Like I discussed with Tiax, this is a deliberately simplified model, intended to strip away complicating variables and get to the heart of the question of what our goals and priorities are. If there is a reason for targeting black children that lies in the complexities but is not found in the simplified model, that's an interesting discovery, isn't it? It eliminates several arguments that are commonly seen here and elsewhere, such as the innate desirability of balanced statistics.
Incidentally, I had actually considered talking the possibility that the drowning risk for blacks was based on other factors besides or beyond the lack of swim education, as a bit of a pedantic foray into how statistics can be tricky. But I decided it wasn't worth it and just stuck with the clean model of drowning being a single-variable function of swimming ability.
So it's not completely accurate to say that as a parent of a black child, your child is three times more likely to drown. You're not the parent of a statistical average, or of a randomly selected child about which nothing else is known. You're the parent of your child, with individual risk factors that you can learn about and exercise some control over; possibly the city government or community center can help you with that. But the help ought to be distributed with equal priority to every kid who displays the same risk factors. Now, in my simplified model, the only risk factor was pure inability to swim. Obviously, reality is more complex. But even in the real world, blackness is not a risk factor in its own right. Neptune is colorblind.
This is still problematic, Blinking Spirit. You're right, neptune is colorblind, but the context of the world we live in isn't. A straightforward model lacking context is, of course, going to show that traits only associated with the context of our culture are irrelevant.
I could just as easily say a bullet is equally likely to kill both a white child and black child when fired in their direction. Therefore, we should invest equally in bullet proof vests for all children, rather than targeting anyone in particular. If real life were a math problem, they'd both have the same risk for being killed by bullets. But reality tells a different story. In fact, blacks represent half the total victims and offenders of gun homicide, despite only being 12.7% of the population. But would you seriously argue that we should only allocate our resources to combating gun violence in the black population in proportion to their size? Thia is what you and Crashing00 are suggesting.
Okay, so it's clear my argument is completely muddled at this point, so let me rephrase for simplicity and clarity's sake.
The Fair Model Advocates are stating:
- That the social group to which an individual is a part of is irrelevant to their overall need
- That by targeting aid to needy individuals in a disadvantaged social group, we are, indirectly, harming other needy individuals not in that social group
- That it is immoral to harm other needy individuals for the sake of a needy and disadvantaged social group
- Therefore, the only fair model is to distribute funds to all eligible recipients without heed to context
I'm arguing:
- That the social group to which an individual is a part of is relevant in establishing the context of their need
- That trying to impose fair rules on an unfair system is still unfair
- That by targeting aid to needy individuals in a disadvantaged social group we are making a long-term investment in balancing the source of their disadvantage
- That the targeted aid to disadvantaged social groups is only proportionate to their need nor does it excessively draw from aid to the population as a whole (meaning it is ethically permissible)
- Therefore, a 'fair' system would needs to balance the already unfair landscape with the potential harm, not ignore one in favor of the other...
i.e. black poor kids are worth more than white poor kids. If you give poor kids bullet proof vest is makes a lot more sense.
Except this isn't a tribal nation, it's the United States of America, a Constitutional Republic based on the premise of rule of law. Tribal jurisdictions are irrelevant to this particular discussion, we base nothing on them.
My entire problem with this particular moment in the thread is the idea that there needs to be extra efforts made to communicate vital emergency/disaster information to people because of biases they acquired elsewhere and are unwilling to relinquish now that they're here. Talk about self fulfilling and self perpetuating prophecies.
No, lets add extra steps to the process requiring critical time, resources and effort to engage in. Real smart. You know, since seeing a disaster warning on tv from officials and appraising it as trustworthy or not is too much effort to make with no motive or interest to engage in.
Outside of emergency and disaster situations I really don't care if there's all these extra steps as long as it's not a big stretch to make it happen. But there's crunch time considerations that must be made and really no one has the time, energy or interest in engaging cultural insecurities when something serious is going on. It's at that point that uniformity is in everyones' best interest until the emergency has passed.
I am asking to standardize the American experience on things that there's really no need to have anything differently. This whole special snowflake tripe is fine on far too many things to layout here but in dealing with official communications especially the likes of disasters and other emergencies one uniform standard is best. As any soldier will tell you there is no chance for confusion when official actions of these kind are handled in known, predictable and easy to understand ways.
But of course we live in the special snowflake age, so people don't even know what those official actions are anymore. It's telling when communities do their monthly emergency air siren tests and you see people looking around wondering what the hell that sound is. Herp, derp, durp. Their cultural background must preclude them from learning those things too.
The American Nation? Um, that's pretty obvious. Not only the geographic boundaries but history, laws and traditions that comprise it. They're very important and should not be forsaken for any reason.
My ancestors were here tens of thousands of years before yours were. You're sitting on my land. Maybe you should conform to my idea of what America should be, colonizer. I see that you have no regard for the native people of this continent, which is quite typical of someone of your weltanschauung. Funny, y'all come here and demand a complete revamping of an entire continent, and a few Mexicans show up and it's time to complain. Typical. Just typical.
EM isn't handled by one person. It's handled by a large group of person. The county judge is only the head emergency manager, but he or she does not handle minute-by-minute disaster response and preparedness. In fact, it's more likely that it is handled by multiple people--LEPCs, EMS, firefighters, county/city officials, sheriff's department, etc. If you think that all aspects of emergency management are handled by nothing but whites I'm going to laugh.
And everyone knows what an air siren test is, not everyone knows what to do during an evacuation. When a study was conducted of people who were asked what to do during a shelter-in-place order to a radiological emergency, a plurality thought you should leave no matter what. Obviously that's a problem if radiological materials are in the air. There's a huge degree of ignorance surrounding disaster response of all groups and it is the duty of emergency managers to clarify and educate.
"Our history" what history? My history includes my ancestors being driven off their land.
You're making the same mistake that Vorthospike did when he suggested that the swim class ought under fair distribution to be 75% white because 75% of the total population is white rather than 50% white because 50% of the kids who can't swim are white. If blacks represent about half the total victims of gun homicide, then about half of the total resources devoted to preventing gun homicide, distributed colorblindly but based on real risk factors, will end up going to people who happen to be black. Do you find this distribution reasonable, or would you like more than half the resources to go towards half the homicides?
Oh I see what you're saying, and I see why I haven't been getting my point across. That distribution is reasonable if the risk of being shot and not why was the only factor.
Begs the question. "Unfair system" implies that racial discrimination against blacks is still going on. Obviously when that's the case we need to terminate it with extreme prejudice. But there is a difference between an uneven distribution and an unfair one, and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with an uneven distribution.
I agree there is nothing wrong with an uneven distribution, but I disagree that an unfair system has have to mean unfair treatment is still going on. Like with my healthcare example with Hopkins and the surrounding population, the long-term ramifications of historic practices can still be felt today. I could potentially talk about this in more detail, but I honestly don't have the energy to write a sociology/anthropology paper right now, especially not for just arguing on the internet. To put it more simply, the spectrum has shifted on discrimination, but it hasn't gone away.
An unfair system can also simply be one that left behind your uneven distribution. If everyone else got three turns in Monopoly before I got a single turn, and then turns commenced fairly from then on, it doesn't make the game fair. Even if one of the players with a head start ends up in the same position as I'm in, he at least had more opportunities than I did.
I asked a question a while back that I still haven't seen anybody answer: would the moral situation be better, worse, or identical if the same number of children drowned, but they were more evenly distributed among the races?
It's a bad situation all around. Dead kids are dead kids, and as I stated, they're going to die anyway. Why should they be more likely to die because of the history of the culture?
Or for another example, look at the distribution of breast cancer between men and women. Lots of women get it, only a handful of men do. Obviously in the aggregate a lot more medical resources are going to go to women with breast cancer. But it certainly doesn't follow that any single woman patient ought to receive more resources than any single male patient (given that their cancer is the same severity and so on, of course). We wouldn't say to the man, "You are a lower-priority patient than the woman because we're trying to even out the distribution of breast cancer between the sexes." We're just trying to eliminate breast cancer from everybody.
I don't want to strawman you too hard, but normally this is the point where people point out that breast cancer is not the result of past unfair behavior but the drowning rate is.
You should always know that I have a 'trick up my sleeve' if you're going to talk medical examples. I've no need to compare the two because your example is incorrect.
The thing about breast cancer is that we do devote more resources to female breast cancer than male breast cancer. Not in treatment, but in screening, prevention and public information.
Doctors devote more time and resources to female patients because it's so much more likely in the female populations (the actual rate, FYI, is 100:1 female cases per male case). Ethically, it's proportionality again. It simply isn't reasonable to waste the time or money screening every male patients like we screen female patients. In addition, due to cultural attitudes toward breast cancer, men won't even realize breast cancer is a 'thing' for them. Even among women, we only screen those at the ages most likely to get breast cancer, even though they can get breast cancer earlier.
And still I have yet to hear a good explanation for why the reason for the uneven distribution actually matters how we should handle it going forward. What if breast cancer were? What if the drowning rate weren't? Shouldn't we do the same thing for people in need regardless of how they got that way?
A lot of this is a value judgment as to whether or not you value individuals or groups/populations.
Breast cancer is actually a perfect example for an explanation. With limited resources, it can be best to invest where the problem is worst. Lets say that tomorrow men suffered from breast cancer at levels equal to women. The treatments are the same and equally effective for both men and women, but tomorrow men are going to die from breast cancer at much higher rates than women do. Why?
Because it takes time for things to change. Men wouldn't start showing up for breast cancer screenings at the same rates women do overnight just because the situation has changed, and men are already less likely to go to the doctor than women (that last part is actual fact). So their chances of getting screened early are lower and the disease progresses much farther in men than it does in women. So how do we change men's behavior? By targeting men, specifically. We take a little more time with men's visits to let them know that men are not just as likely to get breast cancer as women. We would aim public health messages in ways men would be more receptive to.
Would you consider these responses reasonable and proportionate to the need and severity?
Good thing they're not in their country then. It makes me wonder why they even bother leaving their country physically if they're not going to leave it mentally and psychologically.
But by all means, lineup Jlo to do the disaster warning PSAs because people aren't willing to let go of the past they tried to escape by coming here.
No, they really don't have to appeal to their specificness. This is identity politics which is probably the lowest form of it there is. Every group needs it's little pat on the back, made to feel special and appreciated, blah blah. It's BS, policy should be broad based and generic enough to cover everyone, it's an overzealous and hyperinvasive political system that things people need to be coddled through official act or policy.
Since it's not a genetic trait, it's completely up to them to let go of it, but they refuse so again: Demise of the Dumb.
Actually I have the same kind of brain as them, as I don't trust the government either but that lack of trust on my part doesn't make me just blank out everything that is said by it, especially things said in times of crisis. Listen first then judge, it's funny that people are defending blind prejudice because it's against the government and it's minorities doing it.
No, it's not dangerous at all. Messages should be the exact same regardless of who they're spoken to and what language they're spoken in.
That really depends on what you think the point of giving information is: Is it simple to vomit out a message and legally alleviate your liability, or is it to actually educate and assist your constituency? I maintain that it is to educate and assist rather than abdicate responsibility as much as you can. If your mission is to educate then you should be doing so in a way that as many of the people you are charged with educating can fully internalize the information. I am a health professional, and part of my role is as an educator, and it would be irresponsible and delusional to treat each patient and family the same with regard to learning. The truth it that people from different cultures, generations, and genders who may have been in the U.S. for several generations may learn differently, that is exacerbated further when you are talking about first generation residents. We are trained to respect and understand potential difficulties when teaching a patient how to take care of their diabetic foot ulcer because our goal is to do everything within our power to make sure they know everything they need to know and will comply with the care. Our job is not to read some pan-cultural script, have them sign that we read it, and then leave whether they understood or not. That is ignorant bureaucracy. The same should go for any agency who's goal it is to effect the actions of the public.
There's a reason that danger signs, signals, sirens and modes of communicating hazards are uniform: so they can be recognized by everyone. That's the premise under which I operate but I might be biased due to the fact that even if I have a problem with the government I'm able to make my own evaluation of what they're saying to determine if it's BS or not. I'm 40% Romanian and last I checked I didn't need some officially approved gypsy warning me about danger in order for me to accept it, and neither should anyone else. If you're that stubborn or dumb your life might be lost, people have been hurt or died for their refusal to change uncountable millions of times before so that'd be nothing new.
I'm not going to cry over that or feel any differently and it's important as a whole that continuity of message and its deliverance through official channels be maintained and that we get out of the business of identity politics and its hopscotch games.
If you genuinely think that a stop sign is communicating the same complexity of information as public health needs then you are delusional. Your percentage ethnicity has nothing to do with what we are talking about, it is how long you have been in this country and how isolated your culture is. A 45 year old man who has been in this country for three years cannot be expected to have left all the practices of his previous country behind- it is not that easy. He might not be able to help the fact that he has roadblocks that get in the way of him learning from me. A 35 year old Romani woman who has been in this country for 10 generations is still going to need to be taught differently due to her isolation. The same goes for ultra-orthodox Jews and Mormons. Even if you want to look at it from a purely economic standpoint, ignoring these differences does not help anybody because as a country we pay for it in the form of increased emergency services and insurance payouts that may have been avoided had we educated people rather than told people.
Racism is not a bad thing. People of different races are different. Hell, they look different, maybe they are even biologically different in other ways. Racist can mean discerning.
Tea partiers are just white trash tho. They have no excuse for saying anything and shouldn't be allowed to breed.
Racism is not a bad thing. People of different races are different. Hell, they look different, maybe they are even biologically different in other ways. Racist can mean discerning.
Racism is not acknowledging that there are differences between cultures and races, that is just common sense; racism is using those differences to try and show that one "race" is fundamentally superior to another. Further racism involves the practice of making broad generalizations of a group of people based on preconceived notions.
It is not racist to say that my neighbor is blue, is a terrible driver, and like a significant portion of blue people can't digest tofu. It is racist to say that all blue people are terrible drivers and are clearly savages because they can't digest civilized food.
Keep in mind race is not an objective biological classification, but a subjective social classification.
Now you want to steal it from me? I've done nothing imoral and the only reason I have this advantage, privlige is because of my skin color.
Enormous amounts of people have been murdered for it. Many more live with less than they need because of it.
How should we end American privilige? Should we not fight to protect it?
Yes, white people as a group have an incentive to uphold white supremacy but that sure doesn't stop actually doing so from being intensely immoral. It hasn't stopped quite a lot of white people from realising that, either.
It is imoral to protect something I have? My "freedom" was obtained from England....by virtue of immoral acts (i.e. killing people) commited by other poeple , its immoral for me to protect that freedom? Using the same logic you can assert that america is imoral when it tries to protect it's supremecy via cultural, economic and political actions.
I dont buy this privilige bull****..I'm only playing a devils advocate...using this dumb idea I can validate white supremecy.
This advantage is not "stolen" by the people of today, it is in of itself the state of being where one has a greater capacity in a certain area. As a whole, the Caucasian population has an advantage over minorities, but not just African Americans; all minorities have a disadvantage compared to Caucasians. However, this state was merely inherited from previous socioeconomic statuses. Right now, there is effort to equalize the disparity between different races and so far it is helping. This does not mean blaming anyone or saying anyone is more or less deserving, it simply means creating an equal opportunity for a citizen that is regardless of race, which means race should be not used to mark someone as being more or less deserving of an opportunity. Any race that has a disadvantage will be helped and with the current pace of the developing world it will eventually equalize.
However, this state was merely inherited from previous socioeconomic statuses.
It wasn't passively passed down, it was and is consciously upheld. We aren't talking about some junk that your grandparents just left lying around but a way to order society.
I highly doubt that a majority of Americans today choose to uphold the disparity between races. It is simply a matter of time, it won't happen over night.
I highly doubt that a majority of Americans today choose to uphold the disparity between races. It is simply a matter of time, it won't happen over night.
It isn't "simply a matter of time", it requires considerable effort and organisation to destroy the systems of domination put in place by the ruling class.
Which is why there are government funded programs and scholarships specifically helping those minority groups, having it be a matter of time already implies that there is effort being put into it otherwise there would be no reason for it to end in a matter of time.
I highly doubt that a majority of Americans today choose to uphold the disparity between races. It is simply a matter of time, it won't happen over night.
Other than the dismantling of public education, the opposition to universal healthcare, the police force, the legal system etc etc.
It isn't "simply a matter of time", it requires considerable effort and organisation to destroy the systems of domination put in place by the ruling class.
I am white, why have I not been invited to any Rule And Dominate The Blacks (RADTB) meetings?!
Seriously though, I am against public education, "universal" healthcare, the police force, and the legal system, but I have nothing against AAs. Government is the problem. Restaurants and bars can have a sign that says "no apes alloud", but they lose customers. Governments can kill and imprison black people for any reason and to pay for it, they will steal more taxes!
My ancestors were here tens of thousands of years before yours were. You're sitting on my land. Maybe you should conform to my idea of what America should be, colonizer. I see that you have no regard for the native people of this continent, which is quite typical of someone of your weltanschauung. Funny, y'all come here and demand a complete revamping of an entire continent, and a few Mexicans show up and it's time to complain. Typical. Just typical.
EM isn't handled by one person. It's handled by a large group of person. The county judge is only the head emergency manager, but he or she does not handle minute-by-minute disaster response and preparedness. In fact, it's more likely that it is handled by multiple people--LEPCs, EMS, firefighters, county/city officials, sheriff's department, etc. If you think that all aspects of emergency management are handled by nothing but whites I'm going to laugh.
And everyone knows what an air siren test is, not everyone knows what to do during an evacuation. When a study was conducted of people who were asked what to do during a shelter-in-place order to a radiological emergency, a plurality thought you should leave no matter what. Obviously that's a problem if radiological materials are in the air. There's a huge degree of ignorance surrounding disaster response of all groups and it is the duty of emergency managers to clarify and educate.
"Our history" what history? My history includes my ancestors being driven off their land.
Nice computer you got there. That runs on electricity.
I'm not a right-winger, but I find this thread highly offensive and full of trolling/flaming. I don't see how topics such as this or for example "Are all liberals mentally challenged?" to be reasonable topics for debate. They are inherently flawed based on faulty premise and certain to cause trouble.
I'm not a right-winger, but I find this thread highly offensive and full of trolling/flaming. I don't see how topics such as this or for example "Are all liberals mentally challenged?" to be reasonable topics for debate. They are inherently flawed based on faulty premise and certain to cause trouble.
You may want to take this view to one of the mods help desks. You are not the only one who feels like this. If the OP exchanged the word right with left he would have gotten the proverbial ***** slap from the mods ages ago.
I'm not a right-winger, but I find this thread highly offensive and full of trolling/flaming. I don't see how topics such as this or for example "Are all liberals mentally challenged?" to be reasonable topics for debate. They are inherently flawed based on faulty premise and certain to cause trouble.
(I don't have access to the full text, but if you want to address the faultiness (or otherwise) of the thread's premise, the paper that inspired the thread would be a good place to start. Apparently the reviewers thought that the premise was sufficient for publication.)
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Plus, this is debate. If we avoid touchy topics where else would we discuss them?
Ironically I finally found a book I wanted to read, Byzantine Philanthropy and the Welfare State by Demetrios J. Constantelos. I sort of want to see how it stacks up with the German welfare state designed by Otto von Bismarck. Equally, the Romans were the first ones to use a census with their welfare state, so I'm wondering if in part if there's a tie in between militaristic societies and welfare states since there's a tendency to highly respect soldiers. Which ties in the rise of the equestrian class in Rome to the rise of the middle class in the US with the GI Bill and the middle class in the US descended from WWII vets as a "neo-eqestrian class."
So I think that leftists and especially socialists such as Tuss may have a higher historical advantage than others in order to show the fight against racism, integration, and the rise of the welfare state to smooth over differences in a far-flung and diverse society.
Equally, whenever I was reading recently the identity of the Byzantine Empire as Greek vs. Roman identity and the eventually rise of the Papacy as a real power. It's not something I'm well vested into yet, but I think that an aspect to looking at cultural and civic identity oscillates as power structures fade or become more resurgent. Especially if we consider the early US is that whites would consider themselves from their state more than their nation state they were forging and the argument for certain territories and offices based on territory was a justification used up to about the Civil War.
However, the development of "white people" and the attempted extinction for some groups to not speak their native languages is an interesting topic. That whites even up to WWII would force other white ethnic groups to speak English and would use shame in their children. Equally the parents would not teach their children a language so they could talk without the child knowing what they were saying when the parents could speak fluent English.
Fascinating topic about cultural extinction and reemergence when it comes to you white people when we consider the same thing with the tribes or African Americans.
Yet, I think the main problem with the Tea Party's resolve of anti-Federalism is that their version, namely Ron Paul's, is anti-Constitutional which is rather ironic and much, much more Neo-Confederate state's rights theory or what is essentially Calhounism, minus the slavery. Which is bad for medium sized and large sized business, as regulatory standardization on different levels would easily accomplish more and instead unleashing what I call the "eating too many Skittles" problem with too many little governments. Don't believe me? Study the frakking state's regulatory fights on the state and municipal level, and under Calhounism that's what'd you get with even more colloquial baggage.
However, the problem I see with certain cities with low immigrant populations is the "good old boys club" where you need to know someone to get a job during any economic cycle. Which is why keeping a central culture is imperative towards business by keeping identity fluid and accepting and keeping intermarriage open by setting the standard for exchange. However, I think we need to move from the Melting Pot to the Salad Bowl, where everyone is a part of the system yet you can see all the distinct flavors instead of everyone becoming one color and one culture. Which a "salad bowl" approach to society means more people are willing to work with different types of people more readily, and outsiders/immigrants tend to be able to more readily look at a system to analyze how to fit in and see niches more readily to start businesses.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Knowing the moderation history of this forum I'm quite sure (as was already stated) that if this was directed at those from the left that this thread would have been locked a long, long time ago. Sad we have to have such blatant political favoritism in the moderation here.:thumbsdown:
Knowing the moderation history of this forum I'm quite sure (as was already stated) that if this was directed at those from the left that this thread would have been locked a long, long time ago. Sad we have to have such blatant political favoritism in the moderation here.:thumbsdown:
I don't buy this, in this case. The right wing does have an issue with pandering to racists. I think that is the context most people see it in. The title probably should of been changed or better thought out. I probably could start a thread "why are liberals blissfully blinded by their ignorant idealism" and not get much flack.
Knowing the moderation history of this forum I'm quite sure (as was already stated) that if this was directed at those from the left that this thread would have been locked a long, long time ago. Sad we have to have such blatant political favoritism in the moderation here.:thumbsdown:
What blatant political favouritism? As I pointed out only a few posts back, the thread is referencing a published (in a fairly reputable journal, as far as I can tell) psychological study that discusses a link between conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism, and racism.
I'm not even sure that the original poster agrees with the content of the paper; discussing the validity of the study might well have been the reason they started the thread in the first place.
Do you actually have any grounds for criticism of the paper beyond 'I don't like its conclusion'?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from MD »
I am willing to bet my collection that Frozen and Solid are not on the same card. For example, Frozen Tomb and Solid Wall.
If Frozen Solid is not reprinted, you are aware that I'm quoting you in my sig for eternity?
Knowing the moderation history of this forum I'm quite sure (as was already stated) that if this was directed at those from the left that this thread would have been locked a long, long time ago. Sad we have to have such blatant political favoritism in the moderation here.:thumbsdown:
What blatant political favouritism? As I pointed out only a few posts back, the thread is referencing a published (in a fairly reputable journal, as far as I can tell) psychological study that discusses a link between conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism, and racism.
I'm not even sure that the original poster agrees with the content of the paper; discussing the validity of the study might well have been the reason they started the thread in the first place.
Do you actually have any grounds for criticism of the paper beyond 'I don't like its conclusion'?
In fact I think he explicitly said as much at some point
In my experience a collectivist view of the world is inherently more racist than an individualistic view of the world.
One of the things I get tired of as a white conservative is being accused of being racist on the basis of the color of my skin. Generally speaking I think that honest discussions about race are nonexistent because certain individuals are often viewed as racist on the merit of being a member of a particular collective while others are immune to the same accusations on the merit of being in a different collective.
Collectivism at its core fuels prejudices like racism and stifles honest and transparent discussions about race.
The OP reflects the mindset of a collectivist who is asking if all people of a particular group exhibit a certain characteristic. The OP in my mind makes the same mistake that the racist does, which is to project a characteristic onto an entire collective. Racism would not exist if we viewed people within collectives as unique individuals who differ from other members within the same collective.
In my experience a collectivist view of the world is inherently more racist than an individualistic view of the world.
True, which is why racists tend to conveniently discard any individualist rhetoric (even if they regularly employ it elsewhere). Thus you get various knuckle-draggers blathering on about how, say, "Hispanics have low IQs" or "hurr hurr don't worry about the poors, they're naturally like that" "racialist" nonsense. While the rest of the time affirming their faith that bootstraps and inspiration is all one needs to ascend the social ladder, naturally.
It might be fairer, though, for the OP's question to be "Are there certain core right-wing beliefs that necessarily lead to racism?" (The same could be asked for core left-wing beliefs, too.) The seeming overabundance of racist attitudes and remarks on the American right stands as evidence, even though there are plenty of conservatives that aren't racist.
Stephen, personally, I don't see the overabundance of racists on the political right. What I see is the Left Mainstream Media (LMSM) pushing a narrative for political gain. We, the American people, buy the narrative because we have horrible prejudices about racism itself that blind us. The LMSM loves to race monger because they know it works to the advantage of their political cause. The LMSM goes way out of their way to paint the Tea Party as racist. The way the LMSM and the Democratic Party operates in America is they hunt for stories that push the narrative that some collectives are oppressed by other collectives. Stories that would go against that narrative simply are not published. Carefully selected stories that push the narrative then become stories that define characteristics of the entire collective. This is how the media and the democratic party work, and Americans bite because we still interpret political events through the lens of a Civil War/Jim Crow America. Living in Florida I can tell you that race relations are actually pretty good down here.
If you want a perfect example of this race mongering lens that collectivists manufacture then look at the Treyvon Martin case, where the DOJ paid people to come down to Florida and organize protests against George Zimmerman. The media loved it. It was a victory for race mongering. They painted a narrative of a white on black lynching. The LMSM and the Obama administration painted the narrative. They lit the match, and then the prejudices that American people have about race turned it into a blazing wildfire.
Then Barrack Obama came out and said, "That could have been me several years ago." That was the plan the entire time. Obama wanted people to see a young Obama being lynched by a racist white man.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
i.e. black poor kids are worth more than white poor kids. If you give poor kids bullet proof vest is makes a lot more sense.
Why should I not protect this puproted advantage I have?
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
My ancestors were here tens of thousands of years before yours were. You're sitting on my land. Maybe you should conform to my idea of what America should be, colonizer. I see that you have no regard for the native people of this continent, which is quite typical of someone of your weltanschauung. Funny, y'all come here and demand a complete revamping of an entire continent, and a few Mexicans show up and it's time to complain. Typical. Just typical.
EM isn't handled by one person. It's handled by a large group of person. The county judge is only the head emergency manager, but he or she does not handle minute-by-minute disaster response and preparedness. In fact, it's more likely that it is handled by multiple people--LEPCs, EMS, firefighters, county/city officials, sheriff's department, etc. If you think that all aspects of emergency management are handled by nothing but whites I'm going to laugh.
And everyone knows what an air siren test is, not everyone knows what to do during an evacuation. When a study was conducted of people who were asked what to do during a shelter-in-place order to a radiological emergency, a plurality thought you should leave no matter what. Obviously that's a problem if radiological materials are in the air. There's a huge degree of ignorance surrounding disaster response of all groups and it is the duty of emergency managers to clarify and educate.
"Our history" what history? My history includes my ancestors being driven off their land.
I apologize for that, this is the problem with having multiple threads open that both have very similar premises.
I absolutely get what you all are trying to say, my point is that SES isn't the only relevant factor.
Lol, yeah, that example was a bit... loaded.
Oh I see what you're saying, and I see why I haven't been getting my point across. That distribution is reasonable if the risk of being shot and not why was the only factor.
I agree there is nothing wrong with an uneven distribution, but I disagree that an unfair system has have to mean unfair treatment is still going on. Like with my healthcare example with Hopkins and the surrounding population, the long-term ramifications of historic practices can still be felt today. I could potentially talk about this in more detail, but I honestly don't have the energy to write a sociology/anthropology paper right now, especially not for just arguing on the internet. To put it more simply, the spectrum has shifted on discrimination, but it hasn't gone away.
An unfair system can also simply be one that left behind your uneven distribution. If everyone else got three turns in Monopoly before I got a single turn, and then turns commenced fairly from then on, it doesn't make the game fair. Even if one of the players with a head start ends up in the same position as I'm in, he at least had more opportunities than I did.
It's a bad situation all around. Dead kids are dead kids, and as I stated, they're going to die anyway. Why should they be more likely to die because of the history of the culture?
You should always know that I have a 'trick up my sleeve' if you're going to talk medical examples. I've no need to compare the two because your example is incorrect.
The thing about breast cancer is that we do devote more resources to female breast cancer than male breast cancer. Not in treatment, but in screening, prevention and public information.
Doctors devote more time and resources to female patients because it's so much more likely in the female populations (the actual rate, FYI, is 100:1 female cases per male case). Ethically, it's proportionality again. It simply isn't reasonable to waste the time or money screening every male patients like we screen female patients. In addition, due to cultural attitudes toward breast cancer, men won't even realize breast cancer is a 'thing' for them. Even among women, we only screen those at the ages most likely to get breast cancer, even though they can get breast cancer earlier.
A lot of this is a value judgment as to whether or not you value individuals or groups/populations.
Breast cancer is actually a perfect example for an explanation. With limited resources, it can be best to invest where the problem is worst. Lets say that tomorrow men suffered from breast cancer at levels equal to women. The treatments are the same and equally effective for both men and women, but tomorrow men are going to die from breast cancer at much higher rates than women do. Why?
Because it takes time for things to change. Men wouldn't start showing up for breast cancer screenings at the same rates women do overnight just because the situation has changed, and men are already less likely to go to the doctor than women (that last part is actual fact). So their chances of getting screened early are lower and the disease progresses much farther in men than it does in women. So how do we change men's behavior? By targeting men, specifically. We take a little more time with men's visits to let them know that men are not just as likely to get breast cancer as women. We would aim public health messages in ways men would be more receptive to.
Would you consider these responses reasonable and proportionate to the need and severity?
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
That really depends on what you think the point of giving information is: Is it simple to vomit out a message and legally alleviate your liability, or is it to actually educate and assist your constituency? I maintain that it is to educate and assist rather than abdicate responsibility as much as you can. If your mission is to educate then you should be doing so in a way that as many of the people you are charged with educating can fully internalize the information. I am a health professional, and part of my role is as an educator, and it would be irresponsible and delusional to treat each patient and family the same with regard to learning. The truth it that people from different cultures, generations, and genders who may have been in the U.S. for several generations may learn differently, that is exacerbated further when you are talking about first generation residents. We are trained to respect and understand potential difficulties when teaching a patient how to take care of their diabetic foot ulcer because our goal is to do everything within our power to make sure they know everything they need to know and will comply with the care. Our job is not to read some pan-cultural script, have them sign that we read it, and then leave whether they understood or not. That is ignorant bureaucracy. The same should go for any agency who's goal it is to effect the actions of the public.
If you genuinely think that a stop sign is communicating the same complexity of information as public health needs then you are delusional. Your percentage ethnicity has nothing to do with what we are talking about, it is how long you have been in this country and how isolated your culture is. A 45 year old man who has been in this country for three years cannot be expected to have left all the practices of his previous country behind- it is not that easy. He might not be able to help the fact that he has roadblocks that get in the way of him learning from me. A 35 year old Romani woman who has been in this country for 10 generations is still going to need to be taught differently due to her isolation. The same goes for ultra-orthodox Jews and Mormons. Even if you want to look at it from a purely economic standpoint, ignoring these differences does not help anybody because as a country we pay for it in the form of increased emergency services and insurance payouts that may have been avoided had we educated people rather than told people.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Tea partiers are just white trash tho. They have no excuse for saying anything and shouldn't be allowed to breed.
Troll warning. - Blinking Spirit
But I also propose even distribution of number of cards in each rarity: Large set: 60 c, 60 u, 60 r, 60 m.
Probabilities of particular cards: Common 7/60, Uncommon 1/12, Rare 1/20, Mythic 1/60.
It is not racist to say that my neighbor is blue, is a terrible driver, and like a significant portion of blue people can't digest tofu. It is racist to say that all blue people are terrible drivers and are clearly savages because they can't digest civilized food.
Keep in mind race is not an objective biological classification, but a subjective social classification.
Reprint Opt for Modern!!
FREE DIG THOROUGH TIME!
PLAY MORE ROUGE DECKS!
Now you want to steal it from me? I've done nothing imoral and the only reason I have this advantage, privlige is because of my skin color.
How should we end American privilige? Should we not fight to protect it?
It is imoral to protect something I have? My "freedom" was obtained from England....by virtue of immoral acts (i.e. killing people) commited by other poeple , its immoral for me to protect that freedom? Using the same logic you can assert that america is imoral when it tries to protect it's supremecy via cultural, economic and political actions.
I dont buy this privilige bull****..I'm only playing a devils advocate...using this dumb idea I can validate white supremecy.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
I highly doubt that a majority of Americans today choose to uphold the disparity between races. It is simply a matter of time, it won't happen over night.
Which is why there are government funded programs and scholarships specifically helping those minority groups, having it be a matter of time already implies that there is effort being put into it otherwise there would be no reason for it to end in a matter of time.
I am white, why have I not been invited to any Rule And Dominate The Blacks (RADTB) meetings?!
Seriously though, I am against public education, "universal" healthcare, the police force, and the legal system, but I have nothing against AAs. Government is the problem. Restaurants and bars can have a sign that says "no apes alloud", but they lose customers. Governments can kill and imprison black people for any reason and to pay for it, they will steal more taxes!
Infraction for trying to derail the thread
But I also propose even distribution of number of cards in each rarity: Large set: 60 c, 60 u, 60 r, 60 m.
Probabilities of particular cards: Common 7/60, Uncommon 1/12, Rare 1/20, Mythic 1/60.
Art is life itself.
Nice computer you got there. That runs on electricity.
Infraction for trolling
Modern: U M'Olk; B Goodstuff
You may want to take this view to one of the mods help desks. You are not the only one who feels like this. If the OP exchanged the word right with left he would have gotten the proverbial ***** slap from the mods ages ago.
The original post was a quote from this paper from Psychological Science: http://pss.sagepub.com/content/23/2/187
(I don't have access to the full text, but if you want to address the faultiness (or otherwise) of the thread's premise, the paper that inspired the thread would be a good place to start. Apparently the reviewers thought that the premise was sufficient for publication.)
Ironically I finally found a book I wanted to read, Byzantine Philanthropy and the Welfare State by Demetrios J. Constantelos. I sort of want to see how it stacks up with the German welfare state designed by Otto von Bismarck. Equally, the Romans were the first ones to use a census with their welfare state, so I'm wondering if in part if there's a tie in between militaristic societies and welfare states since there's a tendency to highly respect soldiers. Which ties in the rise of the equestrian class in Rome to the rise of the middle class in the US with the GI Bill and the middle class in the US descended from WWII vets as a "neo-eqestrian class."
So I think that leftists and especially socialists such as Tuss may have a higher historical advantage than others in order to show the fight against racism, integration, and the rise of the welfare state to smooth over differences in a far-flung and diverse society.
Equally, whenever I was reading recently the identity of the Byzantine Empire as Greek vs. Roman identity and the eventually rise of the Papacy as a real power. It's not something I'm well vested into yet, but I think that an aspect to looking at cultural and civic identity oscillates as power structures fade or become more resurgent. Especially if we consider the early US is that whites would consider themselves from their state more than their nation state they were forging and the argument for certain territories and offices based on territory was a justification used up to about the Civil War.
However, the development of "white people" and the attempted extinction for some groups to not speak their native languages is an interesting topic. That whites even up to WWII would force other white ethnic groups to speak English and would use shame in their children. Equally the parents would not teach their children a language so they could talk without the child knowing what they were saying when the parents could speak fluent English.
Fascinating topic about cultural extinction and reemergence when it comes to you white people when we consider the same thing with the tribes or African Americans.
Yet, I think the main problem with the Tea Party's resolve of anti-Federalism is that their version, namely Ron Paul's, is anti-Constitutional which is rather ironic and much, much more Neo-Confederate state's rights theory or what is essentially Calhounism, minus the slavery. Which is bad for medium sized and large sized business, as regulatory standardization on different levels would easily accomplish more and instead unleashing what I call the "eating too many Skittles" problem with too many little governments. Don't believe me? Study the frakking state's regulatory fights on the state and municipal level, and under Calhounism that's what'd you get with even more colloquial baggage.
However, the problem I see with certain cities with low immigrant populations is the "good old boys club" where you need to know someone to get a job during any economic cycle. Which is why keeping a central culture is imperative towards business by keeping identity fluid and accepting and keeping intermarriage open by setting the standard for exchange. However, I think we need to move from the Melting Pot to the Salad Bowl, where everyone is a part of the system yet you can see all the distinct flavors instead of everyone becoming one color and one culture. Which a "salad bowl" approach to society means more people are willing to work with different types of people more readily, and outsiders/immigrants tend to be able to more readily look at a system to analyze how to fit in and see niches more readily to start businesses.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
I don't buy this, in this case. The right wing does have an issue with pandering to racists. I think that is the context most people see it in. The title probably should of been changed or better thought out. I probably could start a thread "why are liberals blissfully blinded by their ignorant idealism" and not get much flack.
calling liberals loons=not okay
The standard to which the forum moderators apply the rules here.
What blatant political favouritism? As I pointed out only a few posts back, the thread is referencing a published (in a fairly reputable journal, as far as I can tell) psychological study that discusses a link between conservatism, right-wing authoritarianism, and racism.
I'm not even sure that the original poster agrees with the content of the paper; discussing the validity of the study might well have been the reason they started the thread in the first place.
Do you actually have any grounds for criticism of the paper beyond 'I don't like its conclusion'?
In fact I think he explicitly said as much at some point
One of the things I get tired of as a white conservative is being accused of being racist on the basis of the color of my skin. Generally speaking I think that honest discussions about race are nonexistent because certain individuals are often viewed as racist on the merit of being a member of a particular collective while others are immune to the same accusations on the merit of being in a different collective.
Collectivism at its core fuels prejudices like racism and stifles honest and transparent discussions about race.
The OP reflects the mindset of a collectivist who is asking if all people of a particular group exhibit a certain characteristic. The OP in my mind makes the same mistake that the racist does, which is to project a characteristic onto an entire collective. Racism would not exist if we viewed people within collectives as unique individuals who differ from other members within the same collective.
True, which is why racists tend to conveniently discard any individualist rhetoric (even if they regularly employ it elsewhere). Thus you get various knuckle-draggers blathering on about how, say, "Hispanics have low IQs" or "hurr hurr don't worry about the poors, they're naturally like that" "racialist" nonsense. While the rest of the time affirming their faith that bootstraps and inspiration is all one needs to ascend the social ladder, naturally.
It might be fairer, though, for the OP's question to be "Are there certain core right-wing beliefs that necessarily lead to racism?" (The same could be asked for core left-wing beliefs, too.) The seeming overabundance of racist attitudes and remarks on the American right stands as evidence, even though there are plenty of conservatives that aren't racist.
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
If you want a perfect example of this race mongering lens that collectivists manufacture then look at the Treyvon Martin case, where the DOJ paid people to come down to Florida and organize protests against George Zimmerman. The media loved it. It was a victory for race mongering. They painted a narrative of a white on black lynching. The LMSM and the Obama administration painted the narrative. They lit the match, and then the prejudices that American people have about race turned it into a blazing wildfire.
Then Barrack Obama came out and said, "That could have been me several years ago." That was the plan the entire time. Obama wanted people to see a young Obama being lynched by a racist white man.