Ok liberals/lefties, this is your time to shine!!

And if we didn't have all these injustices, bullying and discrimination against minorities and historically underprivileged/undervalued groups those SJWs/PC activists/feminazis/whatever you call them wouldn't be so popular. Only these are actual issues millions of people face daily, and not some absurd thing that happened to one particularly stubborn baker once. And I'm still waiting for an example of someone who accidentally called someone a sir losing their livelihood because of it.

This quote from the obviously heavily blue pilled and sedated pez...I figured I would take a different approach.

Show me where this broad spectrum oppression of all forms is in the U.S.? Or even other western countries (I am fully aware of oppressions of many countries that aren't of Western culture... ironically these nations are many time accepted and even celebrated by the left even though they represent the left "supposedly" stands against)...

Show me please almighty leftist, show me what my straight white evil ass is missing...

Because from what I see, the U.S. and other western societies are the most culturally diverse, free and accepting civilizations on the planet.


The playing field is level now, it's time to stop talking about it and using fake shit for being lazy or a loser.

Prove me wrong.


*Edited for a friendlier title

I will give you the wisdom you seek.  But first you must face...  A transexual!



There's probably better videos but this is the first one that came to mind.  The takeaway from this particular story is not so much a system of actively oppressing black people but a system that might be fairly egalitarian now but has a long history oppressing black people where the damage is still present today.

Anyways.  I'll add some more material later when I think of it.

^
I don't see this being a good example...fucked up of course, do I agree with it, no..do I agree with you that police are starting to tilt too much towards a police state style of enforcement...yes (especially when you see how other countries deal with criminals/suspected criminals)..

My position is not stating there is no more racism/misogyny etc. There are certainly fringe people of all gender/color/race/religion that will hate someone of the other side.

However, it is not a wide spread problem, and it certainly is not keeping people from living a successful life no matter that gender/race/religion. There are certainly no laws that are racist or misogynistic like there have been in the past.


The race baiting, virtue signalling etc etc etc the left is doing only does one thing. Promote racism/sexism etc etc etc...one group hating another...does this not sound crazy to you? Its like bringing gasoline to a fire while calling yourself a fireman..

If the left really cared about people as they say, they would simply tell them the truth...the table is level now people, it's time to get to work and build yourself up, there is nothing stopping you but you.

This is a really obnoxious question. The only reason one wouldn't be able to see it is because they don't want to see it or they take it for granted. Just because people are more polite in public and don't always make their bigotry obvious it doesn't mean it's not there or that it's not expressed in various forms. And that's ignoring a lot of systemic issues that exist. My favorite thing is when someone says they have no issue with "the gays" as long as they keep to themselves. It's ridiculous because it's code for "I don't want them anywhere near me" and you just know that if one of their children turns out gay their teenage years will be fucked, and indeed, they often are. I like this example because it's really easy to see and really really widespread, and a lot of the people who cause the issue don't even realize they are an issue. Of course there are hundreds of expamples of shitty attitudes towards all sorts of groups, but you have to observe, instead of saying "not many people say the n word out loud and rape women so it's all cool".

I predict we will all be singing kumbaya by the end of page two.   

Just for funsies. https://www.npr.org/2018/11/13/667252788/police-fatally-shoot-black-security-guard-who-detained-suspected-shooter

A security guard detained the shooter. The shooter was on the ground, the guard had his knee on the shooter's back with a gun pointed at him. A cop shot him. He was convicted of being black while detaining a criminal and was sentenced to death for his heinous crime.

fuck

Remember Phillandro Castille? Rather than show you a video, let me point out an interesting thing. From Wikipedia, although I have seen this reported elsewhere:

"Prior to the shooting, Castile had been stopped by the police 52 times for traffic violations"

I can't imagine a white person still having their license after being stopped 52 times. Either they let black people who have many violations still drive (yeah, right), or, more likely, it was DWB and little was convicted.

Make a resume qualified for a good job, and submit using the name D'anton, or Shaquille. Try the same using names like Bob or Steve. An interesting variation is to rent an apartment. Identify again as Lavar or Ladainian and see how the call goes. Try again, same people, using the name Steve or Bill. Then try having a black show up black and then try white. Carefully set up same qualifications and presentation, make it equal. Do you think the black applicants will be treated differently?

In every state with a republican govt, places where blacks are the majority have fewer polling places, longer lines, badly designed ballots (Broward), machines break down.

Many more examples, but tired of this post.

You don’t see your system as broke because you are brought up in it (boiling the frog), and you are probably a recipient of the birth rite pass of being white and not poor. But being from a slightly different culture (UK), when I last visited North Carolina I was given a run down of what not to do if stopped by an officer of the law (whilst driving), by an expat’ who knew the differences and was worried I might get my self shot, by getting out of the car or moving suddenly (not things that would get you killed here), he then added that I should be alright as soon as the officer in question saw that I was white.

You don’t see your system as broke because you are brought up in it (boiling the frog)

Just for the sake of highlighting this phenomenon: Is Obama white?

The prevailing idea of "whiteness" is a racial construct with subtle racist tones. It is an arbitrary edifice that a child is only white if his parents were both white. If one parent is black the child is black. This fundamental attitude is nearly universal and is hardly even questioned, despite its clear insinuations. Just the basic and universal pattern for applying "whiteness" to offspring, promotes a perception in which whites represent a status of purity, while minorities contaminate that purity. This can feed emotional concerns of racial rarity akin to pure-breeds, play on fears of eventual annihilation, invoke sentiments of race preservation, etc.

To be clear, calling Obama black doesn't make you racist. This example was just meant to illustrate how easy it is to adopt a racist cultural norm, probably without conscious consideration.

Show me where this broad spectrum oppression of all forms is in the U.S.?

As for addressing the crux of your request for widespread discrimination, I'm not sure what evidence you would even consider valid. If bigots are mistreating and slighting people across the nation to the extent they can get away with or not notice themselves, the nature of the claim practically requires omniscience to prove. Only probabilistic arguments can ever be made for or against the hypothesis. I base my beliefs on probabilities, but would you accept:

• An avalanche of credible anecdotes or accounts from personal witnesses? If you wanted, you could dismiss anecdotes as not technically proof. Just weak Bayesian evidence because they are just consistent with the hypothesis, but not proof.
• An appeal to the known human psychology that we have rampant cognitive biases, predisposing humans to discriminate, which requires an active educational intervention of those biases to prevent?
  This kind of evidence clearly establishes a societal default that, unchecked, a nation will produce many bigots. Leveraging the fact that cognitive biases are not common knowledge nor included in school curriculum, is strong reason to suspect bigots are widespread, but that is inductive reasoning, not rigorous proof.
• How about evidence that massive portions of the public holding bigoted beliefs and/or subscribing to bigoted ideologies? You could argue that his is technically not discrimination, even if it is the primary motivator consistent with (and predictive of) discrimination. Still not technically proof, just statistical correlation.

I will delve into that last one for convenience. The Muslim ban comes to mind.

Trump called for religious tests at the border, argued for 6 months for a complete shutdown specially blocking Muslims from entering the US, pushed for mass surveillance on Muslims nationwide, and proposed a Muslim registry.

His lawyer Rudy Giuliani confirmed on public television that the intent of the "travel ban" was to ban Muslims because they were Muslims, but that they had to masquerade it as a "travel ban" merely blocking certain countries in order to circumvent the constitution. He bragged about how they had to disguise it as a "danger" argument, instead of an ethnocultural argument to get it passed. This was extremely transparent, and since their stated intent of the ban was unconstitutional, the ruse still failed. Nonetheless, Trump's support never fell below 30%, suggesting that roughly a third of the population weren't particularly offended by his unconstitutional anti-Muslim propositions and rhetoric.

The most prevalent lethal domestic terrorist threat in the US, as measured by ideology, are right-wing extremists, but a substantial percent of Americans favor the anti-Muslim bans. Depending on the poll and phraseology of the questions, support for the ban often exceeds 50%. On that note, nearly 20% advocate stripping voting rights away from Muslims. (I would consider 1/5th of the country to be widespread.)

Xenophobia, racism, and general bigotry are real. Why is it a leap to think bigots behave in accordance with their beliefs?

I will delve into that last one for convenience. The Muslim ban comes to mind.

Trump called for religious tests at the border, argued for 6 months for a complete shutdown specially blocking Muslims from entering the US, pushed for mass surveillance on Muslims nationwide, and proposed a Muslim registry.

His lawyer Rudy Giuliani confirmed on public television that the intent of the "travel ban" was to ban Muslims because they were Muslims, but that they had to masquerade it as a "travel ban" merely blocking certain countries in order to circumvent the constitution. He bragged about how they had to disguise it as a "danger" argument, instead of an ethnocultural argument to get it passed. This was extremely transparent, and since their stated intent of the ban was unconstitutional, the ruse still failed. Nonetheless, Trump's support never fell below 30%, suggesting that roughly a third of the population weren't particularly offended by his unconstitutional anti-Muslim propositions and rhetoric.

The most prevalent lethal domestic terrorist threat in the US, as measured by ideology, are right-wing extremists, but a substantial percent of Americans favor the anti-Muslim bans. Depending on the poll and phraseology of the questions, support for the ban often exceeds 50%. On that note, nearly 20% advocate stripping voting rights away from Muslims. (I would consider 1/5th of the country to be widespread.)

Xenophobia, racism, and general bigotry are real. Why is it a leap to think bigots behave in accordance with their beliefs?

Correct me if I am wrong, but Muslims from everywhere else in the world were fine to enter America. And if you were a Christian in Iraq, you would also be forbidden to enter the US.

A Muslim ban would mean anyone from Saudi Arabia would be banned (and they weren't) as well as Muslims from many other Middle Eastern, African and west Asian countries.

Somalia doesn't even have a proper functioning government. Why shouldn't he ban travel from there.

And it's getting on a while now but was it not a ban specific FROM those countries? Eg if an Iraqi traveled to Australia first and THEN traveled to America, they would be fine (just poorer and more exhausted from the added flights).They were just refusing entry FROM a select group of countries (however I'm not sure if this workaround was the case)

A 'Muslim' ban would mean Muslims everywhere were banned. But in this case, only a few countries that happen to have a Muslim majority were banned. Christians and others were also banned. Calling it a Muslim ban certainly made it sound a great way to attack Trump on a racist note though (even though it's bigoted, not racist).

Calling it a Muslim ban certainly made it sound a great way to attack Trump on a racist note though (even though it's bigoted, not racist).

Again, the implicit and explicitly stated intent of the ban, was to ban Muslims.

Just because Trump couldn't find a more direct path to banning all Muslims and had to use his lawyer's next best strategy for accomplishing a similar result, doesn't exonerate his attempt.

Wasn't the ban supposed to be a temporary 90 day ban so the administration could look into the vetting process and reform it? The administration fought longer than those 90 days to get the ban implemented, and didn't appear to work on the vetting process in the slightest during that time. Imagine that.

Wasn't the ban supposed to be a temporary 90 day ban so the administration could look into the vetting process and reform it? The administration fought longer than those 90 days to get the ban implemented, and didn't appear to work on the vetting process in the slightest during that time. Imagine that.

You do know that the list of countries on the travel ban is the same list of countried that Obama bombed during his term.

Quote from: DuckDodgers on December 14, 2018, 06:38:13 AM

Wasn't the ban supposed to be a temporary 90 day ban so the administration could look into the vetting process and reform it? The administration fought longer than those 90 days to get the ban implemented, and didn't appear to work on the vetting process in the slightest during that time. Imagine that.

You do know that the list of countries on the travel ban is the same list of countried that Obama bombed during his term.

Ok? Does that change the reason behind the travel ban being to reform the vetting process? A process that could be performed regardless of whether then ban went into effect or not and obviously wasn't performed in the 90 days the ban was being fought in court?

Quote from: DuckDodgers on December 14, 2018, 06:38:13 AM

Wasn't the ban supposed to be a temporary 90 day ban so the administration could look into the vetting process and reform it? The administration fought longer than those 90 days to get the ban implemented, and didn't appear to work on the vetting process in the slightest during that time. Imagine that.

You do know that the list of countries on the travel ban is the same list of countried that Obama bombed during his term.

I wasn't aware Obama had bombed Venezuela, Iran, North Korea or Somalia.  Did he even bomb Sudan?

Anyway, I thought the idea of bombing these countries was because they had nasty regimes, therefore refugees fleeing said nasty regime would be genuine?