• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

American politics

braineclipse said:
So it depends on how one defines racism. I think there are multiple ways of defining it that are valid, ranging from wide to narrow. Using a different definition to yours doesn't make one wrong.

I'm guessing we agree on that correlation being caused by historical racism. I would suggest that policies that have the effect of maintaining that gap have a racist effect. It keeps a group disenfranchised by (more overt, explicit) racism disenfranchised for longer.

That to me seems like systemic racism. The system has racist effects, on a group level.

On the flip side of that is white privelege. Not for everyone, but on average you're better off financially being born white than black. That to me seems like a privelege.
Click to expand...
I don't think that policies that happen to have an effect of racial disparity are racist - there has to be some intent there.
 
scaramanga said:
Short of some kind of large-scale racism survey where people were genuinely honest about their opinions, I'm not sure how else we can guage what people think.
Click to expand...
You consider Trump to be a racist. 75 million Americans voted for him. The majority of elected Republicans supported him, either because they agreed with him or found it politically the right move for their careers.

A number of those 75 million people knew he was a racist and liked it or didn't care enough about racism to make that change their vote. Others probably didn't consider him to be a racist, being so ignorant on what racism is that they didn't realise that Trump is one.

Just to be clear, I'm not expecting people to have "I don't want a racist as my president" as a single issue voting reason. But Republican politicians chose not to clearly distance themselves from Trump on that single issue. Cause calling him a racist would hurt them more than it helped them, even assuming they kept aligning themselves with him on everything else. Because calling out someone you consider to be a racist as just that isn't a winning formula among 75 million voting Americans.

What other survey do we need?
 
Just want to point out that being banned from various social media platforms is not an infringement of the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech does NOT mean a right to say anything you want, anytime you want, anywhere you want or to anyone you want.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to have any opinion and belief, without being arrested or prosecuted.
 
braineclipse said:
What would you call it then? Do you consider policies that have an unintended effect of racial disparity problematic?
Click to expand...
If the only effect is one of racial disparity, yes.

Most policies will have a good reason behind them that isn't racial in nature though. Such as zoning laws that don't allow multi-occupancy buildings. They're widely accused of being racist in nature, despite being absolutely vital to uphold the quality of a neighbourhood.
 
Diamond Lights said:
I miss the days when Nazi's were considered bad guys. The far right were allowed by the media to rebrand as "Alt-Right" when non-figuratively there was nothing alternative about them.

Hate brown/black folk? Check
Belief in White superiority? Check
Holocaust denial? Check

So I don't care much about cancel culture.

Remember that ******** Milo? Where's he now?
clamy Hopkins?

When you de-platform people who are non-figuratively calling for genocide of a race, I don't see that as a problem really.

In the spirit of free speech should we give a platform to Paedos for example? Let them publicly make a case for it? No. So let's not give some people a platform who non-figuratively are happy with black people or Jews being killed.

Call me old school.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app
Click to expand...

I guess it comes down to the paradox of intolerance.

Also, there’s a lot of confusion (or willful conflation) around Trump’s Twitter ban and the concept of the curtailing of free speech. The two are not the same thing.
 
Kandi1977 said:
Just want to point out that being banned from various social media platforms is not an infringement of the freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech does NOT mean a right to say anything you want, anytime you want, anywhere you want or to anyone you want.

Freedom of speech is the freedom to have any opinion and belief, without being arrested or prosecuted.
Click to expand...

There must be a limit to that freedom though?

You wouldn’t be free, for example, to incite violence or disseminate hate speech, or to defame or libel.

You would however be able to mock or ridicule when it comes to beliefs like religion or political affiliation etc.

Free speech isn’t freedom from the consequences of that speech.
 
Hotshot-Tottenham said:
I guess it comes down to the paradox of intolerance.

Also, there’s a lot of confusion (or willful conflation) around Trump’s Twitter ban and the concept of the curtailing of free speech. The two are not the same thing.
Click to expand...
Twitter is a private company and has no obligation to provide a space for free speech to anyone. They're free to make political decisions that suit them whenever they choose.

I do, however have an issue with the hypocrisy of both Twitter and Facebook not wanting to be responsible for the content people post on there, whilst simultaneously wanting to censor the views of some of those people. It's one or the other.
 
scaramanga said:
Only in the absence of real evidence.
Click to expand...

Great. So when millions of African Americans detail anecdotal experiences where they’ve been on the receiving end of racial disparity or the negative effects of privilege (and mostly haven’t provided details towards a survey or to create a pretty pie chart), we can hold value to their experience. Glad we’re on the same page.
 
AuroRaman said:
Great. So when millions of African Americans detail anecdotal experiences where they’ve been on the receiving end of racial disparity or the negative effects of privilege (and mostly haven’t provided details towards a survey or to create a pretty pie chart), we can hold value to their experience. Glad we’re on the same page.
Click to expand...
When they make factual statements about their experiences, yes.

When they guess as to the reasoning behind those experiences, no.

So "I went for an interview and didn't get the job" counts. "I didn't get the job because of my skin colour" doesn't (unless, of course, they were told that).
 
scaramanga said:
When they make factual statements about their experiences, yes.

When they guess as to the reasoning behind those experiences, no.

So "I went for an interview and didn't get the job" counts. "I didn't get the job because of my skin colour" doesn't (unless, of course, they were told that).
Click to expand...

And how do you know when they’re guessing or making factual statements? Are you a black person living in America?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back