Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
yes, but the asians tend to outscore everyone, so if it went by strictly SAT scores, almost all institutes of higher learning would be predominately asians.
Have you been in a University with extensive graduate programs? Master and PhD's? Plenty of Asian and Indian.
Also, are you saying that Asians SHOULD BE punished because they "tend to outscore everyone"? Perpetuating stereotypes is bias and/or prejudice.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm not trying to excuse the language and say that hateful vandalizing is fine, because it's not. But one group operates from a position of almost no power, and the other group is going to be the most powerful man in the world, backed by a congress that is ostensibly on his side. Angry kids aren't terrifying. Even organized militias are pretty small beans. President of the US with congress behind him? Holy ****. They're magnitudes apart. There are legitimate reasons to be angry and afraid.
It seems like you are in fact excusing racist language. And that is a general trend. It is increasingly seen as perfectly acceptable to demonize and threaten white people because, as you claimed, this is actually "non-threatening." The justification is exactly as you have written it out above: whites cannot be threatened because Donald Trump is in charge and Congress is behind him. First, please understand that this type of argument is actually big part of why Trump was elected. Second, Trump does not have Congress behind him - the "Republican" label doesn't mean much (on either part, increasingly) and, even if they were united, this country is not actually the failed state that alarmists have been portraying it as (on both sides) throughout the election.
Okay. Why did you post those images? What were you trying to communicate?
If you are trying to communicate that people are angry, then I say that's par for the course. That's expected.[b] If you weren't aware that an anti-white sentiment has existed in more radical subcultures then you've had your head in the sand. I'm sorry, this has been a thing for decades. I'm totally not surprised by this vandalism.
Is it right? No. It's a stupid sentiment.
As for congress being, or not being behind Trump. I actually don't know how that's going to play out. But it's easy to understand why some people are terrified.
Manchu wrote: Some images of the aftermath of last night's "protest" here in Richmond, VA - be advised, images contain cursing:
Somewhat disturbing, but sloppy graffiti is honestly pretty nonthreatening, all told. Nor is the message a particularly new one in some circles.
Let's not forget Trump has also made some pretty harsh statements himself.
"Die Whites Die" and "We're Coming For You" is pretty non threatening?
Not at all. On the other hand, merely chalking Trump's name has been declared a racist event on some campuses, requiring marches, safes spaces and further indoctrination...er discussion.
Oh, that is just some kids getting all upset and safe-spacey. I thought it was an official response by the campus faculty.
Yes, college kids of all stripes are ridiculous. I know I was.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
Not denying it I see. Also look up Inside Higher Education or Chronicle of higher Education, both university specific journals.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
There are also a lot of stories cropping up about how dumbass teenagers are threatening Muslim or at least ("Muslim-looking") people today.
This needs to be stopped and pronto.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
There are also a lot of stories cropping up about how dumbass teenagers are threatening Muslim or at least ("Muslim-looking") people today.
And those dickheads should be arrested. What are we arguing about?
"Your side sucks"
"No you"
"Nuh-uh"
"Doody head"
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
SemperMortis wrote: ...
Strange I have found the opposite. I was turned down from university when I had higher grades, was on more sports teams and had more volunteering/extra curricular then a number of my friends who got into the same university. The difference? They were minorities or females.
I have never gotten out of a speeding ticket, my wife has gotten out of literally 5+ that I know of.
I was turned down for scholarships because I wasn't a minority. I have been turned down for employment because the company was looking for more minorities.
If anything I would say that we have reached the end of the "White male" Privilege era. But as always YMMV
Based on complete data for three applicant cohorts to three of the most academically selective research universities, we show that admission bonuses for athletes and legacies rival, and sometimes even exceed, the size of preferences for underrepresented minority applicants. Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600-point scale, but recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, Hispanic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points.
"Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points... recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points".
Oh, and for those inclined to say that Affirmative Action isn't "racism" because anti-White discrimination isn't "Racism"? Affirmative Action penalizes Asians; Asians need better grades and higher test scores simply for being Asian.
yes, but the asians tend to outscore everyone, so if it went by strictly SAT scores, almost all institutes of higher learning would be predominately asians. You'd think being a free market country, someone would have the bright idea to make some more colleges. Actual colleges though, not like the fraudulent one about to get sued for racketeering.
Did... did you just attempt to justify racial discrimination on the basis that without discrimination, there would just be too damn many of 'those people'?
Unless they shoot you in the back of the head of course. Its strange if the white racists make these threats, the FBI rightfully steps in attempts to crush the area, but this is harmless?
I'm still statistically way more likely to be hit by a car.
But maybe the question to ask is, what do you expect me to do about it angry vandalism?
Buzzsaw wrote: Did... did you just attempt to justify racial discrimination on the basis that without discrimination, there would just be too damn many of 'those people'?
Aren't you a law professional? The kid's in college IIRC.
Fights have weight classes for a reason.
We were once so close to heaven, St. Peter came out and gave us medals; declaring us "The nicest of the damned".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”
SemperMortis wrote: ... Strange I have found the opposite. I was turned down from university when I had higher grades, was on more sports teams and had more volunteering/extra curricular then a number of my friends who got into the same university. The difference? They were minorities or females.
I have never gotten out of a speeding ticket, my wife has gotten out of literally 5+ that I know of.
I was turned down for scholarships because I wasn't a minority. I have been turned down for employment because the company was looking for more minorities.
If anything I would say that we have reached the end of the "White male" Privilege era. But as always YMMV
Based on complete data for three applicant cohorts to three of the most academically selective research universities, we show that admission bonuses for athletes and legacies rival, and sometimes even exceed, the size of preferences for underrepresented minority applicants. Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points on a 1600-point scale, but recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points. Other things equal, Hispanic applicants gain the equivalent of 185 points, which is only slightly more than the legacy advantage, which is worth 160 points. Coming from an Asian background, however, is comparable to the loss of 50 SAT points.
"Being African American instead of white is worth an average of 230 additional SAT points... recruited athletes reap an advantage equivalent to 200 SAT points".
Oh, and for those inclined to say that Affirmative Action isn't "racism" because anti-White discrimination isn't "Racism"? Affirmative Action penalizes Asians; Asians need better grades and higher test scores simply for being Asian.
yes, but the asians tend to outscore everyone, so if it went by strictly SAT scores, almost all institutes of higher learning would be predominately asians. You'd think being a free market country, someone would have the bright idea to make some more colleges. Actual colleges though, not like the fraudulent one about to get sued for racketeering.
Did... did you just attempt to justify racial discrimination on the basis that without discrimination, there would just be too damn many of 'those people'?
Yes. He really did.
Edit: It's hard to take him seriously when he's hoping for a California Exit from the union and thinks it's feasible.
There are also a lot of stories cropping up about how dumbass teenagers are threatening Muslim or at least ("Muslim-looking") people today.
This needs to be stopped and pronto.
It's not going to. Trump's election proved that you can act this way to people and still be elected president. It's social media, so take it with a grain of salt, but within a day we're apparently seeing a increase of people being attacked, saying now that Trump's president they'll be sent back to Africa, or they'll have their marriage taken away because it isn't natural.
On the other hand, we can always count on polandball to provide some humor:
Spoiler:
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/11/10 19:33:16
What if its Crenshaw Mafia, or Nuestra Familia, or the New Black Panthers painting it?
Do you honestly, hand-to-heart think it's any of the above?
Depends where its at. Orange County...no that would be funny. Oakland? Chicago? You betcha.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
yes, but the asians tend to outscore everyone, so if it went by strictly SAT scores, almost all institutes of higher learning would be predominately asians.
Have you been in a University with extensive graduate programs? Master and PhD's? Plenty of Asian and Indian.
Also, are you saying that Asians SHOULD BE punished because they "tend to outscore everyone"? Perpetuating stereotypes is bias and/or prejudice.
Not at all, I'm just pointing out that if SemperMortis thinks doing away with affirmative action will help him get into school, he's wrong and would probably end up being less likely to get in.
you'd think will all the kids not getting into universities, a free market solution would be painfully obvious. more schools, more admittance, everyone could go, money to be made.
Insectum7 wrote: I'm not trying to excuse the language and say that hateful vandalizing is fine, because it's not. But one group operates from a position of almost no power, and the other group is going to be the most powerful man in the world, backed by a congress that is ostensibly on his side. Angry kids aren't terrifying. Even organized militias are pretty small beans. President of the US with congress behind him? Holy ****. They're magnitudes apart. There are legitimate reasons to be angry and afraid.
It seems like you are in fact excusing racist language. And that is a general trend. It is increasingly seen as perfectly acceptable to demonize and threaten white people because, as you claimed, this is actually "non-threatening." The justification is exactly as you have written it out above: whites cannot be threatened because Donald Trump is in charge and Congress is behind him. First, please understand that this type of argument is actually big part of why Trump was elected. Second, Trump does not have Congress behind him - the "Republican" label doesn't mean much (on either part, increasingly) and, even if they were united, this country is not actually the failed state that alarmists have been portraying it as (on both sides) throughout the election.
Okay. Why did you post those images? What were you trying to communicate?
If you are trying to communicate that people are angry, then I say that's par for the course. That's expected.[b] If you weren't aware that an anti-white sentiment has existed in more radical subcultures then you've had your head in the sand. I'm sorry, this has been a thing for decades. I'm totally not surprised by this vandalism.
Is it right? No. It's a stupid sentiment.
As for congress being, or not being behind Trump. I actually don't know how that's going to play out. But it's easy to understand why some people are terrified.
It's easy to see why people are terrified but its extremely exasperating to see that they are. When Obama got elected and a lot of Republicans/Conservatives et al were wailing and gnashing their teeth about how Obama would destroy America as we know it and do X Y and Z that were all terrible and awful and Oh noes we need to buy up all the guns now. That was hyperbolic and ignorant, and by ignorant I don't mean racist or bigoted (although you could find examples of some people saying bigoted things about Obama) but ignorant n the sense of knowing how the federal govt works and the powers that the PotUS can wield. There was very little that Obama or any president can do single handedly to cause any widespread changes to the country. For the 8 years that Obama was in office aside from passing the ACA when he had a few years with a Democrat supermajority he spent most of his time continuing policies and programs that were consistent with what was going on under Bush43 and Clinton too. Very little really changed because the president doesn't have the kind of power the office would need to do any of the scary bad things people are terrified of the president from doing. So it's easy to see why people are terrified, they've been misinformed and worked up by hyperbolic rhetoric from political organizations and profit driven media outlets.
It's disheartening because one would think that the people from the side that thought the reaction to Obama was hyperbolic nonsense would not indulge in the same kind of hyperbolic nonsense about Trump.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/11/10 19:34:31
Prestor Jon wrote: It's disheartening because one would think that the people from the side that thought the reaction to Obama was hyperbolic nonsense would not indulge in the same kind of hyperbolic nonsense about Trump.
Well said. I guess we are always doomed to say, "but this time it's true."
Prestor Jon wrote: It's disheartening because one would think that the people from the side that thought the reaction to Obama was hyperbolic nonsense would not indulge in the same kind of hyperbolic nonsense about Trump.
Well said. I guess we are always doomed to say, "but this time it's true."
Are you two really trying to equate the campaign promises and rhetoric that got Obama elected in 2008 and Trump elected in 2016?
Because I can't recall minorities in 2008 following rural whites around and threatening that their guns would be taken away, that they'd all be atheists or devil-worshipers, or they'd be deported to Europe once Obama was in the White House
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2016/11/10 19:47:12
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
yes, but the asians tend to outscore everyone, so if it went by strictly SAT scores, almost all institutes of higher learning would be predominately asians.
Have you been in a University with extensive graduate programs? Master and PhD's? Plenty of Asian and Indian.
Also, are you saying that Asians SHOULD BE punished because they "tend to outscore everyone"? Perpetuating stereotypes is bias and/or prejudice.
Not at all, I'm just pointing out that if SemperMortis thinks doing away with affirmative action will help him get into school, he's wrong and would probably end up being less likely to get in.
you'd think will all the kids not getting into universities, a free market solution would be painfully obvious. more schools, more admittance, everyone could go, money to be made.
Sigh. No, he's not "wrong and would probably end up being less likely to get in".
Data for the 1997 entering class indicate that eliminating affirmative action would reduce acceptance rates for African-American and Hispanic applicants by as much as one-half to two-thirds and have an equivalent impact on the proportion of underrepresented minority students in the admitted class. White applicants would benefit very little by removing racial and ethnic preferences; the white acceptance rate would increase by roughly 0.5 percentage points. Asian applicants would gain the most. They would occupy four out of every five seats created by accepting fewer African-American and Hispanic students. The acceptance rate for Asian applicants would rise by one-third from nearly 18 percent to more than 23 percent
Eliminating AA would have a minor but positive effect on admissions of whites (and a major impact on patterns of minority acceptance).
infinite_array wrote: Because I can't recall minorities in 2008 following rural whites around and threatening that their guns would be taken away, or that they'd all be atheists or devil-worshipers once Obama was in the White House.
It's easy to see why people are terrified but its extremely exasperating to see that they are. When Obama got elected and a lot of Republicans/Conservatives et al were wailing and gnashing their teeth about how Obama would destroy America as we know it and do X Y and Z that were all terrible and awful and Oh noes we need to buy up all the guns now. That was hyperbolic and ignorant, and by ignorant I don't mean racist or bigoted (although you could find examples of some people saying bigoted things about Obama) but ignorant n the sense of knowing how the federal govt works and the powers that the PotUS can wield. There was very little that Obama or any president can do single handedly to cause any widespread changes to the country. For the 8 years that Obama was in office aside from passing the ACA when he had a few years with a Democrat supermajority he spent most of his time continuing policies and programs that were consistent with what was going on under Bush43 and Clinton too. Very little really changed because the president doesn't have the kind of power the office would need to do any of the scary bad things people are terrified of the president from doing. So it's easy to see why people are terrified, they've been misinformed and worked up by hyperbolic rhetoric from political organizations and profit driven media outlets.
It's disheartening because one would think that the people from the side that thought the reaction to Obama was hyperbolic nonsense would not indulge in the same kind of hyperbolic nonsense about Trump.
Oh I agree wholeheartedly, and I especially agree with the point about profit-driven news outlets (and I'll also point to the "filter bubble" that FB or Google/whatever creates around user experience). Exasperating is a good word for how I feel about ignorance, and disheartening for hyperbole. But people being people, of the places where I would expect hyperbole, angry graffiti is at the top of the list.
Real conversations begin when we know how to leave hyperbole at the door.
Galef wrote: I'm still confused how "large population centers" can skew an election (without the EC)
Maybe back in the days before the internet it made sense so that all areas could hear about a candidate, but we now do have the internet and everyone has access to that info.
If every single INDIVIDUAL's vote matters, than why does it matter if that individual lives in a city or in the back woods?
I am not trying to be snarky, I am generally confused why we still use this system. Am I too ideological?
-
Because the concerns of a voter in Manhattan are likely to be wildly different than the concerns of a farmer in Iowa. We try to represent both in the elected portion of our federal government.
The voter in Manhattan gets 1 vote, the voter in Iowa gets 1 vote. Why do we need a "middle man" to represent them for the Presidential election?
I get that representation for other issue is important, but a vote is a vote is a vote.
Just because the Manhattan voters lives near more Manhattan voters than the Iowa voter lives near other Iowa voters does not change the validity or significance of EITHER vote.
We don't have one vast national federal body that administers the presidential election, it's not a national election in the sense of everyone in the nation getting put in one big pile of votes. It's a national election because it involves every state in the nation and the residents within those states get to determine how their state votes.
You've said that, doesn't mean it's not a bad system.
CNN is claiming that the final vote tallies will have Trump winning the popular vote. If Trump wins the popular vote and the electoral college does that change you opinion of the system? Having the president win the electoral collage but lose the popular vote has happened 4 times in the 240 year history of our country, 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. Splitting the electoral college and the popular vote is a rare occurrence.
This may shock you, but if Trump won the popular and Hillary the EC, I'd still call it a bad system. It's a bad system no matter what.
And it's happened two times in the last two decades, it's not uncommon. Besides, just because something is uncommon, doesn't mean it's not bad.
CNN is calling the popular vote for Trump, not all voting counts have been finalized by all the states so your claim that it's happened twice in the last 2 decades isn't true yet.
The basis for your argument is that the Electoral College doesn't properly reflect the popular vote and I'm showing you factual indisputable evidence that in 93% of presidential elections the Electoral College reflects the exact outcome of the popular vote. So why is the electoral college a bad system when it does what you say you want it to do 93% of the time?
]
Because it makes it so only a few states ("Swing" states) matter, it causes voter disillusionment as people see their vote does not matter (because it many places, such as Texas Democrats, or Californian Republicans, it doesn't)., and does not properly represent the will of the people.
If Republicans in CA are discouraged from voting because the are outnumbered by Democrats in CA or if Democrats in TX are discouraged from voting because they are outnumbered by Republicans in TX that won't change if you remove the electoral college. There will still be more Democrats in CA and more Republicans in TX, if anything it would do more to discourage voters on that basis. If all of the voters from multiple states like Wyoming, the Dakotas, Idaho and Montana would be cancelled out just by the margin of victory of Democrats over Republicans in CA then why should people in those states bother voting?
Care to explain that further. Because I don't see how people's votes actually counting in those states will get them to vote less. You have to stop thinking about states with he poplar vote. It's votes for R vs votes for D. Their votes don't count because if they don't win, none of the EC's are pledged to their candidate. A candidate can win by 0.000000001% and still get all the EC's. But toss the EC, and their votes do count.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
d-usa wrote: "When the Internet sends its people, they're not sending their best. They're not sending you. They're not sending you. They're sending posters that have lots of problems, and they're bringing those problems with us. They're bringing strawmen. They're bringing spam. They're trolls. And some, I assume, are good people."
