08-18-2014, 06:17 PM | #201 | |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Quote:
A disproportionate percentage of Capitol Hill politicians are white. A disproportionate percentage of Hollywood actors are white. A disproportionate percentage of Fortune's 400 richest Americans are white. If upwards mobility were as easy as you make it out to be, there's no reason to believe that an ethnic minority that accounts for (say) 10% of the American population should not also account for 10% of Hollywood, Capitol Hill, and the Forbes 400. Yet we don't see that. We don't even see close to that.
__________________
|
|
08-19-2014, 01:43 AM | #202 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
I think I should apologise for slating your entire culture and philosophy, America, I didn't mean to do it in quite such a "you're all shit" kind of way! I like America, you're great, and you make the world a better place, I'd just never allow my kids anywhere near you lol.
That you outlawed racism and slavery is lovely but not only do such things exist in many places in America (and the UK and the rest of the West) but outlawing something is only the first part of deinstitutionalising it. As for the meritocracy thing, upwards mobility is very much possible, absolutely it is. But you tell me that a poor white kid from the sticks or a black girl or a hispanic homosexual or pretty much anyone who doesn't look exactly like the cisgendered heterosexual perfectly healthy middle class comes-with-some-money white guy that I am has an equal chance of getting to succeed in life to the same degree, assuming that each of those people has the same base level of high intelligence and drive, and I will never take you seriously again. You've got a non-white President, which is fantastic, but he's the first one and you'll not see another one for decades. Maybe Hilary Clinton will win in 2016, which nets you a woman, mitigating the institutional sexism you also have going on, but I mean come on. Look around you. |
08-19-2014, 03:33 PM | #203 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
When I moved back home, I also learned that most of my town is now Hispanic - over 70%. When I left, it was close to 50% and when I was growing up, Hispanics were a minority. The problem isn't that the Hispanics had a bunch of kids, because the population has actually gone down since I grew up, but there's been a massive white flight of racists who don't want to put up with the lower income Mexicans or have to learn Spanish to speak to their neighbours, and are leaving the east side for the utter crust gated community toward the north.
I find it hilarious, it's almost like some cartoon-tier intolerance. I think the weight of reality has yet to hit me on how hate-ful my town is.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
08-19-2014, 10:09 PM | #204 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
I probably just don't understand the definition of "institutional racism," then, because in my view "institutional" racism is a de jure or at the very lease a policy issue whereas racism is a de facto issue. Institutional racism would be "we won't endorse or promote a film with a black man in it" or "we won't allow a black person to sit at the bar" or "women are not allowed to vote." Systematic disenfranchisement. "Institutional" is synonymous with "formal" and "bureaucratic." You seem to have an altogether different kind of meaning for the term that I'm just not familiar with.
I mean, I'm not at all denying that there is massive inequality on race lines. I'm not saying that there aren't stereotypes and cultural differences and a thousand things that would keep the little man down. There are A TON of problems with America - the biggest are the old, the sick, and the poor, who America seems to have no idea what to do with, but there's things like gay marriage and issues with the police and those are just the hot button topics. Then you've got the local problems and the enormous rate of teen pregnancies and hyper religious bigots. The question was "why is America the greatest country on Earth," so I did my best to answer it and defend my answer. I do yammer on about patriotism and liberty and 'murica but that's more a joke than a serious opinion. I loved Europe when I went to visit and I'll probably settle down for a while in Germany or Poland because I loved my experiences so much. What's really interesting to me, though, is that the basic Google research I did into "most racist countries" turned up this washington post graphic. I think if you want to go after institutional racism, India is a nice plump low-hanging target for you, and what the hell France? More racist than Russia? It's really interesting to me that my Google-Fu turns up a TON of top ten lists that invariably list the US as the number one racist country on Earth. (last one is a video that turns out to be the first list in a slow and horrible video format but I wanted another link to finish the sentence). I could find only 1 top ten list that didn't feature the US of A in the #1 spot, and it was some Indian site that had me click through their tiny-ass content page for ad views so I won't be linking it, out of pure spite. Why is this? I honestly couldn't tell you. Apparently, America is more racist than Nazi Germany (#6) because "Even though America maintains a tolerant outlook under an African-American leader, ground reality is far from being a homogeneous society, the racial tinges are inextricably infused in the American culture and continues to occur in employment, housing, government welfare programs , education and lending." I mean I get that I'm biased. I live in an incredibly diverse neighborhood with no history of racial tension. I interact with more minorities than I do white people on a daily basis. My area is far more tolerant than the rest of the country, even if I'm right and what you're saying is inflated. But I'm just not seeing evidence that America is not only institutionally racist, but also the most institutionally racist country on the planet (which, I will state right here, is not something that YOU are saying but rather something that these lists are saying).
__________________
|
08-20-2014, 03:44 AM | #205 | |
Silver LO
|
Quote:
I will say at least we seem to be getting better. Then again, a lot of people say Obama largely got elected because he is a black man, which might not necessarily be incorrect, and voting for someone mainly because they're black is about as bad as not voting for them because they're black, because you're still making that a huge distinction where it really shouldn't be. |
|
08-20-2014, 11:53 AM | #206 |
時の彼方へ
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Lafayette, Indiana
Posts: 20,578
|
Tangentially related story making the rounds. A two-page opinion piece by the father of a police shooting victim in Wisconsin ten years ago. It's an easy read; like many news magazine pieces, it reads more conversationally than a typical newspaper article.
__________________
|
08-20-2014, 03:16 PM | #207 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
> Shuckle
Obviously yeah if there were a law which said that a black man could not be the CEO of a publicly trading company, that would be a kind of institutional racism, but what we're talking about might alternatively be described as systemic or ingrained racism. So, there's no law which says that British police should stop black people and search them for weapons, drugs etc more regularly than they do white people but it happens by a huge amount. That's institutional racism. Similarly, there is no law which says that an American woman may not be the CEO of a large bank but there are sure as hell not 50% of American banks run by women. Among other reasons, that's because of institutional sexism. France is pretty massively racist when it comes to law enforcement and some other things, yes. Take football; while you get the odd problem, by and large black players are treated with total respect in the UK, but in France or Spain, they literally have bananas thrown at them, and not that rarely. > Kairne Yeah the whole world is rampantly shitty but the West is by and large getting better. America is definitely improving - imagine Obama running 50 years ago. Granted, it can be argued that he has completely ignored race issues in the same way that Margaret Thatcher did a great deal of harm to feminism but still. That's amazing. I would argue that Obama was elected because essentially ran on the platform of "I am black jesus" and you guys had had eight years of dubya so fell for it (as did pretty much the entire world). My small public affairs company is actually pretty good on gender balance comparatively but we're pretty much all white people. Politics is much the same. |
08-20-2014, 07:17 PM | #208 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
FUCK I LOST THE ENTIRE THING
This is the Redistricting Game. Kush you shouldn't call it institutional racism if it isn't institutional. That's not only stupid but also dangerously misleading. Black candidates have been running for President as long ago as 1904. That's 110 years. This not only doubles your "yeesh" estimate but adds 10 more years on top of it, as if to predict your scathingly unpatriotic observation and counter it with unadulterated freedom and bald eagle shits. Or something similar to that. Anyway, if 1904 is too far back for you, there were 3 black presidential candidates in 1968 which is 46 years ago, plus Clifton deBerry who ran exactly 50 years ago in 1964. So thankfully I don't have to imagine it. That said, none of them WON. So you can have that teeny little conciliatory cool point in that one of your interpretations could be that it took a long time for a black president to get elected...somehow I doubt that's what it means, but still. And finally: I will say lots of things that sound very wrong ("Our President, Barack Obama, is not in fact a gay atheist socialist Muslim terrorist Kenyan.") but I guarantee you I do know my politics.
__________________
|
08-20-2014, 07:31 PM | #209 | |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
I'd just like to state that 'Institutional racism' has always had the same definition which Kush is describing accurately, which is basically that people are allowing discrimination to dictate things even though no actual slurs are being bandied about. Or something like that, I am bad at politic.
Quote:
|
|
08-20-2014, 08:17 PM | #210 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
Oh that's an even sillier argument than Kush's, that it's institutional racism even though it is not at all institutional. But at least I see that the Brits have a different idea of it than the Muricans do.
I'm more concerned with that poorly organized essay on American racism with Apartheid South Africa as a lively footnote and Nazi Germany not even appearing on the scene. I would consider those two somewhat more indicative of major racist policies that affected large numbers of people. Instead we see a bunch of facts and statistics that have absolutely no bearing on the issue whatsoever and are merely cover for the fact that there is no direct institutional racism involved. I know institutional racism when I see it. Institutional racism is when Arizona officers are allowed to arrest someone if they look like an illegal immigrant or when restaurant owners are allowed to deny service to someone they think is gay.
__________________
|
08-21-2014, 05:28 AM | #211 |
Silver LO
|
Well, bias against gay people really isn't racism. It's homophobia, or orientationism, or however you want to call it. Gay is a culture, not a race.
|
08-21-2014, 05:39 PM | #212 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Well, you're totally wrong, Shuckle, but you're also totally off topic so it doesn't really matter.
Swinging back to the America thing, when do we think the first President who is openly neither heterosexual nor cisgendered will be elected? Which party is that person most likely to spring from, assuming that they do? |
08-21-2014, 07:04 PM | #213 |
我が名は勇者王!
|
I think a homosexual president (from the Democratic Party) is very possible, but is a decade off at best. That person would have to be extremely qualified in almost every other category to make sexual orientation the only deciding factor against him/her. That seems very possible as a lot of homosexuals tend toward high education, income and involvement in power positions. A female (lesbian) seems less offensive to mainstream Americans than a homosexual male, although I think a male still gets elected first.
Unless there's some significant mainstream attitude changes, I don't think a transgender or nonbinary ever becomes president. A lot of people don't understand nonbinary, and if you explain it, they equate it (especially the 'neither' category) with some kind of psychosis or mental illness. I definitely feel like there's a pervasive fear toward someone who would identify as genderqueer.
__________________
あなたの勇気が切り開く未来
ふたりの想いが見つけだす希望 今 信じあえる あきらめない 心かさね 永遠を抱きしめて |
08-22-2014, 02:12 PM | #214 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
"We're realistic." |
08-22-2014, 04:57 PM | #215 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
__________________
|
08-22-2014, 05:02 PM | #216 |
A New and Original Person
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
|
Shuckle, they mean openly gay.
|
08-22-2014, 05:15 PM | #217 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
It was never actually much of a secret.
__________________
|
08-23-2014, 05:23 AM | #218 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Well, I didn't know that, so it is very interesting and thanks for pointing out! However, yeah, I mean people who openly say in public "I am bisexual" or "I am a lesbian".
Assuming that there currently exist such persons in the political sphere who are capable, rich and ambitious, I would also say that a decade is the safest bet. Alternatively, of course, it could turn out that someone gets elected and subsequently comes out as gay. |
08-23-2014, 04:23 PM | #219 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
I think what everyone is waiting for (either dreading or hoping for, depending on who you ask) a President who runs on the platform of being gay and focusing at least a part of policy attention on LGBT-specific issues. Buchanan ran on settler's rights, not the right of gays to marry.
And to be honest? We really don't need a gay President in order to give attention and assistance to LGBT. Surprising as it may seem, the President doesn't have that kind of power, to just stick out laws that say that it's ok to be gay. Any resistance to LGBT/gay marriage that remains is one of two things: a state issue or a cultural issue. Usually both. Saying that America needs a gay president to prove that it doesn't hate gays is almost exactly like saying that Britain needs a gay queen, only it's even sillier because instead of focusing on issues like "who has he slept with" we really should be focusing on "what kinds of political issues comprise his platform." It's the Queen's job to be interesting, but the President is the head of state and the head of government. Candidates don't really need to be rich in order to have successful campaigns, not anymore. We saw this in 2008; Obama turned down government funds in order to appeal to the people, thus amassing vast amounts of direct donations in small amounts. The thing is...every 3 or 4 people who donate $5 are worth 1 giant donor who gives $1 million, because not only does that $20 go towards a campaign ad but when it comes to American politics, votes are king. If you give Obama $5, not only are you saying "Here is money you can use for your cause" but also "I am voting for you." So that $1 million raised from ordinary Americans is 10,000x the value of $1 million given by 1 person, because it's attached to a great deal of guaranteed votes. Granted, Obama wasn't poor by any stretch of the imagination, even for a Senator. But he was faaaar away from the vast monetary value of other candidates like Hilary Clinton or Mitt Romney or even John McCain. I'm not really making an argument in any direction here. Would a gay president be great? Hell yeah! I'm not saying it's something to be avoided. But ramming a square peg through a round hole just because it happens to fuck other squares...that, I'm not a fan of. If a gay president is running on the platform of legalizing cocaine and decriminalizing DUI, I will vote for the straight 65 year old male WASP in a heartbeat. The presidency is not a figurehead position.
__________________
|
08-24-2014, 04:16 AM | #220 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Yeah but it's as much about a perception of a connection than it is about actually running on particular policies. I would argue that Obama has basically been a white moderate republican president but that's fine because he's not a white guy and can therefore address things like the recent shootings without pouring salt in to the wound. A gay president isn't fundamentally necessary for a, LGBT agenda to be put forward but it just allows a whole new perception to spring forth. That's important in some ways.
|
08-24-2014, 03:36 PM | #221 |
Problematic Fave
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: VA
Posts: 3,199
|
If a white guy addressing recent shootings is pouring salt into the wound, then the problem is not that we have a white president, it's because apparently we're too racially charged to be able to handle a white guy commiserating with a black guy. That's kinda sad.
Obama didn't come from "the hood," he came from Hawaii. That would be like having a gay president from LA commenting on the lynching of a gay man from Texas. But to each their own, I suppose, and if having an openly gay President will further LGBT causes in future, I'm all for it. Same for women/Latinos/Asians/Jews/Muslims/other minorities. Remember that JFK didn't bring about any lasting change, positive or negative, for Catholics in the country. Having an LGBT president will end up doing less in the long game than cultural awareness and acceptance.
__________________
|
08-24-2014, 04:23 PM | #222 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 14,729
|
Well yeah but JFK was probably corrupt and on more drugs than a pharmacy. Even God has little power there.
You're absolutely right, perception is not binary. It helps to start from a strong base though and race and gender and sexuality are generally most important all other things being equal and assuming that we're talking about the oppressed not the oppressor. |
08-25-2014, 05:01 PM | #224 |
Primordial Fishbeast
|
Too soon?
|
08-25-2014, 06:04 PM | #225 |
A New and Original Person
Join Date: Sep 2013
Posts: 949
|
I laughed.
|
Lower Navigation | ||||||
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests) | |
Thread Tools | |
|
|