America - The Official Thread

[FoolKiller]

Oh look, another win for law enforcement and a loss for freedom.

Civil asset forfeiture truly explains everything wrong with law enforcement and regulation issues in this country.

http://www.vox.com/2015/5/2/8528845/irs-structuring-civil-forfeiture

This video tells the story of Lyndon McLellan, a convenience store owner in rural North Carolina who had $107,702 seized by the IRS. The agency hasn't charged McLellan with any crime, but under controversial civil asset forfeiture rules the burden of proof is on him to prove he didn't violate the "structuring" laws.

 

[Omnis]

Personally, I think home/business owners are the only people who can put an immediate end to these rioters. Because if the police retaliate, someone will have a camera & be looking for "brutality". Look back at the Asian neighborhoods during the Rodney King riots. These same types of "protesters" tried to go into their neighborhoods to rob & destroy for personal gain only to be met with shop owners banding together & firing off their own weapons. I'm not advocating vigilantes, but more for allowing the rioting masses to encounter people who don't follow police procedure, people who only want to keep them & their properties safe in the name of self defense.

It helps when your roof is already crenellated.

 

[Carbonox]

Cue the :censored:storm!

 

[Dotini]

@Omnis

Crenellations, walls and moats are the essence of medieval safety and defense.

• 

 

[Omnis]

I know. So make your grocery shop is designed with medieval defense architecture.

 

[Dotini]

I know. So make your grocery shop is designed with medieval defense architecture.

Extremely costly to build such works. And potentially illegal. "A license to crenellate" issued by the King being de rigueur

 

[Dennisch]

Cue the :censored:storm!

 

[TenEightyOne]

people pics

Strange, for that line-up to make any sense you have to presume that;

a) None of the people pictured can be racist
b) The final man's self-identification of nationality or origin is somehow either absent or wrong
c) It's as easy for the first man to exist as black in as many contexts as it is for the last man to exist as white.

I get the point of the graphic overall but for it to work you have to take the assumption that equality already exists and that any request for equality is therefore flawed. Sadly that's not the true state of the world right now. Your graphic proves it I think.

 

[Dennisch]

I get the point of the graphic overall

And that's the point. Don't dig too deep into it.

I fail to see why anyone should be proud of his/hers skin colour. Humanity has brilliance and stupidity no matter what colour they are. And if I would stab all the people in the picture they all pour out the same stuff.

 

[LeMansAid]

The final man's self-identification of nationality or origin is somehow either absent or wrong

And the first man comes from a country or region called Black?

Being proud of oneself for something one's made no contribution to is stupid. So I give my vote for justifiable pride to the transgender..... the only one that put any effort into the competition.

* There's a joke there about that process really taking balls.

 

[Garage13]

the odd thing is all of this is very true.I spent three years in the ARMY and even before I did I wasn't a racist person or anything but the ARMY and the military in general kind of takes away color or race while you're serving and it has a pronounced tendency to eliminate racist thinking from people's minds due to the fact that you need to count on each other to have each other's backs while in combat.I know from experience that I don't see someone as a race or a religon.I have friends who I have worked and served with who come from all over the world,every religion from Armenia,Russia,Pakistan,Isreal,Hati,Turkish,Muslim,Jew,Christian,transgender,gay and straight.
I have a friend of the family who was a SGT in the ARMY back in the 60's when blacks were discriminated against in the military,he still to this day thinks there are a majority of whites who discriminate against blacks,who are corrupt.

I guess because I never experienced what he experienced we are similar but diametrically opposed that I see only individuals who are racist not just blanketing an entire group.I do however think that people can change and all the things that the progressive movement has done and said does nothing but hurt the relationship between everyone.I am very politically aware,much more than I ever was leading up to 2008.Obama had the opportunity of a lifetime handed to him on a golden platter to strengthen the relationship we all have to one another as a nation,instead he uses his power to divide.

I have noticed alot of the progressive polices that have been enacted throughout the years has held people back especially blacks.From the war on poverty.welfare,to the war on drugs,to housing initiatives,gun control,now healthcare.
Obama who did not start many of these policies under his administration,alot of these issues that were supposed to be addressed were compounded by government involvement.I know that we are a nation of laws,recently a US District Court Judge found that the president's executive amnesty was against the law.Now If me or anyone else breaks any laws we are subject to our justice system and presumed innocent until proven guilty.I personally think that the president who is a citizen of the country should not be exempt from the law or pick and choose which laws he or she enforces or not.I realize that most(not all blacks) have a mentality of "f- the police" and some blacks run from the police.

Obama has publically broken several laws,overstepped his authority but due to the fact the masses who are these public servant's employers are unaware of these violations due to either not caring,not informed or educated about the matter(s) they and the media give him a pass and vilify the people who are trying to hold the public servants accountable for their actions.Now if we as the employers continue to give our leader as pass to continue to break the law why should we obey them if we just let him do as he wants?
This country's founders gave us more power than our elected officials because they knew they were fighting and trying to escape a tyrant.Why leave a tyrant for another one?

Episodes like baltimore,ferguson are wake up calls.Wake up calls not in a sense that the police force needs to be overhauled or the criminal justice system that has been working ok up until now.It should be a wake up call for these elected officials to realize that the american people have a power and a voice and if you don't listen to that voice things will begin to unravel.I personally don't think the justice system is racist.If the majority of the offenders are of one particular make up the cops can have reasonable assumptions(not to say all are correct) that this person may have done something wrong.
Now if say i get stopped by a cop and i know i've done nothing wrong and i decide to run it's rational for a cop to think "ok this guy must have done something wrong,why else would he run?"
It's this fear of police or incarceration that may drive some people to do irrational things like that.

My stepfather has a criminal record,the offenses of which i don't know,how long he did in jail i don't know.He along with my mother voted for Obama because he was black.Now alot of people thought while i was in basic training it felt like prison because alot of your freedoms are restricted,for obvious reasons.Now If you have had your freedom taken away for any length of time whether it was an hour,a day,a month,10 years doesn't matter,why on earth would you vote for the party that for the past 230 plus years been opposed to your freedom,and have done everything in their power to keep you in some form of bondage?.On top of that they have been eroding the citizen's freedoms for that same length of time
I ask what's worse? A black man who know's he's enslaved or a black man who is oblivious to himself being enslaved

I apologize for the rant but I love my country but i don't love what it has become

 

[squadops]

Being proud of oneself for something one's made no contribution to is stupid

Indeed, so is being blamed for actions of those before you.

 

[Joel]

c) It's as easy for the first man to exist as black in as many contexts as it is for the last man to exist as white.

This is really the key point here. We have black pride because institutional racism still exists in a huge way directed at black people. We don't have white pride because white people control all the institutions. The point isn't that being gay, black, asian, or transgender is inherently an achievement to be proud of, the point is to have pride in who you are despite being discriminated against. The point of gay pride is that until the last few decades gay people had to live their lives in secrecy, and they can now have massive parades through some of the most powerful cities on Earth in solidarity. I'm not overcoming discrimination to live my life as a white straight guy in the west. It literally could not be any easier than being a white straight man who grew up in Canada.

It's also not common to use "white" as an identity (at least in America) compared to black, mexican, asian, etc. We have tons of ways to subdivide white people and we don't talk about white people as a collective. White people in the UK, Germany, Nova Scotia, or New York aren't expected to apologize for and speak out against Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly. It's just accepted that those guys are conservative talking heads and they have their own separate identity. Contrast that to how people react to Al Sharpton, suddenly he's a leader in the "black community".

And that's the point. Don't dig too deep into it.

I fail to see why anyone should be proud of his/hers skin colour. Humanity has brilliance and stupidity no matter what colour they are. And if I would stab all the people in the picture they all pour out the same stuff.

I agree with you and the world will be a better place when more people can feel this way. Right now though despite everyone being the same colour on the inside, it's hard to deny the fact that what colour people are on the outside still has an impact on their lives. To me I look at Italian and Irish immigrants to America as an example. When they first immigrated, they were Irish and Italian. Now they're white. Now they're Americans.

Some day we'll get to the point where black is just a physical descriptor. We're not there yet but I think some day we'll get to a point where we don't need black pride or gay pride parades. Some day people will call themselves African-American and it won't mean anything more than when someone calls themselves Irish-American, or when a French person calls themselves French.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Mexican American Restaurant Owner has "White Appreciation Day"

The owner of a Colorado barbecue restaurant who drew criticism for offering a "White Appreciation Day" discount says he wants to celebrate Americans of all races, not just one.

What started off as a joke about how there's no holiday that celebrates "the white community" has been misinterpreted as a racially charged promotion, said Edgar Antillon, co-owner of Rubbin' Buttz BBQ and Country Cafe in Milliken.

 

[Danoff]

it's hard to deny the fact that what colour people are on the outside still has an impact on their lives.

Yup. These days if you're black or female we make you president. Pretty rough*.


*srsly, the job of the presidency is quite rough.

 

[Joel]

Yup. These days if you're black or female we make you president. Pretty rough*.


*srsly, the job of the presidency is quite rough.

Currently there are zero white men who are the president of the US. Has "PC" gone too far?

 

[Danoff]

Currently there are zero white men who are the president of the US. Has "PC" gone too far?

I know it's a joke, but fundamentally it's a racist question. It assumes that the job is filled because of race, and should be filled based on race. Neither of which is true. Again, I know you were joking, but it's a key element of the discussion.

The question should always be who is most qualified for the job. End of question. "Too far" or "not far enough" when it comes to racial quotas are both racist statements.

 

[Joel]

I know it's a joke, but fundamentally it's a racist question. It assumes that the job is filled because of race, and should be filled based on race. Neither of which is true. Again, I know you were joking, but it's a key element of the discussion.

The question should always be who is most qualified for the job. End of question. "Too far" or "not far enough" when it comes to racial quotas are both racist statements.

I agree. I'm pretty lefty loony when it comes to race and racial politics but that doesn't mean I think it's the government's job to "fix" it at gunpoint. I wholeheartedly believe that black people and women are underrepresented in business and politics because of a complex set of factors, some of which we'd call racism or sexism, but that doesn't mean the correct response to injustice is more injustice in the form of quotas or affirmative action.

I understand why people would be excited to vote for a black man or a woman as a president, but I agree, it shouldn't be a factor in your vote. Like I said earlier, I hope (and believe) that some day talking about voting for a president because he's black will sound as silly as voting for one because they're of German or British descent. I keep coming back to the Irish immigrant thing because I think that's the ideal situation, in 2015 we have people in Boston who are proud to be "Irish", but other than St. Patrick's day or Dropkick Murphy's music at Patriots games it's irrelevant.

 

[LeMansAid]

I understand why people would be excited to vote for a black man or a woman as a president, but I agree, it shouldn't be a factor in your vote. Like I said earlier, I hope (and believe) that some day talking about voting for a president because he's black will sound as silly as voting for one because they're of German or British descent. I keep coming back to the Irish immigrant thing because I think that's the ideal situation, in 2015 we have people in Boston who are proud to be "Irish", but other than St. Patrick's day or Dropkick Murphy's music at Patriots games it's irrelevant.

I can understand "proud of Ireland", but not "proud to be Irish". The former compliments a group for living the way they do, the latter compliments self for being born in a particular place or born within a particular bloodline. Ridiculous.

On the idea of reaching a "colourblind" and "genderblind" society - what is the best position for free thinkers? Should free thinkers put weight on one side of the figurative see-saw to create the look of a state of balance (knowing that there are still people on the other side), or should they position themselves steadfastly in the middle, because it is ultimately the true position of balance?

We have black pride because institutional racism still exists in a huge way directed at black people. We don't have white pride because white people control all the institutions. The point isn't that being gay, black, asian, or transgender is inherently an achievement to be proud of, the point is to have pride in who you are despite being discriminated against. The point of gay pride is that until the last few decades gay people had to live their lives in secrecy, and they can now have massive parades through some of the most powerful cities on Earth in solidarity. I'm not overcoming discrimination to live my life as a white straight guy in the west. It literally could not be any easier than being a white straight man who grew up in Canada.

The attitude above IS affirmative action thought. I think you are not being true to yourself, and are positioning yourself not where you think the right place on the see-saw is, but where you think the right place is in relation to the wrong or "wrong" attitudes that exist. Aboriginal people in Australia get more money than non-Aboriginals if they are on welfare or are studying, a white man may well get more money as the head of a particular company than a non-white would get. Is that balance between the two? Pretty sure there are similar equivalent situations in the US, and while we're grouping people rather than treating them as individuals (in thought and/or system) we're perpetuating a force that fights against our own goal.

In short - if you want balance.... be balanced. That, as opposed to trying to create balance. One is right, but might sometimes feel wrong. The other is wrong, but might sometimes feel right.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I can understand "proud of Ireland", but not "proud to be Irish".

I'm that strangest-of-things; half English, half Irish, most proud of being European

 

[LeMansAid]

I'm that strangest-of-things; half English, half Irish, most proud of being European

I'm not proud of where I was born, or my heritage. I'm only proud of what I've done...... well, some of it.

 

[Joel]

I can understand "proud of Ireland", but not "proud to be Irish". The former compliments a group for living the way they do, the latter compliments self for being born in a particular place or born within a particular bloodline. Ridiculous.

Absolutely, although I do think when most people say they're "proud to be Irish", they generally mean "proud of Ireland", I think if you dug down into people's reasoning I doubt most would genuinely assert there's something inherently worthy of pride about their ethnicity.

On the idea of reaching a "colourblind" and "genderblind" society - what is the best position for free thinkers? Should free thinkers put weight on one side of the figurative see-saw to create the look of a state of balance (knowing that there are still people on the other side), or should they position themselves steadfastly in the middle, because it is ultimately the true position of balance?

Recognizing that there is a racist or sexist side of the see saw does not mean you are applying an opposite force. I believe free thinkers should do their best to live "colourblind" and audit their beliefs for racism or sexism. I believe a free thinker should recognize that a lot of their beliefs would be shaped by the culture they grew up in, and should analyze their culture's attitudes towards race and gender to see if those attitudes are something present in themselves. I also think a free thinker should speak out against racist or sexist beliefs prevalent in their culture. On the figurative see-saw, they should position themselves in the middle.

The attitude above IS affirmative action thought. I think you are not being true to yourself, and are positioning yourself not where you think the right place on the see-saw is, but where you think the right place is in relation to the wrong or "wrong" attitudes that exist. Aboriginal people in Australia get more money than non-Aboriginals if they are on welfare or are studying, a white man may well get more money as the head of a particular company than a non-white would get. Is that balance between the two? Pretty sure there are similar equivalent situations in the US, and while we're grouping people rather than treating them as individuals (in thought and/or system) we're perpetuating a force that fights against our own goal.

In short - if you want balance.... be balanced. That, as opposed to trying to create balance. One is right, but might sometimes feel wrong. The other is wrong, but might sometimes feel right.

I can agree with the general principle behind affirmative action without supporting the action itself. The difference is (as almost always) the application of force. The white man being paid more than an equally qualified black man has not come to this inequality through force (granted, that's debatable withe the impact of slavery). The Aboriginal receiving more money from a government welfare system is benefiting from the application of force by a government. A business owner hiring a man over a woman has not initiated force, while a government policy mandating a business owner must hire 1 woman to every 2 men is initiating force.

All I want people to do is think about and discuss their prejudices. I don't want quotas, I don't want race to factor into treatment under the law, in either racist or "reverse racist" ways. Race is a social construct, it shouldn't matter, but it does, and I believe trying to find false equivalencies between white pride and black pride is dishonest. I think it's wrong to refrain from talking about race and racism in the name of colourblindness, because that isn't the cultural reality. It isn't perpetuating anything to point out that a certain race is discriminated against. Black people are discriminated against. Irish people were discriminated against. We don't talk about the plight of the Irish-American because it's no longer the case that they're systematically discriminated against.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Recognizing that there is a racist or sexist side of the see saw does not mean you are applying an opposite force. I believe free thinkers should do their best to live "colourblind" and audit their beliefs for racism or sexism. I believe a free thinker should recognize that a lot of their beliefs would be shaped by the culture they grew up in, and should analyze their culture's attitudes towards race and gender to see if those attitudes are something present in themselves. I also think a free thinker should speak out against racist or sexist beliefs prevalent in their culture. On the figurative see-saw, they should position themselves in the middle.

Interesting comments. If we are in the middle of the see-saw then doesn't that mean we do nothing?

 

[LeMansAid]

Interesting comments. If we are in the middle of the see-saw then doesn't that mean we do nothing?

Certainly not. You're setting a standard, and also not throwing ineffective (towards actual change) barbs in the direction of the side you would otherwise oppose.

For me, your and @Noob616's reactions to the pride collage postage by @Dennisch fit with a peripheral force rather than middle positioning. The pictures attempt to point to a bias, a lack of middle positioning by your would be side (note, that's the pictures and not necessarily who collated and added words to them). To react to it that way adds yet more weight bias to that side, and more impetus for the opposing side to sit their ground.

It's easy to find offence, but sometimes it's wiser to find a fence. Not exactly, but words are fun. The idea again though is to be balanced and encourage others to join in that, not try to create a balance of forces. If you're at either end, you are not part of the ultimate solution.

 

[Joel]

For me, your and @Noob616's reactions to the pride collage postage by @Dennisch fit with a peripheral force rather than middle positioning. The pictures attempt to point to a bias, a lack of middle positioning by your would be side (note, that's the pictures and not necessarily who collated and added words to them). To react to it that way adds yet more weight bias to that side, and more impetus for the opposing side to sit their ground.

The point of my response was to argue that the bias isn't really equivalent or comparable. A cheeky explanation of my opinion would be this comic. Of course these things look biased when context is taken away, but that's the whole point of discussing racism, the idea that race is a social construct and its effects depend on the cultural context. You can be colourblind without dismissing the fact that society isn't. I don't think it's wrong that there are movements telling marginalized people that they should be proud of who they are within this cultural context which is telling them they should not be proud of who they are.

Fair point on ineffective barbs though, you're right. I'm not going to change anyone's mind the way I posted and I also run the risk of being lumped in with those who would try to legislate equality through unequal treatment under the law which is not my position at all.

 

[Danoff]

A cheeky explanation of my opinion would be this comic.

So I guess you're trying to say that we need to focus our efforts where the problems are rather than try to be even-handed. Which is fine if it weren't for the fact that it kinda misses the point of the original funny photo.

You can condemn putting down people on the basis of race without promoting pride in something as meaningless as race. You can try to stamp out homophobia without celebrating something as meaningless as sexual orientation. If there were such a thing as bigotry against people who enjoy eating broccoli, you can rally against that kind of bigotry without having people celebrate how much they happen to like broccoli.

To take things a step further, my wife is very much against other women being proud of being pregnant, proud of getting pregnant easily, or proud of having an easy time with pregnancy. These are very common attitudes among women, and none of it is something they have any control over.

 

[KSaiyu]

I wholeheartedly believe that black people and women are underrepresented in business and politics because of a complex set of factors.

Not really complex, it's down to genes and attitude. I was the only person with Afro-Caribbean ancestry in my last placement in an Intensive Therapy Unit in a London teaching hospital and I know I wasn't alone because of anything more complicated than that.

Why can we accept that black people are better sprinters but we can't notice they aren't particularly great innovators.

 

[Joel]

So I guess you're trying to say that we need to focus our efforts where the problems are rather than try to be even-handed. Which is fine if it weren't for the fact that it kinda misses the point of the original funny photo.

You can condemn putting down people on the basis of race without promoting pride in something as meaningless as race. You can try to stamp out homophobia without celebrating something as meaningless as sexual orientation.

Do you believe race or sexual orientation are meaningless? I think they should be meaningless but I really can't agree that they are. Fiat money is a social construct, it's just pieces of dyed paper. Does that mean it isn't real or it doesn't mean anything? The other issue with white pride itself is the historical context of the word. It's hard to deny the connection of white pride and white supremacy groups, this is why celebrating St. Patrick's Day and being "Irish" is some harmless fun while talking about white pride is often considered racist.

If there were such a thing as bigotry against people who enjoy eating broccoli, you can rally against that kind of bigotry without having people celebrate how much they happen to like broccoli.

Sure you can. But you can also find solidarity in a group where it's OK to eat broccoli. You've spent your whole life seeing families on TV eating cauliflower, seeing rich, powerful, and beautiful people eating cauliflower, while seeing every single day that it's wrong to eat broccoli, or seeing the fact that someone eats broccoli presented alongside their wrongdoing. It's not about how broccoli is actually amazing and the most nutritious food on earth, it's that you can get great nutrition and be happy with broccoli just as you can with cauliflower.

To take things a step further, my wife is very much against other women being proud of being pregnant, proud of getting pregnant easily, or proud of having an easy time with pregnancy. These are very common attitudes among women, and none of it is something they have any control over.

I can understand the frustration, and in this case I'd agree with your wife, especially because it's not as if women are demonized for having an easy time with pregnancy (the opposite is more often true).

Not really complex, it's down to genes and attitude. I was the only person with Afro-Caribbean ancestry in my last placement in an Intensive Therapy Unit in a London teaching hospital and I know I wasn't alone because of anything more complicated than that.

Why can we accept that black people are better sprinters but we can't notice they aren't particularly great innovators.

The sprinting thing is an interesting question. The issue there is that it's not "black" people who have been overwhelmingly successful sprinters. It's Jamaicans who have been incredibly successful at sprinting, and Kenyans (particularly from a specific region) who have been incredibly successful distance runners. It's a bit like saying "Europeans are very tall" and citing Dutch or Norwegian men being ~183cm tall on average, while Portuguese, French, or Romanian men are roughly 8-10cm shorter than Dutch or Norwegian men.

I also sincerely hope you can see the difference between a very niche physiological factor affecting the absolute best of the best in a particular sport by tenths of a second and declaring that black people aren't as good at innovating.

 

[KSaiyu]

I also sincerely hope you can see the difference between a very niche physiological factor affecting the absolute best of the best in a particular sport by tenths of a second and declaring that black people aren't as good at innovating.

Of course. More genes involved.

 

[Joel]

Of course. More genes involved.

Indeed.

I'd be interested in how you define or measure innovation in the first place.