The problem of SJWs

Post Reply New Topic

Thanks!

Like most forms of colorblind racism, you aren't completely wrong, just ignoring the legacy of discrimination by skin tone.


No, it's one area of American life where black people actually seem to do better than whites. I'm in favor of local inequality when global inequality is so pronounced.


Most worthwhile goals seem impossible, the elimination of poverty, hunger, inequality, etc. I didn't mention violence, although all laws are enforced that way.




College admissions without affirmative action, and secondarily standardized tests are biased towards non-minorities. Housing discrimination occurs as recently as the lawsuit against Donald Trump for rejecting black residents from his developments. Until the 1920's, it was illegal for blacks to immigrate to my state (Oregon), and towns had so-called sunset laws, where it was illegal for blacks to be in the town after dark. I posted studies of hiring, where applications with black names received 50% less callbacks than white names. Black wages still trail behind whites. Police are biased against blacks in traffic stops and shootings. Poor blacks who are arrested don't get adequate representation, and often settle for sentences they don't deserve. Black neighborhoods don't have access to fresh vegetables which effects health and physical development, the rates of diabetes are higher for blacks than whites. And finally, voting rights are being undermined, especially in the South, like it's Jim Crow all over again.


Don't bother, I don't need racist lessons from someone as racially insensitive as you.

It may be your legacy, it most certainly is not mine.



The inequality is that of ability, not race. The beauty of purely meritocratic systems is that they completely eliminate skin colour from the equation. That's the lesson to be learned from the NBA.



But it doesn't logically follow that an impossible-seeming goal is therefore worthwhile.



Which colleges?



There's an argument that they might be considered classist, but a better description is that they're just really shoddily written.



This took place in 1973. It was the Justice Department who sued Trump, and his counter claim was dismissed by the court. Sounds like that particular system was functioning just fine 43 years ago.



Now you're citing things from pre-1920 to demonstrate systematic racism in 2016?



Studies which were not representative of the USA as a whole, as they represented just two cities. Further, the studies do not eliminate the possibilty of classism rather than racism, based on their decision to use what they considered to be "ethnic" names.



Black earnings may be lower, but black people are paid the same wages as their white co-workers. Earnings gaps are not indicative of anything other than choices.



This has already been contested elsewhere. I suggest you refer to some of L_Holmes' data from other threads.



Key word "poor". The same is true of poor people of any colour.



Neither of these amount to evidence of systemic racism.



That one you'll have to provide a link for.



Ah, the old I'll use the phrase "racially insensitive" instead of "racist" so I can hide behind the ambiguity routine.

Coming, as it does, from someone who has made direct racist remarks about white people, your slur is nothing but a source of wry amusement for me.

If we are living in the same country, it's yours too. But I guess you're British or something.


Yes, but why? Is it because our schools are failing to produce scientists and artists, so the only avenue available is sport?


I don't care. Full participation in society is a worthwhile goal.


Fine, if they are discriminating based on class, why are blacks more often not middle class?


Within living memory is close enough to affect society today. And not every issue becomes a court case. For every one that goes to court, I bet a bunch never get there. And by the way, Trump made them take it to court, which means our next president could be someone who resisted de-segregation in housing.


The legacy persists today. Portland has one of the lowest black populations of any major city. I rarely see a black person in my neighborhood in the suburbs.


Two major cities, I say that's representative. Northern cities too.


Choices that education make possible, and lack of education make impossible. You are truly clueless if you think decades of racist suddenly ended with a law. Racists get around laws when they want to hire their own picks. Just like the racist South had trials for racist murders. Doesn't mean they were fair trials.


But blacks are more often poor.



Then why the disparity in nutrition?


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/artic ... r-id-laws/


You may not be overtly racist, those are rare these days. But you do internalize a narrative that racism is over so you don't have to pay attention to it. It's not. And if you don't pay attention to it and become racially literate, you are part of the problem.

Even if I were, it still would not necessarily be true.



Not at all. There are a wide range of factors, one of which is the popularity of basketball amongst black children and youths.



Full participation in society, again, would require the use of violence.



Are you expecting a single, simple answer to a hugely complex situation? Again, there are a wealth of variables, including, for example, the high incidence of absent fathers. These are issues that I would genuinely like to see addressed, but not necessarily along lines of race.



But that doesn't mean you get to move the goalposts and equate something that "affects society today" with "systemic racism", especially considering the system found Trump to be at fault. Whether or not such issues become court cases, the societal systems are very much in support of the folks being discriminated against and not the other way around. trump has had 43 years to contemplate his stance on whether or not black people are unprofitable nuisances that you shouldn't allow in your building. As he doesn't seem to have had any further issues during those 43 years, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.



But nothing is preventing them from moving there now. We're not arguing whether or not events have long term effects, we're discussing whether or not systemic racism exists. Thus far you seem intent on moving the goalposts instead.



If you believe that two cities are representative of the US then you seriously need to get out and visit more of your country. There's as much cultural difference between the various states as there is between each of the states in Europe. You also seem to be implying that the North is somehow morally superior to the South. I think you show a serious lack of perspective when it comes to the multi-faceted personality of your own nation, and that's a huge shame.



We're not discussing individual racists, we're discussing systemic racism. You have the audacity to suggest I'm clueless but you've once again shifted the goalposts and nullified your point. If you've somehow come to the mistaken conclusion that I don't believe racism exists, we're light years beyond talking at cross purposes.



But their poverty doesn't disadvantage them any more than a non-black who is equally poor.



Ridiculous question. Nutrition is entirely down to personal choice. If you believe there's a systemic plot to make black people unhealthy by denying them their 5 a day, you should get a job working for Alex Jones. Food retailers cater to markets and they choose their stock based on buying patterns. If black people aren't eating enough fruit and veg it's because they've chosen not to.



Quite aside from the fact that this is yet another example of classism rather than racism, the US Court of Appeals ruled that the ID law needed to be changed earlier this year. Looks like the system sided with the people who can't afford $60 for a passport.



I'm neither overtly nor subtly racist. You have literally no idea what my internal narrative is, and especially have no basis to claim that I believe "racism is over". I've challenged you to support your claims regarding "systemic racism" because you've not only overstated the problem, you've done so to the extent that you believe it's perfectly acceptable to state that white people are incapable of experiencing the same degree of racism as black people.

What seems to have escaped your notice is that principles are rarely binary. You believe yourself to be a paragon of anti-racism, therefore anyone who deigns to disagree with you regarding any aspect of your ideological perspective of racism must be a racist. I don't buy into binary ideologies and I don't turn from difficult subjects just because someone might misunderstand my intentions. That doesn't mean that your constant reliance upon painting your debating opponents as racists is not incredibly tiresome, nor does it mean I'm inclined to tolerate such bigotry without calling it out for what it is.

I'm sure that, in your mind, you believe you have all the right answers. The problem is, I don't think you're even asking the right questions. It's what leads you to come out with pithy nonsense like the following:



I'm neither a cause of nor a supporter of racism. The kind of world in which it's deemed perfectly reasonable to suggest otherwise is the direct result of the same kind of spurious politics that lead to groups like BLM. Our respective societies are drinking deeply from poisoned wells, and divisive, harmful philosophies like your own are the manifestation of said poison.

@AspE,
You've mentioned health issues for black Americans multiple times now, and I'm wondering if you're aware of the vitamin D deficiency that's actually a really big problem that most people are unaware of. This is especially the case in the Northern states, and can cause, or contribute to, numerous health issues such as diabetes, dementia, rickets, obesity, etc.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-10-26/news/ct-x-1026-health-briefs-20111026_1_vitamin-d-deficiency-skin-sun-exposure
http://health.howstuffworks.com/skin-care/beauty/sun-care/sun-affect-dark-complexions.htm
http://www.livescience.com/20910-vitamind-black-americans-cancer-disparity.html

“African-American men living in areas with low sunlight are up to 3.5 times more likely to have vitamin D deficiency than Caucasian men and should take high levels of Vitamin D supplements, reports a new study. The current general recommendation of 600 international units is way too low for all men in northern regions. Low Vitamin D has been linked to prostate cancer, diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis and multiple sclerosis.”

“Vitamin D insufficiency is a term that has been used to describe the finding of biochemical evidence of deficiency, without obvious clinical signs or symptoms, such as rickets or osteomalacia.”

“The high prevalence of vitamin D insufficiency is a particularly important public health issue because hypovitaminosis D is an independent risk factor for total mortality in the general population.[5] Emerging research supports the possible role of vitamin D against cancer, heart disease, fractures and falls, autoimmune diseases, influenza, type-2 diabetes, and depression.”

This is not indicative of racism, this is indicative of the ignorance most Americans have concerning health, and especially in concern to poverty, as has been the case for eons. Poor people are always less likely to have help concerning health, no matter their race.

Are you a beneficiary of pumpkin privilege derived from the racist pumpkin entertainment complex?

The perilous whiteness of … pumpkins?

I learned about the true meaning of the pumpkin-spiced latte in a scholarly paper, called The Perilous Whiteness of Pumpkins. It was peer-reviewed and published in a genuine academic journal. Lisa Jordan Powell, its lead author, is a postdoctoral researcher at the University of British Columbia. “Starbucks PSLs are products of coffee shop culture, with its gendered and racial codes,” it warns. They make up just one part of the “pumpkin entertainment complex, whose multiple manifestations continue the entanglements of pumpkins, social capital, race, and place.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/ ... e32293466/

lol that's not even sjw, that's just downright crazy (i mean, literally clinically crazy)

That's what I would expect someone like you to say as you desperately seek to defend your white pumpkin-spice-latte privilege and the oppressive abuse you heap on minorities during Decorative Gourd Season.

Thank goodness for the authors of this paper, true Warriors for Racial Justice. The second author, by the way, Elizabeth Engelhardt, is the Shelton Reed Distinguished Professor of Southern Studies at the University of North Carolina, where you can be sure she pulls down a salary of well over $100,000/year in taxpayer money:
http://americanstudies.unc.edu/elizabeth-engelhardt/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10. ... 15.1099421

hm, i guess it's not so literally crazy after all

pay no attention to the man (or woman) behind the curtain (or their salary) (or where it comes from)

What's behind the curtain? What's in the box?

Let's Make a Deal!

If you live in Victoria, Australia, and have kids in the school system, some social justice indoctrination is on the way... 4 years worth of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-australia-37640353

Hell Hath No Fury Like a Woman Told She Can’t Wear Yoga Pants

The letter to the editor in question was ageist and body shaming. Reacting to one ignormoius letter by making him your priority is a warped priority and sending death threats to him makes him a sympathetic figure.

Oh, because domestic violence is so worth it(™)!

THE LEFT’S IMPULSE TO BULLY IS UNIVERSAL

It is widely understood that the Left wants to impose censorship on the rest of us, and where it can, it will. The experience of conservative speakers on university campuses is the most obvious proof. But the truth, I think, is worse: it isn’t just censorship. The Left wants to bully disagreement out of existence.

Hence the astonishingly long list of acts of political violence and low-level terrorism that have been carried out by members of the Democratic Party against Donald Trump supporters and Republicans in the current election cycle....

Here in the U.S., we are witnessing a populist revolt against bullying liberalism, but what we are seeing here is mild, I suspect, compared with what is in store in Europe. And, of course, when all dissent on what millions see as the most vital issues of the day is barred as “far right,” it is inevitable that unsavory elements will be part of the populist uprising. Having sown the wind, Europe’s Left will, in all likelihood, reap the whirlwind. If the consequences are not to its liking, it has no one to blame but itself.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2 ... versal.php

well... define "the left" and define "universal"

if you define "the left" as "all those annoying self-proclaimed socially progressive people" (which is what the statement itself seems to be doing), then, naturally, the left's impulse to bully is universal. but afaik "the left" is just one of those shapeshifting names that morphs into whatever seems more convenient for the person using the word