese from buying property there because it's raising real estate prices too much for locals/Canadians...essentially, they're being discriminated against for being too "successful" economically and trying to get too much money out of the mainland at the same time).

 

At any rate, the students don't get caught up in whether it's right/fair/just, they just work harder and study longer. The competition here in China is already 10X what they'll ever face in the US. In fact, many students here choose international studies just because it's an escape from the GAO KAO, a standardized exam like the SAT except the Grade 12 kids study an ENTIRE year and your entire fate in life (getting into a university or not, what majors you can choose) is based on a single multiple choice exam. Now that's REAL pressure.

 

When I ask them if they feel it's unfair that students from western China (Tibet/Gansu/Xinjiang), where there are many ethnic and religious minority groups, receive full or partial scholarships, they don't even blink or argue against it (it's just a fact of life)...especially if those kids from disadvantaged backgrounds come close to the marks and GAO KAO scores of those growing up in the city with the advantages of specialized training centers, tutors, the best technology/resources/teachers and IB/AP curriculum. They realize they already have a huge advantage, a 5-10 meter head start in a 100M race.

Edited January 19, 2017 by caulfield12

[greg775]

You may act like you're all for freedom of speech but all you do is twist people's words to paint them in a bad light....

I know it's common procedure for you to call people you don't agree with racist to elevate your moral high ground, but the person has to at least give you an opening. You're just making s*** up at this point.

You've done a great job of putting him in his place after he did what you said he did. I enjoy your posts on this topic. I do the same thing when my longer posts get one line quoted out of context by certain people on the board. Some of us understand your point(s) and do not think you are racist. It's hard to 'win' in a discussion like this, however.

[caulfield12]

Well, racist and Republican...those two words are getting thrown around almost interchangeably these days, but Trump has nobody but himself to blame for that (and Bannon/the alt-right movement, etc).

 

It's largely why you're seeing 60 members of the House of Representatives sitting out the inauguration Friday, the attacks on John Lewis/Atlanta and the Russian hacking issue.

 

 

[greg775]

60 members of the House of Representatives sitting out the inauguration Friday.

What a f-ed up country. People only care about their own party in politics. Nobody cares about the country. Very sad.

 

Here's the reality of the situation: Some people actually think Trump will work hard and try to help the country. Just because you have a D by your name doesn't mean you can't get behind Trump. What's the alternative? We all die? If Trump sucks and commits an impeachable offense, by all means let's get rid of him. Until then, s***, maybe things will get better. The people whining should be incensed at their own party for nominating a person WHO COULD NOT BEAT TRUMP. As for now, why not work with him and hope the economy improves and the little guy and gal start making some fricking money.

Edited January 19, 2017 by greg775

[BigSqwert]

What a f-ed up country. People only care about their own party in politics. Nobody cares about the country. Very sad.

Agreed. They should all show up and scream "You lie!" when Trump takes the podium.

[greg775]

Agreed. They should all show up and scream "You lie!" when Trump takes the podium.

If our country is going to go downhill forevermore, I just wish it'd speed up and Armageddon would be tomorrow. Nobody can hope for the best. Nobody can get behind Trump, whom MILLIONS of AMERICANS voted for. We all despise him. Basically we despise everybody who doesn't agree with us, choose OUR candidate.

I don't understand why people don't actually hope for the best at this point. Like I said a lot of successful people, reasonable people think Trump can turn the economy around and maybe the little guy can make as much money as his/her parents made. Right now, that's a dream that never will be a reality. Just think, your kids will never do as well financially as you are doing.

 

GET BEHIND TRUMP until he commits an impeachable offense folks. Let's all prosper! We are Americans!

[Quin]

If our country is going to go downhill forevermore, I just wish it'd speed up and Armageddon would be tomorrow. Nobody can hope for the best. Nobody can get behind Trump, whom MILLIONS of AMERICANS voted for. We all despise him. Basically we despise everybody who doesn't agree with us, choose OUR candidate.

I don't understand why people don't actually hope for the best at this point. Like I said a lot of successful people, reasonable people think Trump can turn the economy around and maybe the little guy can make as much money as his/her parents made. Right now, that's a dream that never will be a reality. Just think, your kids will never do as well financially as you are doing.

 

GET BEHIND TRUMP until he commits an impeachable offense folks. Let's all prosper! We are Americans!

 

Nah. I'm not one to goosestep to the beat of a racist, xenophobic demagouge.

 

If he actually shows he cares about the American people, sure, but otherwise f*** Trump. Unlike Obama, we don't hate him because of what people say he'll do (take away guns, death panels) but because of what he say's he'll do (build a frivolous wall, ruin NATO, NAFTA, the Paris Agreement, ban Muslims from entering the country, etc.).

 

But that's not what they say on Fox News.

[Soxbadger]

Okay this is the second time you've falsely implied I was racist. This time you weren't even close. You took a quote that wasn't about black people and made it about black people. This is just awful and shameful rhetoric.

 

You don't allow free thought when you constantly try to make victims and label people when they speak their mind. You may act like you're all for freedom of speech but all you do is twist people's words to paint them in a bad light. For instance, earlier I pointed out how much success the Jews have had financially and you twisted it to me "complaining about how successful Jews are". When I said you should provide a quote of me saying what you implied, you didn't provide a quote. You basically called me an anti-semite and then just ignored it when asked to back it up.

 

Again in this most recent post. You respond to my post, in which I allude to the subjugation of "the Jews, the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs, etc." Your response to that: "I mean its hard to even take this seriously when you say things like "maybe ... these people were subjugated." Really? Maybe slavery was subjugation?" So now by your deduction, that lacks any basis due to a sheer lack of comprehension, I have marginalized the plight of all the black slaves in the past. You'll really do anything to twist and distort things to paint people as racist.

 

I acknowledge the widely accepted financial prowess of Jewish people and praise certain minority cultures for their emphasis on family and you break it down to me "complaining about how successful Jews are" and me ignoring the struggles of slaves of our country's past. If you have to continually whiff at painting me as a racist to hoist up your house of cards argument then maybe you shouldn't be defending your argument in the first place. You're smart enough to debate on merit of the topic. I don't see what you gain by wildly mischaracterizing and misquoting words to paint me as racist. You just look bad after this second botched attempt. I know it's common procedure for you to call people you don't agree with racist to elevate your moral high ground, but the person has to at least give you an opening. You're just making s*** up at this point.

 

I seriously have no idea what you are talking about anymore. I have never once called you a racist or implied you are a racist. An anti-semite? What the f*** are you talking about. If I thought you were anti-semitic Id have said it. Ive never called you a racist, and just to double check, I searched and noticed that you keep using the term. In fact multiple times you suggest that "other people" will think you are a racist for what you said.

 

And maybe check your history, but Jews were in fact slaves in Egypt. And I guess technically you could say in World War II they were enslaved or worse by the Nazis. Is it my lack of comprehension, or is it your immediate knee jerk reaction to think that someone is calling you a racist? I dont know, but the facts seem to suggest you have some automatic defense of "Ill be seen as a racist", when never once have I called you a racist, nor implied it. How can I have a real discussion on this subject when you arent even willing to accept history. But honestly, I dont even know where this argument of yours is going. Jews dont get privilege they arent covered by affirmative action, so I really am not sure what Asians/Jews have to do with your experience. It seems that you are trying to argue that because Jews/Asians are successful despite their minority status, that no minority should get any privilege. I could spend plenty of time discussing why Asians/Jews are not equivalent to other minorities, but I dont think thats relevant. Just because Jews succeed despite historically unfair obstacles, doesnt mean that we should allow the unfair obstacles to exist.

 

I know I could debate you on the merit of a topic, you just dont ever feel like discussing the merits of a topic. Instead you seem to immediately get defensive and make it about "you" and "whether "you" are racist. I am not trying to paint you as a racist, I dont care if you are or if you arent. If you want to be a racist, that is fine.

 

I dont think you are a racist, I think you are naive. And if you dont understand why the comment:

 

Jewish, Chinese and Arabic (if you extract them from "caucasian" designation) people all earn more than white people on average in America. The white people are really middle of the pack on average.

 

Could come off as "complaining about their success", you need to think about stereotypes and their implication. Maybe right or wrong, but putting together the ideas like "Jewish people arent white", "jewish people earn more than white people" and "white people are middle of the pack", brings up a lot of pretty horrific images of past events, so I think it was fair to conclude it seemed like you were complaining.

 

Multiple times I tried to discuss your actual point, which seems to be that because certain minorities are (arguably) more successful than "regular white" people, that no other minority should be given any. I try to explain what may be a cultural difference (Jews), and you take it as a personal insult. You used an NBA example, I responded specifically as to why the example is not comparable, and you dont respond at all.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Soxbadger

[Soxbadger]

You've done a great job of putting him in his place after he did what you said he did. I enjoy your posts on this topic. I do the same thing when my longer posts get one line quoted out of context by certain people on the board. Some of us understand your point(s) and do not think you are racist. It's hard to 'win' in a discussion like this, however.

 

 

Ive never once called him a racist. He just is very defensive about the idea.

 

He ends his first post with:

 

I am sure I'll just get called racist

 

Second post:

 

All I ask for is a meritocratic process but I guess I am racist loon for that

 

While I wouldn't stoop to the level to misconstrue someone's words into making them seem racist to make my point, I could easily say, "Oh, so all non-whites are criminals?"

 

Third post:

 

Okay this is the second time you've falsely implied I was racist.

 

You'll really do anything to twist and distort things to paint people as racist.

 

If you have to continually whiff at painting me as a racist

 

I don't see what you gain by wildly mischaracterizing and misquoting words to paint me as racist.

 

I know it's common procedure for you to call people you don't agree with racist to elevate your moral high ground, but the person has to at least give you an opening.

 

In three responses to me, Rabbit used the word racist in 8 different sentences. In all of my posts, I called Rabbit racist 0 times. I actually never even touched on the subject of whether Rabbit likes minorities, because its entirely irrelevant to my argument. I dont care if he is or is not a racist. It doesnt change my opinion on why I am not complaining about affirmative action.

 

That is the real discussion, affirmative action, which does not apply to Jews, Asians or people from the Middle East. And just because you dont agree with affirmative action doesnt mean you are a racist. For whatever reason in this discussion, Rabbit is trying to become the martyr to my fictitious attacks. Because (and Ill say it again) I dont think Rabbit is racist, he may just be a little naive as to why what he says may appear racist to people other than myself.

 

 

 

[caulfield12]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethni...ousehold_income

 

Fwiw, Arab-American is actually BEHIND Caucasian/White American by household income....roughly $60K vs. $55K.

 

 

Lebanese, Iranian and Syrian (this is actually an argument for relaxing "refugee" status, but only if Trump handpicks "good, hard-working" Arabs I guess) groups are well higher than the average white household...but, all Arab-Americans added together cumulatively end up roughly 8% lower than whites.

 

You can find another grouping of Arab/Arabic all the way down at 89th on the list...ahead of ONLY Burmese, Iraqi and Somalians.

 

Indian American : $101,591[2]

Taiwanese American : $85,566[2]

Filipino American : $82,389[2]

Australian American : $81,452[3]

Israeli American : $79,736[3]

European American : $77,440[3]

Russian American : $77,349[3]

Greek American : $77,342[3]

Lebanese American : $74,757[3]

Croatian American : $73,196[3]

Latvian American : $72,690[3]

Lithuanian American : $72,605[3]

Austrian American : $72,478[3]

 

 

Different Chinese-American categories (depending if you count Taiwan together) are down at 23rd and 29th, but still ahead of the "average" white household.

 

And with Filipino-Americans third on the list, they've overcome a ton of discrimination themselves as a people...not necessarily comparable to Nazi Germany (Jewish people) or slavery, but nevertheless quite brutal dictatorships.

Edited January 19, 2017 by caulfield12

[Reddy]

GET BEHIND TRUMP until he commits an impeachable offense folks. Let's all prosper! We are Americans!

 

He has already committed several. Refusal to divest from his companies as a start.

 

Greg, what do you stand to lose from a Trump Presidency?

[StrangeSox]

JPMorgan settles federal mortgage discrimination suit for $55 million

[StrangeSox]

Nah. I'm not one to goosestep to the beat of a racist, xenophobic demagouge.

 

If he actually shows he cares about the American people, sure, but otherwise f*** Trump. Unlike Obama, we don't hate him because of what people say he'll do (take away guns, death panels) but because of what he say's he'll do (build a frivolous wall, ruin NATO, NAFTA, the Paris Agreement, ban Muslims from entering the country, etc.).

 

But that's not what they say on Fox News.

 

[Soxbadger]

The more I think about it, the more I start to realize that maybe I should have been harsher about the statement:

 

Jewish, Chinese and Arabic (if you extract them from "caucasian" designation) people all earn more than white people on average in America. The white people are really middle of the pack on average.

 

What are Jews who come from Europe then if not white? Caucasian has nothing to do with religion, it is defined as "white-skinned; of European origin." The entire idea that "Jews" are a different "race" than "white people" is exactly the type of hate speech you saw in Nazi Germany and you see from David Duke. Being Jewish has nothing to do with your "race", as you can be Jewish and black, or any other race. Which is why Jewish people from Europe are defined as "white", because its equivalent to calling a white person who is a Muslim "not white" or white person who practices Catholicism "not white", etc.

 

So maybe I was too nice in my first response.

 

When you try to draw a racial distinction (Jews are not white) along religious lines, I think you are walking down the path of antisemitism. Again, maybe Rabbit is just too naive to understand why what he said is offensive. Or its just a byproduct of the rise in alt-right pseudo-Nazi ideology.

 

Either way, I should have come down on that statement much harder and I shouldnt have used kid gloves to dance around the terrible implications of his statement. For that I apologize, because ultimately we all have a responsibility to challenge abhorrent ideology.

Edited January 19, 2017 by Soxbadger