Donald Trump Is The New Relationship Deal Breaker
"I learned that my experience was not unique. I wasn't upset because my fella and I had political views that were not 100% aligned. What concerned me was that, in order to have said views, he must be operating by a set of values that differ so fundamentally from mine that they are almost incompatible."
By
Krista Banasiak, Contributor
Academic, activist, and artist.
If you feel strongly about Trump - one way or the other, I guess - would you be able to maintain a relationship with someone who feels the opposite? Or would he be a deal breaker?
And not just romantic relationships, but friendships, family, etc...
All politicians are irrelevant to me and have a negligible impact on my life, no matter what they do. I’ve lived all over the country and can’t recall a single politician having a lasting impact. Sure, I have to roll with new this and new that, all temporary.
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. It is laughable to me to see all the hypocrisy of the hate that is spewed here at times. Trump is trump, will be trump. In four years and a couple months no matter what he will be in the history books. I think the real worry is Congress and how inept they seem to be.
I will say a deal breaker to me is someone who blindly follows anything or anyone.
All politicians are irrelevant to me and have a negligible impact on my life, no matter what they do. I’ve lived all over the country and can’t recall a single politician having a lasting impact. Sure, I have to roll with new this and new that, all temporary.
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. It is laughable to me to see all the hypocrisy of the hate that is spewed here at times. Trump is trump, will be trump. In four years and a couple months no matter what he will be in the history books. I think the real worry is Congress and how inept they seem to be.
I will say a deal breaker to me is someone who blindly follows anything or anyone.
Interesting.
The decisions made by elected officials have had significant, direct impacts on my life, especially recently. They've also had enormous impacts on the business owners I've advised over the years.
So I definitely don't consider them irrelevant.
All politicians are irrelevant to me and have a negligible impact on my life, no matter what they do. I’ve lived all over the country and can’t recall a single politician having a lasting impact. Sure, I have to roll with new this and new that, all temporary.
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. It is laughable to me to see all the hypocrisy of the hate that is spewed here at times. Trump is trump, will be trump. In four years and a couple months no matter what he will be in the history books. I think the real worry is Congress and how inept they seem to be.
I will say a deal breaker to me is someone who blindly follows anything or anyone.
Interesting.
The decisions made by elected officials have had significant, direct impacts on my life, especially recently. They've also had enormous impacts on the business owners I've advised over the years.
So I definitely don't consider them irrelevant.
Every time I read "no significant direct impact" I hear privilege.
All politicians are irrelevant to me and have a negligible impact on my life, no matter what they do. I’ve lived all over the country and can’t recall a single politician having a lasting impact. Sure, I have to roll with new this and new that, all temporary.
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. It is laughable to me to see all the hypocrisy of the hate that is spewed here at times. Trump is trump, will be trump. In four years and a couple months no matter what he will be in the history books. I think the real worry is Congress and how inept they seem to be.
I will say a deal breaker to me is someone who blindly follows anything or anyone.
Interesting.
The decisions made by elected officials have had significant, direct impacts on my life, especially recently. They've also had enormous impacts on the business owners I've advised over the years.
So I definitely don't consider them irrelevant.
Every time I read "no significant direct impact" I hear privilege.
I would not enter into a relationship with someone who supports Trump, whether or not they are aware of all of the terrible things he stands for. We would literally have nothing in common. Personal ethics and moral compass are extremely important to me for my own life, and it is important to me that the person I am in a relationship with aligns with me on the big issues.
I have family members and acquaintances that I have known my whole life who are "silent supporters" of Trump and of course they are still my family and I love them and wouldn't stop talking to them. But, I am not going to talk about politics with them, and generally keep things at a surface level.
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. .
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. .
Agree.
Hatred is a negative passion.
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. .
Agree.
Hatred is a negative passion.
He's not my President and I don't hate him. I didn't hate Harper either, but I sure hated his policies. Trump as a person disgusts me, and I hate his policies.
All politicians are irrelevant to me and have a negligible impact on my life, no matter what they do. I’ve lived all over the country and can’t recall a single politician having a lasting impact. Sure, I have to roll with new this and new that, all temporary.
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. It is laughable to me to see all the hypocrisy of the hate that is spewed here at times. Trump is trump, will be trump. In four years and a couple months no matter what he will be in the history books. I think the real worry is Congress and how inept they seem to be.
I will say a deal breaker to me is someone who blindly follows anything or anyone.
I would not enter into a relationship with someone who supports Trump, whether or not they are aware of all of the terrible things he stands for. We would literally have nothing in common. Personal ethics and moral compass are extremely important to me for my own life, and it is important to me that the person I am in a relationship with aligns with me on the big issues.
I have family members and acquaintances that I have known my whole life who are "silent supporters" of Trump and of course they are still my family and I love them and wouldn't stop talking to them. But, I am not going to talk about politics with them, and generally keep things at a surface level.
Yes to the top paragraph, absolutely. For the second paragraph, I'm finding it harder & harder to not see an intersection between actions & silent support. My husband is a minority (as are our kids) & my tolerance for silent support is dwindling.
All politicians are irrelevant to me and have a negligible impact on my life, no matter what they do. I’ve lived all over the country and can’t recall a single politician having a lasting impact. Sure, I have to roll with new this and new that, all temporary.
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. It is laughable to me to see all the hypocrisy of the hate that is spewed here at times. Trump is trump, will be trump. In four years and a couple months no matter what he will be in the history books. I think the real worry is Congress and how inept they seem to be.
I will say a deal breaker to me is someone who blindly follows anything or anyone.
I'm pretty much onboard with this line of thinking. There have been several presidents in my lifetime that I didn't care for but none of them seriously affected my life. This one or the next one won't either.
If you didn't learn anything from that debate the other night, you should have at least seen that solutions to issues in your life are not going to be fixed by the folks in DC.
This thread also points out how rude, hateful and hard headed the anti Trump crowd is. A whole bunch of threads and posts throughout this forum focused on nothing but outright hate for Trump, but I've yet to see one against Biden. Pretty hypocritical how the anti DT crowd calls out DT all the time as being hateful, racist, etc. while all they do is spew hate for him and anybody that supports him.
All politicians are irrelevant to me and have a negligible impact on my life, no matter what they do. I’ve lived all over the country and can’t recall a single politician having a lasting impact. Sure, I have to roll with new this and new that, all temporary.
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. It is laughable to me to see all the hypocrisy of the hate that is spewed here at times. Trump is trump, will be trump. In four years and a couple months no matter what he will be in the history books. I think the real worry is Congress and how inept they seem to be.
I will say a deal breaker to me is someone who blindly follows anything or anyone.
I'm pretty much onboard with this line of thinking. There have been several presidents in my lifetime that I didn't care for but none of them seriously affected my life. This one or the next one won't either.
If you didn't learn anything from that debate the other night, you should have at least seen that solutions to issues in your life are not going to be fixed by the folks in DC.
This thread also points out how rude, hateful and hard headed the anti Trump crowd is. A whole bunch of threads and posts throughout this forum focused on nothing but outright hate for Trump, but I've yet to see one against Biden. Pretty hypocritical how the anti DT crowd calls out DT all the time as being hateful, racist, etc. while all they do is spew hate for him and anybody that supports him.
I just read back through this thread, and I'm having a hard time finding the "rude and hateful" remarks. I see a lot of true remarks about who DJT actually is, what he says and how he behaves. Those things are hard to read, but that doesn't make them rude or hateful.
I don't hate DJT, or anyone. I don't want him to die of Covid, and I hope he has a quick recovery. But I also believe that actions have consequences. Being immoral and unethical should have consequences. Plenty of politicians (and regular ol' people) believe similarly to DJT, but he is the *most* vocal, and also lies through his teeth about anything and everything every chance he gets. That is not a hateful statement, that is just the truth.
I would not want to be in a close relationship (romantic or friendship) with anyone who thinks it is ok to be misogynistic, racist, homophobic, won't denounce white supremacy, etc etc. Because even silently supporting someone who believes or is these things IS saying that those things are ok.
Trump Supporters fall primarily into three categories. IMO:
1 People who recognize what he is and like it
2 People who recognize what he is, and choose to ignore it for political reasons
3 Whackjobs who believe he is the leader of a holy war against satan worshipping, cannibal pedophiles (all of whom are conveniently the other "tribe")
None of those groups are the type of people I want to associate with.
I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!Perhaps you could show them Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/).
Yes, as that article demonstrates Trump's got a repeating pattern of supporting white supremacists and then coming out with a pro forma denunciation a day or two later to dull the outrage.I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!Perhaps you could show them Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/).
Yes, as that article demonstrates Trump's got a repeating pattern of supporting white supremacists and then coming out with a pro forma denunciation a day or two later to dull the outrage.I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!Perhaps you could show them Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/).
Trump's "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" was not "a day or two later." ;)Yes, as that article demonstrates Trump's got a repeating pattern of supporting white supremacists and then coming out with a pro forma denunciation a day or two later to dull the outrage.I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!Perhaps you could show them Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/).
Yes, as that article demonstrates Trump's got a repeating pattern of supporting white supremacists and then coming out with a pro forma denunciation a day or two later to dull the outrage.I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!Perhaps you could show them Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/).
Trump's "and I’m not talking about the neo-Nazis and the white nationalists, because they should be condemned totally" was not "a day or two later." ;)Yes, as that article demonstrates Trump's got a repeating pattern of supporting white supremacists and then coming out with a pro forma denunciation a day or two later to dull the outrage.I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!Perhaps you could show them Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/).
As the article in USA Today (Joe Biden launched his campaign by lying about Donald Trump (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/04/26/joe-biden-donald-trump-charlotttesville-fine-people-neo-nazis-column/3588970002/)) notes, "Trump's condemnation of Neo-Nazis and White nationalists sparks widespread amnesia on the left."
I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!Perhaps you could show them Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/).
Trump Supporters fall primarily into three categories. IMO:
1 People who recognize what he is and like it
2 People who recognize what he is, and choose to ignore it for political reasons
3 Whackjobs who believe he is the leader of a holy war against satan worshipping, cannibal pedophiles (all of whom are conveniently the other "tribe")
None of those groups are the type of people I want to associate with.
I'd add one other sizable group:
4. People who, out of ignorance (willful, even), don't recognize what he is and support him for political reasons
Just about everyone in my family who is a Trump supporter falls into this category. I'll ask them, "Doesn't it bother you that Trump [insert massive outrage here]?" They'll say, "I don't know about that" or "I haven't heard about that" or "I don't follow the news, it's all so depressing", or some other variation. But, they support him and will vote for him again because he's against abortion, because he doesn't want to take away our guns like the Democrats, because he's "law and order", because he's a good businessman (yeah, right), because he's not a Socialist like Biden, and so on.
I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!
If your opinion is that what was actually said is less accurate than what was reportedly said, we might not agree on other things as well. :)I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!Perhaps you could show them Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/).
Yes, I've heard this (extremely weak IMO) defense from you and others before on this issue, but it doesn't matter because it misses the larger point. The point was the people I'm discussing weren't even aware that there was a large white supremacist rally where a young woman was murdered, or that most of the populace was outraged by Trump's "both sides" statement. Thus, they are not informed at all to form any kind of opinion whether or not Trump is racist or deserves support. I mean, you could choose whatever outrage you want: impeachment, tax evasion, pussy-grabbing locking up immigrant children...; the people I'm discussing would be only vaguely aware, if at all, that any of these events even occurred. And they're not a small minority IMO.
If your opinion is that what was actually said is less accurate than what was reportedly said, we might not agree on other things as well. :)I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!Perhaps you could show them Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/).
Yes, I've heard this (extremely weak IMO) defense from you and others before on this issue, but it doesn't matter because it misses the larger point. The point was the people I'm discussing weren't even aware that there was a large white supremacist rally where a young woman was murdered, or that most of the populace was outraged by Trump's "both sides" statement. Thus, they are not informed at all to form any kind of opinion whether or not Trump is racist or deserves support. I mean, you could choose whatever outrage you want: impeachment, tax evasion, pussy-grabbing locking up immigrant children...; the people I'm discussing would be only vaguely aware, if at all, that any of these events even occurred. And they're not a small minority IMO.
WALLACE: You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing extremist groups. But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
TRUMP: Sure, I'm prepared to do that. But I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing. If you look, I'm willing to do anything. I want to see peace.
WALLACE: Then do it, sir.
BIDEN: Do it. Say it.
TRUMP: You want to call them? What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me a name, go ahead — who would you like me to condemn?
WALLACE: White supremacists, white supremacists and right-wing militia.
TRUMP: Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what: Somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left. Because this is not a right-wing problem — this is a left-wing problem.
??If your opinion is that what was actually said is less accurate than what was reportedly said, we might not agree on other things as well. :)I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!Perhaps you could show them Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/).
Yes, I've heard this (extremely weak IMO) defense from you and others before on this issue, but it doesn't matter because it misses the larger point. The point was the people I'm discussing weren't even aware that there was a large white supremacist rally where a young woman was murdered, or that most of the populace was outraged by Trump's "both sides" statement. Thus, they are not informed at all to form any kind of opinion whether or not Trump is racist or deserves support. I mean, you could choose whatever outrage you want: impeachment, tax evasion, pussy-grabbing locking up immigrant children...; the people I'm discussing would be only vaguely aware, if at all, that any of these events even occurred. And they're not a small minority IMO.QuoteWALLACE: You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing extremist groups. But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
TRUMP: Sure, I'm prepared to do that. But I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing. If you look, I'm willing to do anything. I want to see peace.
WALLACE: Then do it, sir.
BIDEN: Do it. Say it.
TRUMP: You want to call them? What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me a name, go ahead — who would you like me to condemn?
WALLACE: White supremacists, white supremacists and right-wing militia.
TRUMP: Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what: Somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left. Because this is not a right-wing problem — this is a left-wing problem.
?
??If your opinion is that what was actually said is less accurate than what was reportedly said, we might not agree on other things as well. :)I mean, I've even asked, "What about his 'There are good people on both sides' comment after the Charlottesville white supremacist rally?" To my astonishment, these people had never even heard of the rally and death of the woman run over by a white supremacist, let alone Trump's dismissal of it. It was big f'ing national news for at least a week, but they were clueless about it!Perhaps you could show them Trump Has Condemned White Supremacists - FactCheck.org (https://www.factcheck.org/2020/02/trump-has-condemned-white-supremacists/).
Yes, I've heard this (extremely weak IMO) defense from you and others before on this issue, but it doesn't matter because it misses the larger point. The point was the people I'm discussing weren't even aware that there was a large white supremacist rally where a young woman was murdered, or that most of the populace was outraged by Trump's "both sides" statement. Thus, they are not informed at all to form any kind of opinion whether or not Trump is racist or deserves support. I mean, you could choose whatever outrage you want: impeachment, tax evasion, pussy-grabbing locking up immigrant children...; the people I'm discussing would be only vaguely aware, if at all, that any of these events even occurred. And they're not a small minority IMO.QuoteWALLACE: You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out antifa and other left-wing extremist groups. But are you willing, tonight, to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we've seen in Portland? Are you prepared to specifically do that?
TRUMP: Sure, I'm prepared to do that. But I would say almost everything I see is from the left wing, not from the right wing. If you look, I'm willing to do anything. I want to see peace.
WALLACE: Then do it, sir.
BIDEN: Do it. Say it.
TRUMP: You want to call them? What do you want to call them? Give me a name, give me a name, go ahead — who would you like me to condemn?
WALLACE: White supremacists, white supremacists and right-wing militia.
TRUMP: Proud Boys, stand back and stand by. But I'll tell you what: Somebody's got to do something about antifa and the left. Because this is not a right-wing problem — this is a left-wing problem.
?
When asked the super duper softball question of whether or not he would denounce racists, he not only failed to do this . . . but he told them in his own words to stand back and get ready for further orders.Ha ha ha! "Further orders"??! Sounds QAnon-ish.... ;)
All politicians are irrelevant to me and have a negligible impact on my life, no matter what they do. I’ve lived all over the country and can’t recall a single politician having a lasting impact. Sure, I have to roll with new this and new that, all temporary.
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. It is laughable to me to see all the hypocrisy of the hate that is spewed here at times. Trump is trump, will be trump. In four years and a couple months no matter what he will be in the history books. I think the real worry is Congress and how inept they seem to be.
I will say a deal breaker to me is someone who blindly follows anything or anyone.
I'm pretty much onboard with this line of thinking. There have been several presidents in my lifetime that I didn't care for but none of them seriously affected my life. This one or the next one won't either.
If you didn't learn anything from that debate the other night, you should have at least seen that solutions to issues in your life are not going to be fixed by the folks in DC.
This thread also points out how rude, hateful and hard headed the anti Trump crowd is. A whole bunch of threads and posts throughout this forum focused on nothing but outright hate for Trump, but I've yet to see one against Biden. Pretty hypocritical how the anti DT crowd calls out DT all the time as being hateful, racist, etc. while all they do is spew hate for him and anybody that supports him.
When asked the super duper softball question of whether or not he would denounce racists, he not only failed to do this . . . but he told them in his own words to stand back and get ready for further orders.Ha ha ha! "Further orders"??! Sounds QAnon-ish.... ;)
If we're going to parse "stand back and stand by" into something nefarious, there's a trove of Biden's remarks just waiting for similar treatment, but playing "gotcha" isn't helpful from either side.
Trump did whiff on the opportunity to rebuke Wallace for the Charlottesville question. Don't know whether his prep team didn't prep him, or he just forgot, but it should have been an expected question and he should have been prepared with something like "Chris, what part of 'neo-Nazis and the white nationalists...should be condemned totally' did you not understand, and why do you continue to misreport that?"
When asked the super duper softball question of whether or not he would denounce racists, he not only failed to do this . . . but he told them in his own words to stand back and get ready for further orders.Ha ha ha! "Further orders"??! Sounds QAnon-ish.... ;)
If we're going to parse "stand back and stand by" into something nefarious, there's a trove of Biden's remarks just waiting for similar treatment, but playing "gotcha" isn't helpful from either side.
Trump did whiff on the opportunity to rebuke Wallace for the Charlottesville question. Don't know whether his prep team didn't prep him, or he just forgot, but it should have been an expected question and he should have been prepared with something like "Chris, what part of 'neo-Nazis and the white nationalists...should be condemned totally' did you not understand, and why do you continue to misreport that?"
I abhor Trump and the values (or lack of, to be more exact) he represents, but I didn't vote because for me too much depends on the relationship in question. If a person has enough redeeming qualities on their own, then perhaps I can look past their support of Trump. I wouldn't be likely to form a close relationship or friendship with anyone who actively supports racism, locking up children, white supremacy, lying, destroying the environment, corruption, wooing dictators, destroying democracy and norms, and all the other things Trump displays. But I'll say that many of the Trump supporters I know (and even love) are woefully ignorant about Trump's debasing behavior. I don't approve of their ignorance, of course, but they are not bad people.
Destroying democracy and norms and all the other things would include wiretapping journalists (James Rosen, 20 AP phone lines
Killing US citizens with drone strikes;
asking the FBI to keep them informed of the new admin when out of power; etc.)
I abhor Trump and the values (or lack of, to be more exact) he represents, but I didn't vote because for me too much depends on the relationship in question. If a person has enough redeeming qualities on their own, then perhaps I can look past their support of Trump. I wouldn't be likely to form a close relationship or friendship with anyone who actively supports racism, locking up children, white supremacy, lying, destroying the environment, corruption, wooing dictators, destroying democracy and norms, and all the other things Trump displays. But I'll say that many of the Trump supporters I know (and even love) are woefully ignorant about Trump's debasing behavior. I don't approve of their ignorance, of course, but they are not bad people.
You know that many believe Obama was active in all the bolded areas, right? (Destroying democracy and norms and all the other things would include wiretapping journalists (James Rosen, 20 AP phone lines); Killing US citizens with drone strikes; asking the FBI to keep them informed of the new admin when out of power; etc.) Therefore, welcome to the libertarian party for everyone that said yes.
Killing US citizens with drone strikes;
Obama's use of drones was certainly one of the worst things he did in his presidency, and pretty indefensible.
And being intelligent actually makes it more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
And still Trump easily beat Obama here. There were more drone strikes in his first year than in Obamas whole presidency. So much in fact that weapon producers had problems getting the resources to produce that many bombs.
I don't like Trump. He's a low-brow dick that most recently just made me very annoyed seeing him debate Biden in an incredibly childish manner. He still gets my vote because his policies are generally good, he is relatable and patriotic, and the alternative is self-hatred and embracing ideological fairy tales.
Disclaimer: Not agreeing with the post you're replying toAnd being intelligent actually makes it more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
Got a source for that? A quick Google leads me to an article that says at least that education and conspiracy theories are negatively correlated (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-57821-001).
Disclaimer: Not agreeing with the post you're replying toAnd being intelligent actually makes it more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
Got a source for that? A quick Google leads me to an article that says at least that education and conspiracy theories are negatively correlated (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-57821-001).
Keep in mind that education is not intelligence. Plenty of educated idiots out there and plenty of intelligent people who never saw a classroom after high school.
Higher education being negatively correlated does not surprise me though as one of the bigger lessons in college was how to evaluate and interrogate sources. My K-12 education was very much "repeat facts from the book" so I can see why people who stop there are more likely to believe everything they read on the internet.
Not being an American, I won't comment on his domestic policies. His foreign policy has been to alienate his allies, kow-tow to dictators, and screw up international trade (all American Presidents tend to do the last, but he has been particularly bad). When your alienated former allies are not there for you anymore will you still Iike his policies?
Oh, and when he last said that the US/Canadian border would reopen soon, the basic Canadian reaction was "hell no". We are generally polite, but not stupid. His domestic policy on Covid-19 means we wish our border was even more shut than it is now. Oops, I seem to have indirectly commented on an internal policy, since that one affects us.
He is "relatable"? Seriously? He has major character flaws. Whole books have been written about his character flaws. I would worry about my character if I found him relatable.
He is "patriotic"? In his rhetoric, yes. In his behaviour? Only like Henry Ford, what's good for me is good for the country.
I think I'll stop now, high BP is dangerous in the days of Covid.
Not being an American, I won't comment on his domestic policies. His foreign policy has been to alienate his allies, kow-tow to dictators, and screw up international trade (all American Presidents tend to do the last, but he has been particularly bad). When your alienated former allies are not there for you anymore will you still Iike his policies?
Oh, and when he last said that the US/Canadian border would reopen soon, the basic Canadian reaction was "hell no". We are generally polite, but not stupid. His domestic policy on Covid-19 means we wish our border was even more shut than it is now. Oops, I seem to have indirectly commented on an internal policy, since that one affects us.
He is "relatable"? Seriously? He has major character flaws. Whole books have been written about his character flaws. I would worry about my character if I found him relatable.
He is "patriotic"? In his rhetoric, yes. In his behaviour? Only like Henry Ford, what's good for me is good for the country.
I think I'll stop now, high BP is dangerous in the days of Covid.
Yes, I love his foreign policy. He's now triply nominated for the Nobel peace prize regarding his success in achieving landmark middle east peace deals and he has done some great things for the USA directly as well, negotiating international deals in a very beneficial manner (it has not been a good outcome for non-US countries though). His policy consistently supports the USA at the expense of other countries.
Josef Stalin was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending WWII. There are over 300 nominations for 2020.
Isn't international trade supposed to be win-win? You make it sound like win-lose is good.
Josef Stalin was twice nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for his role in ending WWII. There are over 300 nominations for 2020.
Isn't international trade supposed to be win-win? You make it sound like win-lose is good.
Fair point - getting nominated isn't an amazing achievement (though I would still argue it's quite noteworthy).
International trade is certainly win-win, but some trading partners win comparatively more than others. Adjusting this balance can be spun as win-lose or just being more fair depending on one's political bent.
How has your life improved as a result of a Trump trade deal?
And being intelligent actually makes it more likely to believe in conspiracy theories.
Got a source for that? A quick Google leads me to an article that says at least that education and conspiracy theories are negatively correlated (https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-57821-001).
How has your life improved as a result of a Trump trade deal?
Nothing comes to mind. I would actually expect a net loss as an early retiree as a result of moving more jobs back to the US with higher wages.
I can't think of any trade deal that Trump made at all. Examples?
He is great at ending treaties though. And the US certainly saved a few millions on the WHO. And other international organisations where they now have no (official) say anymore.
Have people in your community benefitted from those jobs? Have the tariffs led to increases in local business?
I am genuinely curious.
Trump's decisive early travel bans in the face of the WHO, while met with cries of racism, almost certainly saved countless lives.
Trump restricted some travel from mainland China on Feb. 2, 2020.
There was no ban on travel from China's administrative zones though, so thousands of Chinese and foreign nationals from Hong Kong and Macau continued to enter the U.S. in the three months following though. These areas had Covid-19 at the time. The bad did not effect Americans either . . . and thousands of Americans still arrived in the U.S. on direct flights from China after the restrictions were imposed.
It may have helped a bit, but there is little proof that the February restrictions helped save many lives.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-ban-travel-china-pandemic/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-ban-travel-china-pandemic/)
Trump restricted some travel from mainland China on Feb. 2, 2020.
There was no ban on travel from China's administrative zones though, so thousands of Chinese and foreign nationals from Hong Kong and Macau continued to enter the U.S. in the three months following though. These areas had Covid-19 at the time. The bad did not effect Americans either . . . and thousands of Americans still arrived in the U.S. on direct flights from China after the restrictions were imposed.
It may have helped a bit, but there is little proof that the February restrictions helped save many lives.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-ban-travel-china-pandemic/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-ban-travel-china-pandemic/)
Fair enough. Though, given intense political opposition, cries of racism, and Pelosi literally encouraging people to go hug Chinese nationals - I can't fault the policy too much compared to the apparent alternative.
Trump restricted some travel from mainland China on Feb. 2, 2020.
There was no ban on travel from China's administrative zones though, so thousands of Chinese and foreign nationals from Hong Kong and Macau continued to enter the U.S. in the three months following though. These areas had Covid-19 at the time. The bad did not effect Americans either . . . and thousands of Americans still arrived in the U.S. on direct flights from China after the restrictions were imposed.
It may have helped a bit, but there is little proof that the February restrictions helped save many lives.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-ban-travel-china-pandemic/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-ban-travel-china-pandemic/)
Fair enough. Though, given intense political opposition, cries of racism, and Pelosi literally encouraging people to go hug Chinese nationals - I can't fault the policy too much compared to the apparent alternative.
Trump restricted some travel from mainland China on Feb. 2, 2020.
There was no ban on travel from China's administrative zones though, so thousands of Chinese and foreign nationals from Hong Kong and Macau continued to enter the U.S. in the three months following though. These areas had Covid-19 at the time. The bad did not effect Americans either . . . and thousands of Americans still arrived in the U.S. on direct flights from China after the restrictions were imposed.
It may have helped a bit, but there is little proof that the February restrictions helped save many lives.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-ban-travel-china-pandemic/ (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-ban-travel-china-pandemic/)
Fair enough. Though, given intense political opposition, cries of racism, and Pelosi literally encouraging people to go hug Chinese nationals - I can't fault the policy too much compared to the apparent alternative.
This is so tiresome. How hard is it to verify what you hear coming from Trump's Twitter account?
https://www.factcheck.org/2020/04/trumps-false-claims-about-pelosi-and-chinatown/
Support of Trump is basically predicated on not verifying the accuracy of what he says, plus dismissing any source that explains the inaccuracy as spin or fake news.
Support of Trump is basically predicated on not verifying the accuracy of what he says, plus dismissing any source that explains the inaccuracy as spin or fake news.
The way I look at it is that Trump is a storyteller who is very good at exerting his own spin. He is very good at constructing a plausible narrative that frames his opponents' mindsets in poor light by inserting motivations into their actual behavior using hyperbole. Most "fact checks" I see are either willfully or naively ignorant of this approach - the linked article spends an inordinate amount of time on whether Pelosi actually posted the video directly and utterly ignores the likely political motivations inherent in her actions which comprise the thrust and intent of Trumps attack on her.
I think "lying" is the word you're looking for.
Support of Trump is basically predicated on not verifying the accuracy of what he says, plus dismissing any source that explains the inaccuracy as spin or fake news.
The way I look at it is that Trump is a storyteller who is very good at exerting his own spin. He is very good at constructing a plausible narrative that frames his opponents' mindsets in poor light by inserting motivations into their actual behavior using hyperbole. Most "fact checks" I see are either willfully or naively ignorant of this approach - the linked article spends an inordinate amount of time on whether Pelosi actually posted the video directly and utterly ignores the likely political motivations inherent in her actions which comprise the thrust and intent of Trumps attack on her.
I think "lying" is the word you're looking for.
You're not wrong, but focusing on this aspect means you are missing the true message that he is communicating and what is actually resonating with his base. His lies are obvious to all - that's what makes him a non-traditional politician. Sometimes I think that a key complaint from the left is that he's just not better at lying to people and it's seen as incompetence or disrespect instead of a coherent strategy.
I think "lying" is the word you're looking for.
You're not wrong, but focusing on this aspect means you are missing the true message that he is communicating and what is actually resonating with his base. His lies are obvious to all - that's what makes him a non-traditional politician. Sometimes I think that a key complaint from the left is that he's just not better at lying to people and it's seen as incompetence or disrespect instead of a coherent strategy.
I've disagreed with policies of previous presidents. However, I will give them universal credit for (almost always) attempting to unite the country and (again, almost always) doing their best attempt at sharing factually validated information. Trump does the opposite of this, almost always, in an attempt to divide. Why do you think that is? What's your attribution to this behavior? When you create spin regularly, people doubt you.
I think "lying" is the word you're looking for.
You're not wrong, but focusing on this aspect means you are missing the true message that he is communicating and what is actually resonating with his base. His lies are obvious to all - that's what makes him a non-traditional politician. Sometimes I think that a key complaint from the left is that he's just not better at lying to people and it's seen as incompetence or disrespect instead of a coherent strategy.
yeah, I'm not looking for a liar as a president. Regardless of political party affiliation, I want someone I can believe, even when I disagree. So, pass. Definitely not my key complaint.
Looking at joleran's posts, I see 3 possibilities.
3. He is for real and what you are dealing with in this election.
His approach to Trump answers the thread's question, for me his opinion of Trump is a deal breaker. I'm too old to waste any of my remaining precious 25 years on any discussions with him.
I don't like Trump. He's a low-brow dick that most recently just made me very annoyed seeing him debate Biden in an incredibly childish manner. He still gets my vote because his policies are generally good, he is relatable and patriotic, and the alternative is self-hatred and embracing ideological fairy tales.Patriotic? Have you read the things he has said about those who died serving this country?
All politicians are irrelevant to me and have a negligible impact on my life, no matter what they do. I’ve lived all over the country and can’t recall a single politician having a lasting impact. Sure, I have to roll with new this and new that, all temporary.
In my opinion, the hate for the current president is unhealthy for you. It is laughable to me to see all the hypocrisy of the hate that is spewed here at times. Trump is trump, will be trump. In four years and a couple months no matter what he will be in the history books. I think the real worry is Congress and how inept they seem to be.
I will say a deal breaker to me is someone who blindly follows anything or anyone.
I'm pretty much onboard with this line of thinking. There have been several presidents in my lifetime that I didn't care for but none of them seriously affected my life. This one or the next one won't either.
If you didn't learn anything from that debate the other night, you should have at least seen that solutions to issues in your life are not going to be fixed by the folks in DC.
This thread also points out how rude, hateful and hard headed the anti Trump crowd is. A whole bunch of threads and posts throughout this forum focused on nothing but outright hate for Trump, but I've yet to see one against Biden. Pretty hypocritical how the anti DT crowd calls out DT all the time as being hateful, racist, etc. while all they do is spew hate for him and anybody that supports him.
Much like the conservatives did during Barack Obama's tenure - right?
Its all fun and games until your family has minority or LGBTQ members in it. Then you begin to understand a different perspective. Even the white ladies here experience a different America than us white guys. Its time to break the power monopoly religion and old white guys hold over our society.
RE: "Stand back and stand down". Trump could have told these people to simply go home, put their guns away and vote for change just like the rest of us. Or work with existing political mechanisms to get more people to vote for their party's objectives. Nope, he'd apparently rather they stand back and be ready for a call to action. Intimidating or assaulting people is a better way to hold on to power in 2020 America? Not a good sign...
Looking at joleran's posts, I see 3 possibilities.
3. He is for real and what you are dealing with in this election.
His approach to Trump answers the thread's question, for me his opinion of Trump is a deal breaker. I'm too old to waste any of my remaining precious 25 years on any discussions with him.
As bad as Trump is, I see the alternative as being far worse. I don't object to much of Biden's published plans, but where it hits home is centered around foreign policy and identity politics. We're far from the days of polite discourse regardless, and I greatly miss those days. Trump has diminished the presidency significantly and I wish desperately for a better option.
You should look into this deeper because from what I have seen, the claim people called the China travel "ban" racist is usually supported by people misrepresenting the facts.I can't think of any trade deal that Trump made at all. Examples?
He is great at ending treaties though. And the US certainly saved a few millions on the WHO. And other international organisations where they now have no (official) say anymore.
The biggest one was https://ustr.gov/usmca - other stances taken diplomatically have led to less formal adjustments to trade. It is a long term position capitalizing on relative national strengths - the US is perhaps the best place in the world to start a new business that eventually becomes wildly successful (risk/reward proposition)
I am greatly skeptical of the benefits to the US of most, if not all, international organizations. A few million is a pittance, but Trump's decisive early travel bans in the face of the WHO, while met with cries of racism, almost certainly saved countless lives.
Identity politics? Are you referring to equal rights for minorities. gays & women? Because, yes, that's absolutely a difference between the two candidates. Biden has consistently demonstrated his respect for others, including those in groups that require additional support (facing systemic challenges.) Considering Trump the better candidate in any way on "identity politics" suggest that's we are absolutely miles apart on anything worth debating.
So, I'll just reiterate Just Joe:
Its all fun and games until your family has minority or LGBTQ members in it. Then you begin to understand a different perspective. Even the white ladies here experience a different America than us white guys. Its time to break the power monopoly religion and old white guys hold over our society.
Joleran, you might benefit from reading more about the history of the United States. Not just regarding the civil war, but how race was used to divide people, and minorities were not allowed the same rights and opportunities. It's not just ancient history, it's up into recent history which is informing the present. Some things to look up; wilmington insurrection. The oklahoma race riot, the influence of the KKK in politics and mainstream life in the south. The use of tests to suppress minority voting. In the rest of the country the use of redlining, ability of blacks to obtain mortgages. There's really almost too much to get into. This is living history, the people who walked at selma are passing away but some are still alive and their children certainly are. Currently I live in NC. It's actually a purple state, close to half democrats, based on that we should have like 6 democrats, 7 Republicans. Instead we have 9 Republicans and 3 Democrats due to gerrymandering largely based along racial lines. It's still going on.
Identity politics? Are you referring to equal rights for minorities. gays & women? Because, yes, that's absolutely a difference between the two candidates. Biden has consistently demonstrated his respect for others, including those in groups that require additional support (facing systemic challenges.) Considering Trump the better candidate in any way on "identity politics" suggest that's we are absolutely miles apart on anything worth debating.
So, I'll just reiterate Just Joe:
Its all fun and games until your family has minority or LGBTQ members in it. Then you begin to understand a different perspective. Even the white ladies here experience a different America than us white guys. Its time to break the power monopoly religion and old white guys hold over our society.
Separating people based on the color of their skin and denigrating them as being unable to compete without special privileges is contemptuous and racist. Trump holds people to be equal under the law and in reality. It is very clear that we will not see eye to eye on the idea that all people are created equal, and that anyone of any color, gender, creed, etc. should be treated the same.
And with that, I tap out. I can't have a conversation with someone that believes Trump holds everyone equal. The amount of data that supports the absolute opposite of that is staggering. Good luck to you.
You should look into this deeper because from what I have seen, the claim people called the China travel "ban" racist is usually supported by people misrepresenting the facts.
And with that, I tap out. I can't have a conversation with someone that believes Trump holds everyone equal. The amount of data that supports the absolute opposite of that is staggering. Good luck to you.No no, that is true!
You should look into this deeper because from what I have seen, the claim people called the China travel "ban" racist is usually supported by people misrepresenting the facts.
I don't know/remember about individual people saying what about individual bans.
I know that Trump has made several travel bans based on racism (as he twittered so himself) or at least blatently without scientific ground in his time. Like (totally made up numbers here, but true instance) travel ban on Chinese who had 20 infections per 100K but not on Italy who had 100 infections per 100K. If that comes from someone who always speaks of the Chinese virus, it's hard to not see it as racist.
Maybe the "people misrepresenting the facts" thought "business as usual" if it looked so on first glance? Or maybe they thought it was an honest error that it was not racist lol.
If you trust the Chinese government and their ability to be honest about their numbers, I've got some bridges burning a hole in my pocket that I'm willing to unload very cheaply.
I know that Trump has made several travel bans based on racism (as he twittered so himself) or at least blatently without scientific ground in his time.
I know that Trump has made several travel bans based on racism (as he twittered so himself) or at least blatently without scientific ground in his time.
I am not a Twitter follower, reader, whatever. I would be interested in seeing a link to a tweet from Trump that specifically says something like ‘I am banning travel from country x because I am a racist and want to keep that specific race out of America' Or I guess '...because racists have asked me to and I want their vote'.
The existence of such a tweet is a fact I perceive you as representing.
I know that Trump has made several travel bans based on racism (as he twittered so himself) or at least blatently without scientific ground in his time.
I am not a Twitter follower, reader, whatever. I would be interested in seeing a link to a tweet from Trump that specifically says something like ‘I am banning travel from country x because I am a racist and want to keep that specific race out of America' Or I guess '...because racists have asked me to and I want their vote'.
The existence of such a tweet is a fact I perceive you as representing.
You're asking for an impossible level of evidence. No one actually says they're racist, no one actually even believes they're racist. They simply believe that they're "willing to accept uncomfortable truths" or something.
That doesn't meant that racists don't exist, or that blatantly racist actions don't exist.
If you want to get into travel bans, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." and then started implementing travel bans from majority Muslim countries.
If you trust the Chinese government and their ability to be honest about their numbers, I've got some bridges burning a hole in my pocket that I'm willing to unload very cheaply.
Just to confirm . . . you don't trust the Chinese government, but (judging by comments made in this thread) have no issue trusting the Trump government?
Trump said that a Mexican judge was incapable of doing his job as a judge because of his heritage. This caused Paul Ryan to comment that Trump had made the "textbook definition of a racist comment".
There are many more. Donald Trump is blatantly racist by his words and actions.
If you want to get into travel bans, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." and then started implementing travel bans from majority Muslim countries.
If you trust the Chinese government and their ability to be honest about their numbers, I've got some bridges burning a hole in my pocket that I'm willing to unload very cheaply.
Just to confirm . . . you don't trust the Chinese government, but (judging by comments made in this thread) have no issue trusting the Trump government?
Comparatively? Yeah, I'll make that bet any day of the week. Trump is a bit of a dick, but he's not "let's make the actual world war 2 Nazis look good" bad. Recency bias may be coloring my opinion, but basically everything the left claims to care about is being grossly violated by the Chinese government but that government doesn't catch much heat on it because orange man bad.Trump said that a Mexican judge was incapable of doing his job as a judge because of his heritage. This caused Paul Ryan to comment that Trump had made the "textbook definition of a racist comment".
There are many more. Donald Trump is blatantly racist by his words and actions.
If you want to get into travel bans, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." and then started implementing travel bans from majority Muslim countries.
This is not racism. In-group bias is a real thing and it does not depend on being or not being a certain race or religion.
Could you define exactly what you believe to be 'real racism' then please?
Could you define exactly what you believe to be 'real racism' then please?
The belief that people with certain genetic heritage are better or worse than other people with different genetic heritage.
Could you define exactly what you believe to be 'real racism' then please?
The belief that people with certain genetic heritage are better or worse than other people with different genetic heritage.
1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act. Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to Black tenants and lied to Black applicants about whether apartments were available, among other accusations. Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients. In the aftermath, he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to previous discrimination.
1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a Black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”
1992: The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred Black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices.
If you trust the Chinese government and their ability to be honest about their numbers, I've got some bridges burning a hole in my pocket that I'm willing to unload very cheaply.
Just to confirm . . . you don't trust the Chinese government, but (judging by comments made in this thread) have no issue trusting the Trump government?
Comparatively? Yeah, I'll make that bet any day of the week. Trump is a bit of a dick, but he's not "let's make the actual world war 2 Nazis look good" bad. Recency bias may be coloring my opinion, but basically everything the left claims to care about is being grossly violated by the Chinese government but that government doesn't catch much heat on it because orange man bad.Trump said that a Mexican judge was incapable of doing his job as a judge because of his heritage. This caused Paul Ryan to comment that Trump had made the "textbook definition of a racist comment".
There are many more. Donald Trump is blatantly racist by his words and actions.
If you want to get into travel bans, Donald Trump called for "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what the hell is going on." and then started implementing travel bans from majority Muslim countries.
This is not racism. In-group bias is a real thing and it does not depend on being or not being a certain race or religion.
So, when someone says that a person of Mexican heritage can't do his job because of his heritage . . . this would be an indication of racism?
Is this real racism?
https://www.vox.com/2016/7/25/12270880/donald-trump-racist-racism-historyQuote1973: The US Department of Justice — under the Nixon administration, out of all administrations — sued the Trump Management Corporation for violating the Fair Housing Act. Federal officials found evidence that Trump had refused to rent to Black tenants and lied to Black applicants about whether apartments were available, among other accusations. Trump said the federal government was trying to get him to rent to welfare recipients. In the aftermath, he signed an agreement in 1975 agreeing not to discriminate to renters of color without admitting to previous discrimination.Quote1991: A book by John O’Donnell, former president of Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino in Atlantic City, quoted Trump’s criticism of a Black accountant: “Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. … I think that the guy is lazy. And it’s probably not his fault, because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It’s not anything they can control.” Trump later said in a 1997 Playboy interview that “the stuff O’Donnell wrote about me is probably true.”Quote1992: The Trump Plaza Hotel and Casino had to pay a $200,000 fine because it transferred Black and women dealers off tables to accommodate a big-time gambler’s prejudices.
So, when someone says that a person of Mexican heritage can't do his job because of his heritage . . . this would be an indication of racism?
In-group bias does not care about race in the absolute sense. There is no logical argument that a person of Mexican heritage is inherently worse than someone not of that background. There is, however, an argument that such a person is less likely to judge people of the same heritage the same as people of other backgrounds. It is exactly the same and just as wrong to allow "white privilege" to give unfair advantages to people with that skin color to get unfair passes in the justice system.
Trump argued that an American of Mexican heritage was unable to do his job. That was an argument that a person is inherently worse than someone not of that background - as the (purely imagined) 'in-group bias' wouldn't exist for anyone else..
Your logic on this doesn't appear to follow.
I propose a social experiment.
From this moment forward, we all ignore joleran. Just completely ignore him no matter what he says. I know it's hard to refrain from arguing, but it's pointless. Let's see what being invisible feels like to him.
I abhor Trump and the values (or lack of, to be more exact) he represents, but I didn't vote because for me too much depends on the relationship in question. If a person has enough redeeming qualities on their own, then perhaps I can look past their support of Trump. I wouldn't be likely to form a close relationship or friendship with anyone who actively supports racism, locking up children, white supremacy, lying, destroying the environment, corruption, wooing dictators, destroying democracy and norms, and all the other things Trump displays. But I'll say that many of the Trump supporters I know (and even love) are woefully ignorant about Trump's debasing behavior. I don't approve of their ignorance, of course, but they are not bad people.
You know that many believe Obama was active in all the bolded areas, right? (Destroying democracy and norms and all the other things would include wiretapping journalists (James Rosen, 20 AP phone lines); Killing US citizens with drone strikes; asking the FBI to keep them informed of the new admin when out of power; etc.) Therefore, welcome to the libertarian party for everyone that said yes.
This is completely disingenuous, whether Republicans or Libertarians are doing it.
Obama "locked up children" technically yes, but as a last resort only when the law absolutely required it. Trump made a show of eagerly tearing families apart with no capability or plans for ever re-uniting them in order to dis-incentivize misdemeanor border-hoppers. The original statement was that "locking up children" there was no limitation on number or reason or anything.
The "lying" bit is probably referring to being "able to keep your doctor/plan" under the ACA, which may not have been universally true but was still true for the vast majority of people. Most people's insurance plan did not evaporate after the ACA. Yes, that was one of them but the Washington Post has a short list of 10 of his lies that they had marked as Pinocchios of the year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/
Obama and corruption? How? Just because intelligence agencies acted on information about the Trump<->Russia connection, a lot of which has been born out in subsequent investigations? Look into the millions given to Solyndra and into Fast and Furious gun-running for two
Obama and dictators? Again how? Because extreme partisans claim he "showered them with cash and concessions", aka actually negotiated with them to further the US's interests without starting a war? Was going to a baseball game with Raoul Castro "wooing dictators"? Is that better than Trump and Jong-un meeting at the DMZ?
No one seriously believes that killing an enemy combatant in the middle of a war is actually unconstitutional just because he happened to be a citizen, not even Republicans.I'll give you that one
I can't find anything saying that Obama wanted the FBI to "keep him informed after he was out of power", got a source for that? The Susan Rice memo to herself. Here's a copy on CBS twitter https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1262820374548447238/photo/1 Let Obama know through the next few weeks (after he was out of office)
You can equate the Obama administration and the Trump administration all you want, but I doubt any reasonable people who lived through both are going to be convinced. They're simply not comparable. Again, the original was an absolute statement of things that were deal breakers.
I abhor Trump and the values (or lack of, to be more exact) he represents, but I didn't vote because for me too much depends on the relationship in question. If a person has enough redeeming qualities on their own, then perhaps I can look past their support of Trump. I wouldn't be likely to form a close relationship or friendship with anyone who actively supports racism, locking up children, white supremacy, lying, destroying the environment, corruption, wooing dictators, destroying democracy and norms, and all the other things Trump displays. But I'll say that many of the Trump supporters I know (and even love) are woefully ignorant about Trump's debasing behavior. I don't approve of their ignorance, of course, but they are not bad people.
You know that many believe Obama was active in all the bolded areas, right? (Destroying democracy and norms and all the other things would include wiretapping journalists (James Rosen, 20 AP phone lines); Killing US citizens with drone strikes; asking the FBI to keep them informed of the new admin when out of power; etc.) Therefore, welcome to the libertarian party for everyone that said yes.
This is completely disingenuous, whether Republicans or Libertarians are doing it.
Obama "locked up children" technically yes, but as a last resort only when the law absolutely required it. Trump made a show of eagerly tearing families apart with no capability or plans for ever re-uniting them in order to dis-incentivize misdemeanor border-hoppers. The original statement was that "locking up children" there was no limitation on number or reason or anything.
The "lying" bit is probably referring to being "able to keep your doctor/plan" under the ACA, which may not have been universally true but was still true for the vast majority of people. Most people's insurance plan did not evaporate after the ACA. Yes, that was one of them but the Washington Post has a short list of 10 of his lies that they had marked as Pinocchios of the year. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/01/19/obamas-biggest-whoppers/
Obama and corruption? How? Just because intelligence agencies acted on information about the Trump<->Russia connection, a lot of which has been born out in subsequent investigations? Look into the millions given to Solyndra and into Fast and Furious gun-running for two
Obama and dictators? Again how? Because extreme partisans claim he "showered them with cash and concessions", aka actually negotiated with them to further the US's interests without starting a war? Was going to a baseball game with Raoul Castro "wooing dictators"? Is that better than Trump and Jong-un meeting at the DMZ?
No one seriously believes that killing an enemy combatant in the middle of a war is actually unconstitutional just because he happened to be a citizen, not even Republicans.I'll give you that one
I can't find anything saying that Obama wanted the FBI to "keep him informed after he was out of power", got a source for that? The Susan Rice memo to herself. Here's a copy on CBS twitter https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1262820374548447238/photo/1 Let Obama know through the next few weeks (after he was out of office)
You can equate the Obama administration and the Trump administration all you want, but I doubt any reasonable people who lived through both are going to be convinced. They're simply not comparable. Again, the original was an absolute statement of things that were deal breakers.
Again, Jo Jorgensen is a much better candidate that 2016's Gary Johnson. Look into her before voting.
I can't find anything saying that Obama wanted the FBI to "keep him informed after he was out of power", got a source for that?
The Susan Rice memo to herself. Here's a copy on CBS twitter https://twitter.com/CBS_Herridge/status/1262820374548447238/photo/1 Let Obama know through the next few weeks (after he was out of office).
Could you define exactly what you believe to be 'real racism' then please?
The belief that people with certain genetic heritage are better or worse than other people with different genetic heritage.
Could you define exactly what you believe to be 'real racism' then please?
The belief that people with certain genetic heritage are better or worse than other people with different genetic heritage.
So...Like saying, "You have good genes. A lot of it’s about the genes, isn’t it? Don’t you believe? The racehorse theory you think was so different? You have good genes in Minnesota."?
Sept 18th, Campaign Rally Speech Bemidji, Minnesota
Complete recording & transcript:
https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-campaign-rally-speech-bemidji-minnesota-transcript-september-18
People who are determined not to see racism are... determined not to see racism. For them, they take cover in pretending that the only actual evidence of racism is someone brutalizing another person while literally saying out loud, in front of witnesses, "I am a racist, and I am doing this act for racist reasons."
It's not worth arguing with someone who is determined to be willfully blind.
People who are determined not to see racism are... determined not to see racism. For them, they take cover in pretending that the only actual evidence of racism is someone brutalizing another person while literally saying out loud, in front of witnesses, "I am a racist, and I am doing this act for racist reasons."
It's not worth arguing with someone who is determined to be willfully blind.
It is very easy to turn that argument around and contend that people who set out to see racism will find it in abundance, despite the perplexing absence of actual racial hate crimes and the rise of incidents on e.g. http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/
I will instead argue again for a world where we do not see the color of a person's skin as important, that culture matters and not all cultures are acceptable, and that identity politics that attempt to divide people into groups based on superficial criteria are terribly dehumanizing and demoralizing.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism
My mother is a Trump supporter. She's turned anti-vax, she's prey to conspiracy theories. She's racist. And a lot of why is because she's older, her health isn't great, and she has isolated herself to such an extent that this is what happened. She's scared and uncertain about the future, and what she has chosen to cling to is not actually what's going to make anything better. But fear isn't rational. She's my mom, and I love her - but I don't discuss politics with her, and frankly our relationship has become fairly superficial. She could change that, but it's going to take some effort on her part before I'm willing to trust her.
People are complicated. A person can be a monster to some people and perfectly nice to others. This is not a contradiction, it's a reality of the complexity of human nature. Trying to put everyone into a neat box doesn't work. Trying to deny that is only going to make things worse, but accepting it isn't easy.
Answering the original question....
Trump himself is not a relationship deal breaker, though supporting Trump could be an indication of the things that are deal breakers.
Meaning, I try to be a kind and fair individual. (I'm not going to say I succeed all the time, but I try). I'm also decently educated. Someone who is openly racist, cruel, spouting ignorant beliefs/disregarding credible experts, etc - that is probably not someone who I want to hang out with. Whether they support Trump, Biden, or the little green men on Mars is irrelevant. Someone who is these things but it's more subtle/below the surface, I'm unlikely to welcome a close relationship with, but I can be friendly and polite.
Example:
My neighbor is a Trump supporter. He's also racist. Basically, he's a hillbilly, a nutcase, etc. At the same time, he's a decent human being. He may be racist, but if there were someone passing by who needed help, he'd help out. I'm aware of all this. I'm friendly with this neighbor, but he's not going to be a close friend of mine.
My mother is a Trump supporter. She's turned anti-vax, she's prey to conspiracy theories. She's racist. And a lot of why is because she's older, her health isn't great, and she has isolated herself to such an extent that this is what happened. She's scared and uncertain about the future, and what she has chosen to cling to is not actually what's going to make anything better. But fear isn't rational. She's my mom, and I love her - but I don't discuss politics with her, and frankly our relationship has become fairly superficial. She could change that, but it's going to take some effort on her part before I'm willing to trust her.
People are complicated. A person can be a monster to some people and perfectly nice to others. This is not a contradiction, it's a reality of the complexity of human nature. Trying to put everyone into a neat box doesn't work. Trying to deny that is only going to make things worse, but accepting it isn't easy.
Answering the original question....
Trump himself is not a relationship deal breaker, though supporting Trump could be an indication of the things that are deal breakers.
Meaning, I try to be a kind and fair individual. (I'm not going to say I succeed all the time, but I try). I'm also decently educated. Someone who is openly racist, cruel, spouting ignorant beliefs/disregarding credible experts, etc - that is probably not someone who I want to hang out with. Whether they support Trump, Biden, or the little green men on Mars is irrelevant. Someone who is these things but it's more subtle/below the surface, I'm unlikely to welcome a close relationship with, but I can be friendly and polite.
Example:
My neighbor is a Trump supporter. He's also racist. Basically, he's a hillbilly, a nutcase, etc. At the same time, he's a decent human being. He may be racist, but if there were someone passing by who needed help, he'd help out. I'm aware of all this. I'm friendly with this neighbor, but he's not going to be a close friend of mine.
My mother is a Trump supporter. She's turned anti-vax, she's prey to conspiracy theories. She's racist. And a lot of why is because she's older, her health isn't great, and she has isolated herself to such an extent that this is what happened. She's scared and uncertain about the future, and what she has chosen to cling to is not actually what's going to make anything better. But fear isn't rational. She's my mom, and I love her - but I don't discuss politics with her, and frankly our relationship has become fairly superficial. She could change that, but it's going to take some effort on her part before I'm willing to trust her.
People are complicated. A person can be a monster to some people and perfectly nice to others. This is not a contradiction, it's a reality of the complexity of human nature. Trying to put everyone into a neat box doesn't work. Trying to deny that is only going to make things worse, but accepting it isn't easy.
My thinking is evolving to the point that I don't think I can any longer llow myself to say, "so-and-so is a good person, and he's also racist [or misogynistic, or....]." Some sins/faults/actions are so egregious and dangerous that they negate all other good acts, if I have to make an overall call about someone goodness, or not. BTK was head of his church council and active in his community, including being a Scout leader. What a good guy! Of course, he also tortured and murdered women, men, and children as young as 9. But wow was he generous with his time. Does that make him decent? Not by nearly any metric. And I guess for me, the line with what makes "decent" has shifted because I feel like I can't any longer sit in my position of relative privilege and make excuses for people who cause tremendous suffering to their fellow man.
Yes, people are complicated. They can be more than one thing. More than one thing can be true. But if I have to make a call on whether someone goes in the "decent" box or not, openly racist (as opposed to the racial biases that nearly all of us subconsciously have) disqualifies one from the label of decency if we aren't allowing room for nuance. I wouldn't go out of my way to always call them "not-decent" based on that alone, but I certainly wouldn't use "decent" as a descriptor, either.
I propose a social experiment.
From this moment forward, we all ignore joleran. Just completely ignore him no matter what he says. I know it's hard to refrain from arguing, but it's pointless. Let's see what being invisible feels like to him.
People who are determined not to see racism are... determined not to see racism. For them, they take cover in pretending that the only actual evidence of racism is someone brutalizing another person while literally saying out loud, in front of witnesses, "I am a racist, and I am doing this act for racist reasons."
It's not worth arguing with someone who is determined to be willfully blind.
Again, Jo Jorgensen is a much better candidate that 2016's Gary Johnson. Look into her before voting.
Joleran has been pretty upfront and thoughtful in replies.
The increasing inability of people in our country to speak to each other across ideological and identity divides is an enormous problem, and character assassinations for someone trying to share a different view in good faith are totally inappropriate and are contrary to the ideals of a true liberal (free, open-minded, based on ideas, non-violent mediation of conflict) democracy. People who do this sort of stuff can call themselves progressive if they like, but they really should stop calling themselves liberal, because they objectively aren't.
I'm voting third party this year because we need a different way than this.
The increasing inability of people in our country to speak to each other across ideological and identity divides is an enormous problem, and character assassinations for someone trying to share a different view in good faith are totally inappropriate and are contrary to the ideals of a true liberal (free, open-minded, based on ideas, non-violent mediation of conflict) democracy. People who do this sort of stuff can call themselves progressive if they like, but they really should stop calling themselves liberal, because they objectively aren't.
I'm voting third party this year because we need a different way than this.
Not telling you how to vote. I have protest voted myself enough to know how one can hope one is sending a message by voting for a candidate who has no chance.
The question I ask myself each time is "is there a possibility that my protest vote will help elect a candidate I really really do not want to see win?". If I know that a candidate I am OK with will most likely win (it's a safe riding) or I know that a candidate I don't like is a shoo-in, I message vote. If there is a possibility that a candidate I really don't want might win, I metaphorically hold my nose and vote strategically. It beats sitting there on election night and looking at all the votes that went to protest votes that could have made a difference.
So please consider, looking at your own riding, if this is third party vote time or hold your nose vote time.
And then get involved. I think a big mistake most of us make, myself included, is have our vote be our only message. We need to write/phone our reps, do other actions, to push for the positive changes we want. I've done a few things, but not nearly as many as I could/should have done. I have seen results when groups of us took action, so change can happen.
Yeah, if someone isn't decent with people because of their race, but super awesome with their own race...uh, yeah, they're not a decent person.
Most people who are total monsters to some seem like eminently decent people to many others.
Answering the original question....
Trump himself is not a relationship deal breaker, though supporting Trump could be an indication of the things that are deal breakers.
Meaning, I try to be a kind and fair individual. (I'm not going to say I succeed all the time, but I try). I'm also decently educated. Someone who is openly racist, cruel, spouting ignorant beliefs/disregarding credible experts, etc - that is probably not someone who I want to hang out with. Whether they support Trump, Biden, or the little green men on Mars is irrelevant. Someone who is these things but it's more subtle/below the surface, I'm unlikely to welcome a close relationship with, but I can be friendly and polite.
Example:
My neighbor is a Trump supporter. He's also racist. Basically, he's a hillbilly, a nutcase, etc. At the same time, he's a decent human being. He may be racist, but if there were someone passing by who needed help, he'd help out. I'm aware of all this. I'm friendly with this neighbor, but he's not going to be a close friend of mine.
My mother is a Trump supporter. She's turned anti-vax, she's prey to conspiracy theories. She's racist. And a lot of why is because she's older, her health isn't great, and she has isolated herself to such an extent that this is what happened. She's scared and uncertain about the future, and what she has chosen to cling to is not actually what's going to make anything better. But fear isn't rational. She's my mom, and I love her - but I don't discuss politics with her, and frankly our relationship has become fairly superficial. She could change that, but it's going to take some effort on her part before I'm willing to trust her.
People are complicated. A person can be a monster to some people and perfectly nice to others. This is not a contradiction, it's a reality of the complexity of human nature. Trying to put everyone into a neat box doesn't work. Trying to deny that is only going to make things worse, but accepting it isn't easy.
My thinking is evolving to the point that I don't think I can any longer llow myself to say, "so-and-so is a good person, and he's also racist [or misogynistic, or....]." Some sins/faults/actions are so egregious and dangerous that they negate all other good acts, if I have to make an overall call about someone goodness, or not. BTK was head of his church council and active in his community, including being a Scout leader. What a good guy! Of course, he also tortured and murdered women, men, and children as young as 9. But wow was he generous with his time. Does that make him decent? Not by nearly any metric. And I guess for me, the line with what makes "decent" has shifted because I feel like I can't any longer sit in my position of relative privilege and make excuses for people who cause tremendous suffering to their fellow man.
Yes, people are complicated. They can be more than one thing. More than one thing can be true. But if I have to make a call on whether someone goes in the "decent" box or not, openly racist (as opposed to the racial biases that nearly all of us subconsciously have) disqualifies one from the label of decency if we aren't allowing room for nuance. I wouldn't go out of my way to always call them "not-decent" based on that alone, but I certainly wouldn't use "decent" as a descriptor, either.
Yeah, if someone isn't decent with people because of their race, but super awesome with their own race...uh, yeah, they're not a decent person.
Most people who are total monsters to some seem like eminently decent people to many others.
Won't you please join with me to declare once again that all people are created equal and come together to celebrate what we share in common rather than highlight the differences that tend to divide us?
I don't agree with the left's position on this, but I certainly respect everyone's ability to think for themselves even if I disagree with the conclusions drawn. We all presumably want equality for all, but each feel that there are core problems with the morality of each others positions and/or the effectiveness of proposed solutions, right? I don't feel this makes a person with a different opinion stupid, obstinate, or worthy of being personally insulted - we just don't see things the same way. This is a critical time in history to come together and respect each others views before things (in the worst case) go beyond the possibility of civil discourse.
Won't you please join with me to declare once again that all people are created equal and come together to celebrate what we share in common rather than highlight the differences that tend to divide us?
This is a really weird statement to make.
All people are certainly not created equally. Some are born with physical deformities, some with mental handicaps (or gifts). There are taller and shorter people. There are differences in bone density. Some are born heterosexual, some homosexual, some bisexual. Some are born with a vagina, some with a penis, and some with both. People are born with different skin colours and facial structures. People are born with different levels of wealth - which then impacts how they grow and develop. The idea that all people are created equally is patently false and a really odd one to argue for.
You even acknowledge that the first (equality) part of your statement is false in the second. How does one highlight differences that divide us if all people are born equally?
I don't agree with the left's position on this, but I certainly respect everyone's ability to think for themselves even if I disagree with the conclusions drawn. We all presumably want equality for all, but each feel that there are core problems with the morality of each others positions and/or the effectiveness of proposed solutions, right? I don't feel this makes a person with a different opinion stupid, obstinate, or worthy of being personally insulted - we just don't see things the same way. This is a critical time in history to come together and respect each others views before things (in the worst case) go beyond the possibility of civil discourse.
Given that above you have already acknowledged that people are not born equal, I'm not sure that "equality for all" is a desirable goal. But let's examine that further.
If someone is born with a serious mental handicap and cannot reason beyond a typical three year old, should they be treated equal in every way to someone who is of average intelligence? If yes, then can you explain your reasoning why?
Won't you please join with me to declare once again that all people are created equal and come together to celebrate what we share in common rather than highlight the differences that tend to divide us?
This is a really weird statement to make.
All people are certainly not created equally. Some are born with physical deformities, some with mental handicaps (or gifts). There are taller and shorter people. There are differences in bone density. Some are born heterosexual, some homosexual, some bisexual. Some are born with a vagina, some with a penis, and some with both. People are born with different skin colours and facial structures. People are born with different levels of wealth - which then impacts how they grow and develop. The idea that all people are created equally is patently false and a really odd one to argue for.
You even acknowledge that the first (equality) part of your statement is false in the second. How does one highlight differences that divide us if all people are born equally?
It's from the USA's declaration of independence and is meant to be a statement on principle rather than literal fact. Of course differences exist, but the principle implies that rather than highlight these differences we should attempt to treat everyone the same. This is an imperfect duty, but nevertheless a categorical imperative consistent with Kant's intent of universal law.
I don't agree with the left's position on this, but I certainly respect everyone's ability to think for themselves even if I disagree with the conclusions drawn. We all presumably want equality for all, but each feel that there are core problems with the morality of each others positions and/or the effectiveness of proposed solutions, right? I don't feel this makes a person with a different opinion stupid, obstinate, or worthy of being personally insulted - we just don't see things the same way. This is a critical time in history to come together and respect each others views before things (in the worst case) go beyond the possibility of civil discourse.
Given that above you have already acknowledged that people are not born equal, I'm not sure that "equality for all" is a desirable goal. But let's examine that further.
If someone is born with a serious mental handicap and cannot reason beyond a typical three year old, should they be treated equal in every way to someone who is of average intelligence? If yes, then can you explain your reasoning why?
It is very difficult to reason at the extreme ends of humanity. Someone so incapacitated can't reasonably be treated the same way as even someone of remarkably lower than average intellect - their disability is profound. I would argue that it is a sign of humanity, kindness, and even a duty to attempt to do so though. It is far better to give each individual person the benefit of the doubt and only accommodate them when there is no longer any doubt than to presume or anticipate profound deficits of ability.
Language is important because without using it correctly we don't convey our ideas properly to one another. I think we can do a little better than rehashing the flowery quarter millennia old religiously tinged language of those who were perfectly fine owning slaves, considering women property, and persecuting gay people. (All while arguing that they should treat people 'equal'.) Attempting to treat different people the same way is patently foolish.
I think that a more reasonable argument might be made for providing the same opportunities for everyone. Is that what you had in mind?
Treating a man with the intellect of a three year old as though there was nothing wrong with him is denying reality. Attempting to do so is quite liable to get the man killed. Take crossing a busy street, being alone in a bathroom with medication/cleaning products, shaving with a straight razor . . . or any of a myriad of other situations. It would be wildly irresponsible to do what you've suggested.
Anticipating problems is vital to how a good society works. Making all new buildings wheelchair accessible, or having handicapped parking accommodates for disabilities before the disabled person runs into a problem for example. Then it's up to the disabled person if he or she wants to use those accommodations - but the accommodations are there if they do need them. I would argue that it is a sign of humanity, kindness, and even a duty to attempt to anticipate this problem in advance, rather than waiting until an untenable situation is first created for someone.
Language is important because without using it correctly we don't convey our ideas properly to one another. I think we can do a little better than rehashing the flowery quarter millennia old religiously tinged language of those who were perfectly fine owning slaves, considering women property, and persecuting gay people. (All while arguing that they should treat people 'equal'.) Attempting to treat different people the same way is patently foolish.
I think that a more reasonable argument might be made for providing the same opportunities for everyone. Is that what you had in mind?
What criteria do you have in mind for determining how to treat people differently?
On the subject of providing exactly equal opportunities, I would say it is an interesting idea but falls down when considering a parents desire to have a better life for their children. Sacrifices and hard work should be acknowledged. If there is no point in attempting to aid the next generation because everyone is equal in outcome no matter their ability, culture, or upbringing, society falls apart.
This is not contending with the idea that we should treat people equally though! Some people will be more successful than others, from luck or skill. This does not make them better people or deserving of different treatment.
Treating a man with the intellect of a three year old as though there was nothing wrong with him is denying reality. Attempting to do so is quite liable to get the man killed. Take crossing a busy street, being alone in a bathroom with medication/cleaning products, shaving with a straight razor . . . or any of a myriad of other situations. It would be wildly irresponsible to do what you've suggested.
Anticipating problems is vital to how a good society works. Making all new buildings wheelchair accessible, or having handicapped parking accommodates for disabilities before the disabled person runs into a problem for example. Then it's up to the disabled person if he or she wants to use those accommodations - but the accommodations are there if they do need them. I would argue that it is a sign of humanity, kindness, and even a duty to attempt to anticipate this problem in advance, rather than waiting until an untenable situation is first created for someone.
You are entirely correct on the hypothetical issue involving an adult with a 3 year old mental ability, but only if it is known in advance that such a person has those limitations. It is however ridiculous to assume every stranger you meet should be treated as though they are essentially helpless just in case they are.
Where do we draw the line at providing reasonable accommodations? How do we enact that in reality? You provide an entirely good example of a marginalized population receiving reasonable accommodation. Their disability is obvious and we have a moral duty to accommodate it. How and where do you want to expand this idea of providing societal support to others?
I would offer an apology to you - I conflated equal opportunity and equal outcome. That is clearly not what you said. I stand by my words but misrepresented what you said.
What criteria do you have in mind for determining how to treat people differently?
I guess it would depend upon relevant criteria. I wouldn't gesture to something if the man in front of me is blind for example. It would be stupid to treat all people the same way.
On the subject of providing exactly equal opportunities, I would say it is an interesting idea but falls down when considering a parents desire to have a better life for their children. Sacrifices and hard work should be acknowledged. If there is no point in attempting to aid the next generation because everyone is equal in outcome no matter their ability, culture, or upbringing, society falls apart.
I'm glad you brought this point up. It's a very important one.
All parents desire to have a better life for their children. The wealth that a parent accumulates can be passed to children so that these children receive an unearned step up in life over others. It makes for a less equal playing field and benefits some in this new generation.
The inverse is also true.
In the US, white slave owners became rich because they exploited black slaves. This went on for generations. After they were forced to give up slave ownership white former slave owners continued to monopolize generations of unequal advantage that they leveraged into power to continue to oppress their former slaves. This also went on for generations (and still - in various measurable forms - goes on today). Today, many of the decedents of those black slaves are disadvantaged by multiple lifetimes of lost opportunity.
Knowing that a very large percentage of black people in the US start out with generations of unearned disadvantage, and knowing that a very large percentage of white people in the US start out with unearned generations of advantage . . . it seems pretty unfair to argue that the best course forward is to treat both the exactly the same way.
Treating people with unequal opportunity in the same way will result in the same thing on average - those who start with less end up with less in the end.
This is not contending with the idea that we should treat people equally though! Some people will be more successful than others, from luck or skill. This does not make them better people or deserving of different treatment.
Success in life certainly doesn't make you a better or worse person than another (although how you define success is a whole other conversation). A well-functioning capitalist system works best when it differentiates people - treating them differently based upon their skill. Communist countries have attempted to implement your 'treat everyone equally' philosophy and it hasn't treated them well. Proponents of communism would argue that they just didn't treat people equally enough . . . but I'd argue that doing so is fundamentally incompatible with being human. Treating everyone equally is fighting nature - which always differentiates.
I think that a more reasonable argument might be made for providing the same opportunities for everyone. Is that what you had in mind?I just want to point out that this wording is problematic, too.
What criteria do you have in mind for determining how to treat people differently?
I guess it would depend upon relevant criteria. I wouldn't gesture to something if the man in front of me is blind for example. It would be stupid to treat all people the same way.
We do seem to disagree on the methodology, if not the reality of treating people differently. I argue for a "presumption of ability" such that each individual is considered to be maximally competent unless proven otherwise. Even for an obviously blind man - is it more moral to assume their disability needs to be accommodated than to hope it does not limit them and they may be able to discern your arm movement despite their apparent limitations? I know this sounds ridiculous in this example but the intent should be clear.
On the subject of providing exactly equal opportunities, I would say it is an interesting idea but falls down when considering a parents desire to have a better life for their children. Sacrifices and hard work should be acknowledged. If there is no point in attempting to aid the next generation because everyone is equal in outcome no matter their ability, culture, or upbringing, society falls apart.
I'm glad you brought this point up. It's a very important one.
All parents desire to have a better life for their children. The wealth that a parent accumulates can be passed to children so that these children receive an unearned step up in life over others. It makes for a less equal playing field and benefits some in this new generation.
The inverse is also true.
In the US, white slave owners became rich because they exploited black slaves. This went on for generations. After they were forced to give up slave ownership white former slave owners continued to monopolize generations of unequal advantage that they leveraged into power to continue to oppress their former slaves. This also went on for generations (and still - in various measurable forms - goes on today). Today, many of the decedents of those black slaves are disadvantaged by multiple lifetimes of lost opportunity.
Knowing that a very large percentage of black people in the US start out with generations of unearned disadvantage, and knowing that a very large percentage of white people in the US start out with unearned generations of advantage . . . it seems pretty unfair to argue that the best course forward is to treat both the exactly the same way.
Treating people with unequal opportunity in the same way will result in the same thing on average - those who start with less end up with less in the end.
Nigerian Americans are one of the most successful ethnic minorities in the US, far exceeding White Americans' financial success on average. It is therefore very difficult to see an argument that their race somehow holds them back. At the same time, multi-generational Black Americans descended from slaves have horrific outcomes on average. I argue it is a question of culture, which has been largely transformed from the goals of equality and self-determination espoused in the US civil rights movement to the brutal acceptance of Democrat policies deciding that Black Americans need to be treated differently because they are functionally inferior due to societal oppression.
You are however clearly right that multi-generational discrimination has held back the Black population as a whole in exactly the manner you describe. I ask that this stops and we treat everyone as equals and not treat people of any race differently because of past oppression, thereby perpetuating a victim mentality and sense of entitlement as opposed to a sense of purpose and ability. Treating people differently due to their race or other uncontrollable characteristics hurts those it is intended to help. Outcomes will not change overnight, but they will change as there is no real argument for essential racial inferiority. Attempting to tilt the scales to more quickly produce the desired outcomes will not see success because it undermines the very characteristics that tend to produce success.
This is not contending with the idea that we should treat people equally though! Some people will be more successful than others, from luck or skill. This does not make them better people or deserving of different treatment.
Success in life certainly doesn't make you a better or worse person than another (although how you define success is a whole other conversation). A well-functioning capitalist system works best when it differentiates people - treating them differently based upon their skill. Communist countries have attempted to implement your 'treat everyone equally' philosophy and it hasn't treated them well. Proponents of communism would argue that they just didn't treat people equally enough . . . but I'd argue that doing so is fundamentally incompatible with being human. Treating everyone equally is fighting nature - which always differentiates.
Communist countries certainly don't treat people equally unless you think "from each according to their ability and to each according to their need" represents equality. My perspective is not about economic equality irrespective of ability - this clearly does not work. It is instead to give compassion, understanding, and respect for all humans and to not look down on individuals or discriminate based on their demographics or perspectives. Equality in this sense simply means that no human is set above any other on inherent moral or value-based grounds regardless of their societal status.
It is, as you say, against human nature to do so. It doesn't feel good to treat everyone as equals. It feels great to discriminate and fight.
QuoteI think that a more reasonable argument might be made for providing the same opportunities for everyone. Is that what you had in mind?I just want to point out that this wording is problematic, too.
For example the German FDP (rich people's party) seem to mean with "same opportunity": Everyone can open a business, the child from a social security family living at a highway with a disabled parent - the same as the rich boy with private tutors, a 10 million starting help from dad and dozen of contacts into the business world before he turns 18.
I don't think it is the same opportunity if your chances are 10000 times lower than someone else's just because of your birth.
What criteria do you have in mind for determining how to treat people differently?
I guess it would depend upon relevant criteria. I wouldn't gesture to something if the man in front of me is blind for example. It would be stupid to treat all people the same way.
We do seem to disagree on the methodology, if not the reality of treating people differently. I argue for a "presumption of ability" such that each individual is considered to be maximally competent unless proven otherwise. Even for an obviously blind man - is it more moral to assume their disability needs to be accommodated than to hope it does not limit them and they may be able to discern your arm movement despite their apparent limitations? I know this sounds ridiculous in this example but the intent should be clear.
The intent is clear. But in practice what you propose is worse than ridiculous. In the example given, forcing the blind man to explain to you what you should plainly be able to ascertain forces the man to constantly tell people that he's less able than they are. This has real negative impacts on the blind person that I feel you're not considering.
On the subject of providing exactly equal opportunities, I would say it is an interesting idea but falls down when considering a parents desire to have a better life for their children. Sacrifices and hard work should be acknowledged. If there is no point in attempting to aid the next generation because everyone is equal in outcome no matter their ability, culture, or upbringing, society falls apart.
I'm glad you brought this point up. It's a very important one.
All parents desire to have a better life for their children. The wealth that a parent accumulates can be passed to children so that these children receive an unearned step up in life over others. It makes for a less equal playing field and benefits some in this new generation.
The inverse is also true.
In the US, white slave owners became rich because they exploited black slaves. This went on for generations. After they were forced to give up slave ownership white former slave owners continued to monopolize generations of unequal advantage that they leveraged into power to continue to oppress their former slaves. This also went on for generations (and still - in various measurable forms - goes on today). Today, many of the decedents of those black slaves are disadvantaged by multiple lifetimes of lost opportunity.
Knowing that a very large percentage of black people in the US start out with generations of unearned disadvantage, and knowing that a very large percentage of white people in the US start out with unearned generations of advantage . . . it seems pretty unfair to argue that the best course forward is to treat both the exactly the same way.
Treating people with unequal opportunity in the same way will result in the same thing on average - those who start with less end up with less in the end.
Nigerian Americans are one of the most successful ethnic minorities in the US, far exceeding White Americans' financial success on average. It is therefore very difficult to see an argument that their race somehow holds them back. At the same time, multi-generational Black Americans descended from slaves have horrific outcomes on average. I argue it is a question of culture, which has been largely transformed from the goals of equality and self-determination espoused in the US civil rights movement to the brutal acceptance of Democrat policies deciding that Black Americans need to be treated differently because they are functionally inferior due to societal oppression.
You are however clearly right that multi-generational discrimination has held back the Black population as a whole in exactly the manner you describe. I ask that this stops and we treat everyone as equals and not treat people of any race differently because of past oppression, thereby perpetuating a victim mentality and sense of entitlement as opposed to a sense of purpose and ability. Treating people differently due to their race or other uncontrollable characteristics hurts those it is intended to help. Outcomes will not change overnight, but they will change as there is no real argument for essential racial inferiority. Attempting to tilt the scales to more quickly produce the desired outcomes will not see success because it undermines the very characteristics that tend to produce success.
I didn't mention any attempt to tilt scales - just pointed out that what you're proposing guarantees that people who were oppressed in the past will stay oppressed for a very long time. That ensures that unequal outcomes will continue to occur because of uncontrollable characteristics (such as race and accident of birth). This is a difficult problem to solve, but I'm not sure that your approach of simply ignoring it and hoping it goes away is very likely to work. It has (after all) been more than 150 years since slavery was abolished . . . and yet the results of that practice are still very evident.
Part of the problem is that we demonstrably do not treat minorities the same way as white people right now. Killings and arrest rates by police are disproportionate to crimes committed by race for example. Even applying for a job with a black sounding name ensures that you will receive less call backs than applying to the same job with the same resume with a white sounding name. There are a great many other examples. Is the world less racist today in 2020 than thirty years ago in 1990? Could be, but I don't really see any evidence of this. And if things haven't improved in the last 30 years, then how many generations of people need to live through the unfairness that's baked in to society before things get better for them?
A key issue is simply the one you identified in your post. Generally, the passing of unearned wealth to others is a bad idea for society. It inevitably creates a wealthy (and therefore powerful) elite who are sheltered from ever having to earn income . . . whose only claim to this wealth is accident of birth. It does the inverse for the poorest in society. This typically ends up limiting social mobility and weakens meritocracy. Absolutely, this is a difficult issue to address but it needs to be acknowledged as something that we're doing wrong.
What criteria do you have in mind for determining how to treat people differently?
I guess it would depend upon relevant criteria. I wouldn't gesture to something if the man in front of me is blind for example. It would be stupid to treat all people the same way.
We do seem to disagree on the methodology, if not the reality of treating people differently. I argue for a "presumption of ability" such that each individual is considered to be maximally competent unless proven otherwise. Even for an obviously blind man - is it more moral to assume their disability needs to be accommodated than to hope it does not limit them and they may be able to discern your arm movement despite their apparent limitations? I know this sounds ridiculous in this example but the intent should be clear.
The intent is clear. But in practice what you propose is worse than ridiculous. In the example given, forcing the blind man to explain to you what you should plainly be able to ascertain forces the man to constantly tell people that he's less able than they are. This has real negative impacts on the blind person that I feel you're not considering.
There is a vast divide between forcing a person to explain their disability in order to be accommodated and presuming an apparent disability requires such a person to be accommodated. I do not make an argument to ignore evidence, but instead to look for this evidence and give the presumption of ability absent any specific evidence. That is to say that I find the idea of assuming limitations based on preconceptions to be far more objectionable than not doing so. Further, I disagree that the idea that explaining a disability inherently causes a negative impact on the person with the disability rather than there merely being an overwhelming societal perception as such. There should be no shame in expressing facts or personal limitations in general and I argue that this should be normalized.
On the subject of providing exactly equal opportunities, I would say it is an interesting idea but falls down when considering a parents desire to have a better life for their children. Sacrifices and hard work should be acknowledged. If there is no point in attempting to aid the next generation because everyone is equal in outcome no matter their ability, culture, or upbringing, society falls apart.
I'm glad you brought this point up. It's a very important one.
All parents desire to have a better life for their children. The wealth that a parent accumulates can be passed to children so that these children receive an unearned step up in life over others. It makes for a less equal playing field and benefits some in this new generation.
The inverse is also true.
In the US, white slave owners became rich because they exploited black slaves. This went on for generations. After they were forced to give up slave ownership white former slave owners continued to monopolize generations of unequal advantage that they leveraged into power to continue to oppress their former slaves. This also went on for generations (and still - in various measurable forms - goes on today). Today, many of the decedents of those black slaves are disadvantaged by multiple lifetimes of lost opportunity.
Knowing that a very large percentage of black people in the US start out with generations of unearned disadvantage, and knowing that a very large percentage of white people in the US start out with unearned generations of advantage . . . it seems pretty unfair to argue that the best course forward is to treat both the exactly the same way.
Treating people with unequal opportunity in the same way will result in the same thing on average - those who start with less end up with less in the end.
Nigerian Americans are one of the most successful ethnic minorities in the US, far exceeding White Americans' financial success on average. It is therefore very difficult to see an argument that their race somehow holds them back. At the same time, multi-generational Black Americans descended from slaves have horrific outcomes on average. I argue it is a question of culture, which has been largely transformed from the goals of equality and self-determination espoused in the US civil rights movement to the brutal acceptance of Democrat policies deciding that Black Americans need to be treated differently because they are functionally inferior due to societal oppression.
You are however clearly right that multi-generational discrimination has held back the Black population as a whole in exactly the manner you describe. I ask that this stops and we treat everyone as equals and not treat people of any race differently because of past oppression, thereby perpetuating a victim mentality and sense of entitlement as opposed to a sense of purpose and ability. Treating people differently due to their race or other uncontrollable characteristics hurts those it is intended to help. Outcomes will not change overnight, but they will change as there is no real argument for essential racial inferiority. Attempting to tilt the scales to more quickly produce the desired outcomes will not see success because it undermines the very characteristics that tend to produce success.
I didn't mention any attempt to tilt scales - just pointed out that what you're proposing guarantees that people who were oppressed in the past will stay oppressed for a very long time. That ensures that unequal outcomes will continue to occur because of uncontrollable characteristics (such as race and accident of birth). This is a difficult problem to solve, but I'm not sure that your approach of simply ignoring it and hoping it goes away is very likely to work. It has (after all) been more than 150 years since slavery was abolished . . . and yet the results of that practice are still very evident.
Part of the problem is that we demonstrably do not treat minorities the same way as white people right now. Killings and arrest rates by police are disproportionate to crimes committed by race for example. Even applying for a job with a black sounding name ensures that you will receive less call backs than applying to the same job with the same resume with a white sounding name. There are a great many other examples. Is the world less racist today in 2020 than thirty years ago in 1990? Could be, but I don't really see any evidence of this. And if things haven't improved in the last 30 years, then how many generations of people need to live through the unfairness that's baked in to society before things get better for them?
A key issue is simply the one you identified in your post. Generally, the passing of unearned wealth to others is a bad idea for society. It inevitably creates a wealthy (and therefore powerful) elite who are sheltered from ever having to earn income . . . whose only claim to this wealth is accident of birth. It does the inverse for the poorest in society. This typically ends up limiting social mobility and weakens meritocracy. Absolutely, this is a difficult issue to address but it needs to be acknowledged as something that we're doing wrong.
It does not seem like we agree with the definition of "oppression" here - unequal financial outcomes across demographics are not fundamentally oppressive but are certainly representative of problems that need to be addressed. Unequal outcomes from unequal beginnings are expected. I reiterate my argument that success due to accidents of birth, as you put it, are not purely arbitrary but a result of long term and multi-generational contributions that should not be denied but instead celebrated and shared to increase equality over the long term.
I do not agree with your interpretation of publicly available crime statistics, namely that "Killings and arrest rates by police are disproportionate to crimes committed by race for example." This is highly contentious. Here is a blatantly political article against this: https://www.breitbart.com/crime/2020/07/14/fact-check-police-do-kill-more-white-people-but-theres-more-to-the-story/ Here is a blatantly politcal argument for this: https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/07/16/the-research-is-clear-white-people-are-not-more-likely-than-black-people-to-be-killed-by-police/ The statistics can clearly be manipulated to show either perspective.
The truth that people with "black-sounding" names are discriminated against in job hirings is clear. I wholly condemn this but would not agree with the leftist position that this means that racial discrimination is the cause. Would you consider someone with the given name of "Jim-Bob" as being likely to succeed? It is a classist argument, but not a racial one. The solution is simply to presume ability, but not to give people arbitrary advantages.
Again, on the position of unequal starting points - they are not inherently deserved but neither are they entirely morally dismissable because they are predicated on the success of ones forebears. It is one's parents and other ancestors to thank for this unearned success and their happiness should not taken out of the equation. Should more be done to reduce the contributions of one's family to their success? I believe it's a hard argument to make against the motivational factors and societal benefit of creating what is ideally a long-lived legacy.
My dad lost his right leg just below the knee in a motorcycle accident many years ago. He can get by pretty well with his prosthetic, can walk pretty well, can climb a ladder, can drive (it gets more exciting when he's driving manual - but that's another story), and generally does well. To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever shamed him for having one leg. But he certainly doesn't want to be reminded of it or advertise the fact that he is missing a leg. He never, ever wears shorts. He never goes swimming. He never parks in handicapped parking spots.Sounds like you've had some fun with him driving :) Why is it painful or undesirable for him to acknowledge his disability? It would seem to me that fear of societal judgment is at the heart of the issue, but perhaps it is directly uncomfortable to address what is personally seen as a a loss or failing? Regardless, he sounds like exactly the sort of resilient person I would tend to admire. It does not seem consistent to take his described behavior as a guide to his thoughts, and to then highlight the existence of his physical limitations and suggest that he be treated differently based on others notions of his ability. Rather, it appears he desires a sense of normalcy and avoids situations that cause his disability to be apparent. While offering presumptive accommodations appears to be compassionate, it can instead highlight disabilities that would rather not be thought about and do not actually present limitations. "The soft bigotry of low expectations" is politically charged but certainly springs to mind as analogous.
While I agree with you that there should be no shame in expressing facts or personal limitations and that they should be normalized, that's just not the case for many who have disabilities. If my father had to tell everyone that he needed a special accommodation to use an elevator or escalator because he was unable to climb a long set of stairs, it wouldn't happen. He just wouldn't go to that place.
I'm not sure you can completely divorce economics from how people are treated. In every society I can think of in recorded history the wealthy are treated better than the poor. You can argue that people shouldn't look down on the poor and look up to the wealthy/powerful . . . but that argument is doomed to failure in reality. The rich are always set above the poor. This is especially true in the US today. It's entrenched in how law enforcement in our system works. Take a look at this case of 'equality':
Parking fines are set amounts. Everyone pays the same dollar figure. Equal, right? A poor person can receive a parking fine that they're unable to pay and be jailed. A middle class person can receive the same fine and it's a minor annoyance - but no risk of jail time or being unable to pay at all. The same fine to a massively rich person is of no consequence at all, and therefore no deterrent at all so he continues to park wherever the hell he wants. All three are treated equally, but because of radically different initial opportunity it ends up impacting each very differently. Because the opportunities for each are so radically different, we can see that the people are not being treated equally at all. Society is effectively telling the poor person that he deserves to be in jail for his lack of money . . . and telling the rich person that he's above these minor laws.
If to make the fine a little more equal for rich and poor alike, you could to do something like set the fine at a percentage of the net yearly income of the person receiving it. Doing this they'll all pay different amounts, but the poor person might pay 20$, the middle class guy 200$, and the rich guy 20,000$ . . . but the actual impact of the fine and the level of deterrent is made much more equal.
When you talk about treating people equal, it's not as simple as you're making out at all. Giving everyone the same dollar fine (for example) seems equal on the surface but consistently leads to and perpetuates unequal treatment.
Your argument here that appears to be that there exists no objective reality but what political pundits tell people and that statistics are meaningless. That kind of defeatism bothers me. How about we look at the actual data in the articles, instead of giving up because understanding things is hard?I made a poor and lazy argument there. I am also having a difficult time finding the data I previously believed to exist - namely that, after controlling for various factors, the racial disparity goes away or even reverses. I intend to revisit this but am prepared to admit I was incorrect as well.
The truth that people with "black-sounding" names are discriminated against in job hirings is clear. I wholly condemn this but would not agree with the leftist position that this means that racial discrimination is the cause. Would you consider someone with the given name of "Jim-Bob" as being likely to succeed? It is a classist argument, but not a racial one. The solution is simply to presume ability, but not to give people arbitrary advantages.
I do a lot of hiring, and truth be told I usually try very hard to avoid looking at a person's name when going through them to avoid any unconscious bias . . . jump to the skills section, previous history then only look at their name when scheduling the first interview. Honestly, I was surprised that this wasn't the way most people do things. But OK, you've created a hypothesis. "The black names used sound like losers who you wouldn't want to hire and the white names weren't." Cool. Let's check out the study to see if your hypothesis is correct: https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf (https://cos.gatech.edu/facultyres/Diversity_Studies/Bertrand_LakishaJamal.pdf)
Which are the loser names? At first glance, none of them (white or black) sound like someone I would instinctively not hire. Which ones would you fail to hire because of their name?
Again, on the position of unequal starting points - they are not inherently deserved but neither are they entirely morally dismissable because they are predicated on the success of ones forebears. It is one's parents and other ancestors to thank for this unearned success and their happiness should not taken out of the equation. Should more be done to reduce the contributions of one's family to their success? I believe it's a hard argument to make against the motivational factors and societal benefit of creating what is ideally a long-lived legacy.
There's no moral obligation to coddle the children of the rich and create a class of aristocracy who will inevitable end up ruling everyone else. That said, I acknowledge that there is some benefit (both to society as an individual motivational factor) to being able to better your offspring's position.
How to reconcile the two? It's not possible to see treating everyone the same way as fair if we acknowledge that each person is starting from a totally different point because of what their parents did, but we don't want to lose the benefits of being able to pass some wealth on to your offspring.
What I envision is something along the lines of a cap or limit on the total amount of wealth that can be transferred to the young (overages are taxed upon death), in combination with (and at least partially paid for by the overages) strong social programs available for use by the poor for food, nutrition, health, criminal re-education/re-integration, and education. It wouldn't result in a perfectly level playing field, but it would be a lot better than what we've currently got and would help to push up the middle and minimize those stuck at the extreme ends of poverty/wealth.
Just want to mention that several studies with the same resume/different name in Germany have found that having a "muslim" name severely decreases your chance. (Black also, but less.)
That is why there are anonymous resumes. A few big companies make this.
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
My dad lost his right leg just below the knee in a motorcycle accident many years ago. He can get by pretty well with his prosthetic, can walk pretty well, can climb a ladder, can drive (it gets more exciting when he's driving manual - but that's another story), and generally does well. To the best of my knowledge nobody has ever shamed him for having one leg. But he certainly doesn't want to be reminded of it or advertise the fact that he is missing a leg. He never, ever wears shorts. He never goes swimming. He never parks in handicapped parking spots.Sounds like you've had some fun with him driving :) Why is it painful or undesirable for him to acknowledge his disability? It would seem to me that fear of societal judgment is at the heart of the issue, but perhaps it is directly uncomfortable to address what is personally seen as a a loss or failing? Regardless, he sounds like exactly the sort of resilient person I would tend to admire. It does not seem consistent to take his described behavior as a guide to his thoughts, and to then highlight the existence of his physical limitations and suggest that he be treated differently based on others notions of his ability. Rather, it appears he desires a sense of normalcy and avoids situations that cause his disability to be apparent. While offering presumptive accommodations appears to be compassionate, it can instead highlight disabilities that would rather not be thought about and do not actually present limitations. "The soft bigotry of low expectations" is politically charged but certainly springs to mind as analogous.
While I agree with you that there should be no shame in expressing facts or personal limitations and that they should be normalized, that's just not the case for many who have disabilities. If my father had to tell everyone that he needed a special accommodation to use an elevator or escalator because he was unable to climb a long set of stairs, it wouldn't happen. He just wouldn't go to that place.
I'm not sure you can completely divorce economics from how people are treated. In every society I can think of in recorded history the wealthy are treated better than the poor. You can argue that people shouldn't look down on the poor and look up to the wealthy/powerful . . . but that argument is doomed to failure in reality. The rich are always set above the poor. This is especially true in the US today. It's entrenched in how law enforcement in our system works. Take a look at this case of 'equality':
Parking fines are set amounts. Everyone pays the same dollar figure. Equal, right? A poor person can receive a parking fine that they're unable to pay and be jailed. A middle class person can receive the same fine and it's a minor annoyance - but no risk of jail time or being unable to pay at all. The same fine to a massively rich person is of no consequence at all, and therefore no deterrent at all so he continues to park wherever the hell he wants. All three are treated equally, but because of radically different initial opportunity it ends up impacting each very differently. Because the opportunities for each are so radically different, we can see that the people are not being treated equally at all. Society is effectively telling the poor person that he deserves to be in jail for his lack of money . . . and telling the rich person that he's above these minor laws.
If to make the fine a little more equal for rich and poor alike, you could to do something like set the fine at a percentage of the net yearly income of the person receiving it. Doing this they'll all pay different amounts, but the poor person might pay 20$, the middle class guy 200$, and the rich guy 20,000$ . . . but the actual impact of the fine and the level of deterrent is made much more equal.
When you talk about treating people equal, it's not as simple as you're making out at all. Giving everyone the same dollar fine (for example) seems equal on the surface but consistently leads to and perpetuates unequal treatment.
An interesting argument, but where does it end? Perhaps the person who is expected to drop $20k on a fine can easily afford it, but perhaps this is a greater relative imposition on them than the person paying $20 and requires greater effort and sacrifice to avoid more personally serious consequences. The mechanisms of determining a person's ability to pay would need to be extensively explored to avoid injustice in the edge cases, which also creates an unfair advantage (not to mention the extreme incentive) for those who can game the system due to knowledge, or use wealth to buy said knowledge more cheaply than the potential fines. It is simple to just control for earned income, but this ignores the ability of e.g. early retirees to game the system.
Again, on the position of unequal starting points - they are not inherently deserved but neither are they entirely morally dismissable because they are predicated on the success of ones forebears. It is one's parents and other ancestors to thank for this unearned success and their happiness should not taken out of the equation. Should more be done to reduce the contributions of one's family to their success? I believe it's a hard argument to make against the motivational factors and societal benefit of creating what is ideally a long-lived legacy.
There's no moral obligation to coddle the children of the rich and create a class of aristocracy who will inevitable end up ruling everyone else. That said, I acknowledge that there is some benefit (both to society as an individual motivational factor) to being able to better your offspring's position.
How to reconcile the two? It's not possible to see treating everyone the same way as fair if we acknowledge that each person is starting from a totally different point because of what their parents did, but we don't want to lose the benefits of being able to pass some wealth on to your offspring.
What I envision is something along the lines of a cap or limit on the total amount of wealth that can be transferred to the young (overages are taxed upon death), in combination with (and at least partially paid for by the overages) strong social programs available for use by the poor for food, nutrition, health, criminal re-education/re-integration, and education. It wouldn't result in a perfectly level playing field, but it would be a lot better than what we've currently got and would help to push up the middle and minimize those stuck at the extreme ends of poverty/wealth.
In the US, there is what is called an "estate tax" that significantly taxes assets passed on at death beyond a certain point, but does not impose a true cap. The level at which assets even begin to be taxed is excessive even for fatFIRE with a single inheritor, but might get down to regular FIRE levels with a group of descendants. There are tax strategies such as irrevocable trusts, founding corporations, and life insurance that can help bypass the intent of the law however. Should this be more or less restrictive? I do tend to agree that reasonable limitations to avoid dynastic wealth make sense but am also aware of the challenges involved in multi-generational wealth management often produce paradoxically poor outcomes for the rich inheritors. When there is no struggle remaining, it is very easy to see no purpose in life and fritter away even the most ridiculously beneficial advantages.
Many strong social programs already exist in the USA - I comfortably live with a wife and kids on an amount that qualifies us for governmental food support that I do not take advantage of. My health insurance under the ACA is cheaper than when I was employed for both premiums and benefits. Government benefits are abundant and generous, but there often requires a great deal of knowledge to take advantage of them.
It is easy to live in perpetuity after acquiring wealth. Perhaps too easy? The US tax system is structured to encourage investment and wealth accumulation and I have near maximally taken it up on the offer. I often feel conflicted about continuing to game the system, structuring assets to avoid taxation and retain significant government benefits.
Just want to mention that several studies with the same resume/different name in Germany have found that having a "muslim" name severely decreases your chance. (Black also, but less.)
That is why there are anonymous resumes. A few big companies make this.
I recall reading that anonymous resumes did not provide the expected benefits, but am not particularly well-read on the matter. A quick search produced this interesting paper: http://ftp.iza.org/dp8517.pdf which I am still in the process of reading but would love to talk about. I am interested to see if my argument that it is not inherently racial, but more circumstantial based on perceived class, holds up. My initial thought is that if removing obvious racial markers from resumes is harmful to minorities that there would potentially even be an anti-racial bias in place.
"Drawing on a sample of about 600 firms participating in the program, we find the surprising result that anonymization leads to a large and significant widening of the gap in interview rates: the interview rate of minority candidates decreases, while that of majority candidates increases."
non-participating firms strongly differ from participating ones by interviewing and hiring significantly fewer minority candidates.
combined with the experimental results in the previous section, they suggest a consistent story in which firms participating in the experiment had a positive valuation of minority candidates’ resumes, so that anonymous resumes made their decision become less favorable to those candidates
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
Yeah, without a doubt. But, it is At least something that could be controlled. I have the same internal symptoms versus cause argument in my head when I think about sexual harassment / rape and things like 'provocative dress'.
*snip*
So if the premise is a name is getting a resume tossed because of perceived bias, then I would think adopting a different name would be better.
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
Yeah, without a doubt. But, it is At least something that could be controlled. I have the same internal symptoms versus cause argument in my head when I think about sexual harassment / rape and things like 'provocative dress'.
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions. Because the struggle is how do you swim upstream and get those would-be-whatever-bad-thing people until they take action? Rooting them out is hard. In fact, sometimes letting them slide under the radar might be even worse long term.
So if the premise is a name is getting a resume tossed because of perceived bias, then I would think adopting a different name would be better.
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
Yeah, without a doubt. But, it is At least something that could be controlled. I have the same internal symptoms versus cause argument in my head when I think about sexual harassment / rape and things like 'provocative dress'.
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions. Because the struggle is how do you swim upstream and get those would-be-whatever-bad-thing people until they take action? Rooting them out is hard. In fact, sometimes letting them slide under the radar might be even worse long term.
So if the premise is a name is getting a resume tossed because of perceived bias, then I would think adopting a different name would be better.
I would strongly recommend that you explore why what you are saying might be received very poorly.
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.
I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings. The strong feelings haven't gone away though.
Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification. Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other. From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.
Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape. Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing. The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.
Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
I hear you, but let me put this as gently as I possibly can, since I'm positive that you don't mean any offense by this.
Choosing to white wash (pun intended) over culture because it's easier the more one can pass as white is not seen as a positive response to systemic racism.
Erasing culture is not seen as a desirable response to prejudice.
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.
I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings. The strong feelings haven't gone away though.
Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification. Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other. From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.
Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape. Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing. The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.
Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.
Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.
I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings. The strong feelings haven't gone away though.
Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification. Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other. From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.
Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape. Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing. The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.
Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.
Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.
I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings. The strong feelings haven't gone away though.
Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification. Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other. From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.
Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape. Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing. The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.
Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.
Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?
I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.
The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too. The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour. What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.
Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'. Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
Yeah, without a doubt. But, it is At least something that could be controlled. I have the same internal symptoms versus cause argument in my head when I think about sexual harassment / rape and things like 'provocative dress'.
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions. Because the struggle is how do you swim upstream and get those would-be-whatever-bad-thing people until they take action? Rooting them out is hard. In fact, sometimes letting them slide under the radar might be even worse long term.
So if the premise is a name is getting a resume tossed because of perceived bias, then I would think adopting a different name would be better.
I would strongly recommend that you explore why what you are saying might be received very poorly.
Oh I get it. I would suggest you do the same. It seems you and gtrstv want others to act differently, and that’s fine, it’s fine to want and I applaud working to educate people. But at the end of the day you have no control over other people.
Me: take control of what you can and be accountable. If you name your kid Joebob, you are not allowed to complain that they can’t get a fair shake. I don’t care if daddy, daddy’s daddy and so on are all Joebob. I have the same opinion about weird personal styles. Walk in with your pants down to your knees, fine you are allowed to. But you are not allowed to complain about being judged for it.
Another horrible analogy. If you are a music type person, and searching for a new song to listen to, would you be biased by the band name? Would you click on a song by 'racists rock the house'? But yet the song may be exactly the type of song you would really enjoy. And if the song was by 'Malcats are Magnificent' you very well may click on it.
Now, with Gtrstv's point, if there is actually racism, then Yeah, if the song is bad, it’s bad. My point of names is not an actual solution, it’s a piece of a whole stack of actions that can help things get better.
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.
I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings. The strong feelings haven't gone away though.
Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification. Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other. From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.
Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape. Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing. The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.
Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.
Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?
I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.
The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too. The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour. What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.
Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'. Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.
Exactly this.
Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.
Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.
I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings. The strong feelings haven't gone away though.
Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification. Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other. From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.
Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape. Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing. The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.
Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.
Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?
I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.
The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too. The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour. What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.
Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'. Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.
Exactly this.
Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.
Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.
Again, you can only for sure control your actions. You can 'onus' me all you want but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t work.
I think your last line is the point I struggle with, HOW do you make a man stop assaulting? I don’t see a solution there. Taking actions to minimize your risk at least may locally help. I really started to think about this when a coworker talked about how she would route to her apartment at college. I started thinking, how do you get those bad guys? Can you make them good guys? I really have no idea. I don’t think just being safer will do it, but I don’t think it would hurt???
^^ Its about the power and vulnerability. Not the "sexiness".
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
Sounds like an effort to treat the symptoms rather than the cause.
Yeah, without a doubt. But, it is At least something that could be controlled. I have the same internal symptoms versus cause argument in my head when I think about sexual harassment / rape and things like 'provocative dress'.
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions. Because the struggle is how do you swim upstream and get those would-be-whatever-bad-thing people until they take action? Rooting them out is hard. In fact, sometimes letting them slide under the radar might be even worse long term.
So if the premise is a name is getting a resume tossed because of perceived bias, then I would think adopting a different name would be better.
I would strongly recommend that you explore why what you are saying might be received very poorly.
Oh I get it. I would suggest you do the same. It seems you and gtrstv want others to act differently, and that’s fine, it’s fine to want and I applaud working to educate people. But at the end of the day you have no control over other people.
Me: take control of what you can and be accountable. If you name your kid Joebob, you are not allowed to complain that they can’t get a fair shake. I don’t care if daddy, daddy’s daddy and so on are all Joebob. I have the same opinion about weird personal styles. Walk in with your pants down to your knees, fine you are allowed to. But you are not allowed to complain about being judged for it.
Another horrible analogy. If you are a music type person, and searching for a new song to listen to, would you be biased by the band name? Would you click on a song by 'racists rock the house'? But yet the song may be exactly the type of song you would really enjoy. And if the song was by 'Malcats are Magnificent' you very well may click on it.
Now, with Gtrstv's point, if there is actually racism, then Yeah, if the song is bad, it’s bad. My point of names is not an actual solution, it’s a piece of a whole stack of actions that can help things get better.
You seem to misunderstand me.
You are more than welcome to ignore my suggestion of considering the power of your words.
I don't for a second aim to control the behaviour of others, but I do give everyone the benefit of the doubt that they may want to reconsider saying certain things if they had a better understanding of the affects on the populations they are speaking about.
If you fully understand the impact of your words and stand behind them, then by all means, you are entitled to that position. I just assumed that you meant well in what you were saying and that if you weren't aware of how hurtful what you were saying was, you might want to be respectfully nudged to learn.
That doesn't mean you have to, I'm not your mother so I don't get to tell you what to do.
I am, however, someone who has more than a minor degree of knowledge about reconciliation with oppressed cultures, and happen to have way more knowledge about the experience of sexual assault victims than I would ever like to know. That doesn't mean you have to listen to me, but if you wanted to, you could.
ETA: I will add one fun fact not just for you, but for the folks reading along, re: sexual assault. I spent a few decades of my life dressing, uh, very very sexy. Meanwhile, the only time I ever had a stranger touch me without consent was when I was dressed very conservatively, and was stuck walking around with a cane. It happened multiple times actually, it seems that being visibly unable to run actually made me far more of a target of unwanted touching than dressing like, well, an expensive sex worker ever did.
Just an interesting personal anecdotes about unsolicited touching from strange men.
Fucked up, no?
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.
I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings. The strong feelings haven't gone away though.
Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification. Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other. From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.
Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape. Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing. The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.
Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.
Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?
I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.
The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too. The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour. What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.
Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'. Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.
Exactly this.
Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.
Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.
Again, you can only for sure control your actions.
I think your last line is the point I struggle with, HOW do you make a man stop assaulting?
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.
I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings. The strong feelings haven't gone away though.
Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification. Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other. From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.
Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape. Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing. The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.
Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.
Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?
I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.
The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too. The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour. What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.
Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'. Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.
Exactly this.
Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.
Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.
Again, you can only for sure control your actions. You can 'onus' me all you want but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t work.
I think your last line is the point I struggle with, HOW do you make a man stop assaulting? I don’t see a solution there. Taking actions to minimize your risk at least may locally help. I really started to think about this when a coworker talked about how she would route to her apartment at college. I started thinking, how do you get those bad guys? Can you make them good guys? I really have no idea. I don’t think just being safer will do it, but I don’t think it would hurt???
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.
I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings. The strong feelings haven't gone away though.
Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification. Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other. From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.
Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape. Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing. The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.
Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.
Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?
I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.
The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too. The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour. What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.
Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'. Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.
Exactly this.
Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.
Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.
Again, you can only for sure control your actions. You can 'onus' me all you want but don’t be surprised if it doesn’t work.
I think your last line is the point I struggle with, HOW do you make a man stop assaulting? I don’t see a solution there. Taking actions to minimize your risk at least may locally help. I really started to think about this when a coworker talked about how she would route to her apartment at college. I started thinking, how do you get those bad guys? Can you make them good guys? I really have no idea. I don’t think just being safer will do it, but I don’t think it would hurt???
Well, it helps first to fully understand the issue.
I wish I had been taught the actual risk factors for being raped before it happened to me, namely that it was infinitely more likely to happen with a male I knew and trusted than a stranger.
I was raped by the guy that my parents were happy I was out with because they felt he would keep me safe. They actively taught me to not go places at night without him because he was such a nice and trustworthy boy from a good family, and my parents knew his parents.
Yeah...a heads up about that might have been helpful, and I may have perceived his protectiveness and possessiveness more as threatening rather than reassuring. I mean, yeah, the warning signs were there, but my dad sure as shit didn't teach me how to see them.
There's a lot of really great advice out there for women to protect themselves from sexual assault. If you are genuinely interested, any rape crisis center can point you to resources.
How odd that--from a starting point of Trump and relationships--we get to a discussion of sexual assault.
Captain Awkward is really good too. I wish she had been blogging when DD was little. I signed DD up for karate lessons instead.
I'm not one of knowledge in the arcane fields of martial arts, but I would second to go for a "soft" art and not a hard one, especially karate, if that is your aim. Of course it also depends on the person.Captain Awkward is really good too. I wish she had been blogging when DD was little. I signed DD up for karate lessons instead.
In all honesty, I'd recommend that any woman interested in learning self-defense seriously look at Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. In BJJ you learn to control and escape from a larger, stronger person who has knocked you to the ground and is on top of you.
Captain Awkward is really good too. I wish she had been blogging when DD was little. I signed DD up for karate lessons instead.
In all honesty, I'd recommend that any woman interested in learning self-defense seriously look at Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu. In BJJ you learn to control and escape from a larger, stronger person who has knocked you to the ground and is on top of you.
While no one should have to dress a certain way in order to not be raped, it is at least something one can control, and lowering risk is often a series of actions.
I snipped this before because I wanted to take a few moments to think about it - the initial read elicited some strong feelings. The strong feelings haven't gone away though.
Rape isn't typically about sexual gratification. Old, fat, pretty, ugly, or manner of dress . . . data doesn't show a strong preference one way or the other. From everything I've read and understand, rape happens because a person wants to exert power and domination over another.
Seductive dress especially has little to nothing to do with rape. Muslim countries where women wear clothing that fully covers their bodies and faces do not show a lower frequency of rapes than countries where there is no restriction on a woman's clothing. The choice to rape is made by the rapist, not by the clothing the victim wears.
Your initial assumption is wrong here, and it's leading you to an invalid conclusion.
Ok, fine, forget the rape, I’ll defer to your arguments. Go with sexual harassment. If you get your ass grabbed when wearing a short skirt, but not when you don't, can you see a way to control if you get your ass grabbed?
I understand the point you're trying to make . . . but disagree with your initial assumptions still.
The kind of guy who is going to assault a woman because she's wearing a short skirt will assault a woman who is wearing pants too. The best way to control the actions of such a man, is to enforce laws to prevent his behaviour. What you're proposing is that everyone tip-toe around in the hopes of not accidentally doing something that might set off the serial sexual assaulter . . . and I find that concept particularly repugnant.
Hiding in fear is not 'taking control'. Taking control is dressing the way you want to, and then not standing for that sort of shit if it happens.
Exactly this.
Sexual assault isn't a "woman wearing a short skirt" problem. It's a "man feeling entitled to grope a woman" problem.
Putting the onus on women to "stop being assault-able" instead of on men to stop assaulting is allowing the problem to persist, and even encouraging it to persist.
Again, you can only for sure control your actions.
Exactly! So don't try to control the actions of others by changing the way you dress. That's a fools errand (and I've already given you some pretty strong evidence that it doesn't work.)
@LetItGrow If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html
Please stop victim blaming, it's extremely hurtful to survivors of sexual assault. Multiple people have told you why your ideas are wrong and harmful. Rapists are to blame for rape, period. There is no outfit or magical series of behaviours that make someone immune to rape. Second guessing what victims did or wore just makes us less likely to report and allows people to make excuses for why it happened, resulting in rapists getting away with it and feeling emboldened because society focuses on the wrong end of the crime.
@LetItGrow If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.
One way to think about risk mitigation is to think about the endless list of possible failure modes and working to eliminate a many as possible. how you dress, how you act, how you react, where you go, with whom you go, etc. etc. are all possible methods to reduce (hopefully eliminate) some of those failure modes. Safety is a game of small margins sometimes, so every little bit could count. Can one do everything right and still have a problem? Of course, but I don’t believe in any instance of any sort of attack, there wasn’t an action that could have been taken that would have prevented the harm to yourself. Maybe pure luck like catching a red light that prevented getting tee-boned by someone texting, or a line at a bathroom being too short to allow enough time for someone to spike your drink. But maybe it was how you reacted when some thug grabbed your shoulder and made a crude comment. But maybe, just maybe, your choice of dress caused some opportunistic dirtbag to ignore you.
Make it require a horribly unlucky string of events for you to be a victim.
@LetItGrow If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.
One way to think about risk mitigation is to think about the endless list of possible failure modes and working to eliminate a many as possible. how you dress, how you act, how you react, where you go, with whom you go, etc. etc. are all possible methods to reduce (hopefully eliminate) some of those failure modes. Safety is a game of small margins sometimes, so every little bit could count. Can one do everything right and still have a problem? Of course, but I don’t believe in any instance of any sort of attack, there wasn’t an action that could have been taken that would have prevented the harm to yourself. Maybe pure luck like catching a red light that prevented getting tee-boned by someone texting, or a line at a bathroom being too short to allow enough time for someone to spike your drink. But maybe it was how you reacted when some thug grabbed your shoulder and made a crude comment. But maybe, just maybe, your choice of dress caused some opportunistic dirtbag to ignore you.
Make it require a horribly unlucky string of events for you to be a victim.
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.
I think the problem is that so far you've asserted that a woman changing her clothing makes her less likely to be raped but have not brought forth evidence of any kind to support your argument. At the same time you've ignored evidence that points to the opposite being true.
@LetItGrow If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.
One way to think about risk mitigation is to think about the endless list of possible failure modes and working to eliminate a many as possible. how you dress, how you act, how you react, where you go, with whom you go, etc. etc. are all possible methods to reduce (hopefully eliminate) some of those failure modes. Safety is a game of small margins sometimes, so every little bit could count. Can one do everything right and still have a problem? Of course, but I don’t believe in any instance of any sort of attack, there wasn’t an action that could have been taken that would have prevented the harm to yourself. Maybe pure luck like catching a red light that prevented getting tee-boned by someone texting, or a line at a bathroom being too short to allow enough time for someone to spike your drink. But maybe it was how you reacted when some thug grabbed your shoulder and made a crude comment. But maybe, just maybe, your choice of dress caused some opportunistic dirtbag to ignore you.
Make it require a horribly unlucky string of events for you to be a victim.
Funny how you completely ignored my post that disputes this victim-blaming b.s., and then just went right back to this garbage. Lord.
Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
I hear you, but let me put this as gently as I possibly can, since I'm positive that you don't mean any offense by this.
Choosing to white wash (pun intended) over culture because it's easier the more one can pass as white is not seen as a positive response to systemic racism.
Erasing culture is not seen as a desirable response to prejudice.
I know the thread has moved on from this topic, but this stuck out to me.Are parents thinking this through and naming kids more mainstream (Meaning smart sounding I suppose...) names? Perhaps it is horrible to say, but seems like a way to take control of the situation.
If one truly believes Jimbob would cause bias and lack of opportunity, name the lad James. If you think Rasheed would hold him back, name him Russel. Etc.
Or just stay with Princess Consuela Banana Hammock and Mike Crapbag.
I hear you, but let me put this as gently as I possibly can, since I'm positive that you don't mean any offense by this.
Choosing to white wash (pun intended) over culture because it's easier the more one can pass as white is not seen as a positive response to systemic racism.
Erasing culture is not seen as a desirable response to prejudice.
I'm guilty of this with some friends. They're in the South and white. They named their kids Bruff & Jep.
It's wrong to think this, but I just think that giving names like that will limit their options later in life. All I think when I hear those names is "redneck."
@LetItGrow If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.
One way to think about risk mitigation is to think about the endless list of possible failure modes and working to eliminate a many as possible. how you dress, how you act, how you react, where you go, with whom you go, etc. etc. are all possible methods to reduce (hopefully eliminate) some of those failure modes. Safety is a game of small margins sometimes, so every little bit could count. Can one do everything right and still have a problem? Of course, but I don’t believe in any instance of any sort of attack, there wasn’t an action that could have been taken that would have prevented the harm to yourself. Maybe pure luck like catching a red light that prevented getting tee-boned by someone texting, or a line at a bathroom being too short to allow enough time for someone to spike your drink. But maybe it was how you reacted when some thug grabbed your shoulder and made a crude comment. But maybe, just maybe, your choice of dress caused some opportunistic dirtbag to ignore you.
Make it require a horribly unlucky string of events for you to be a victim.
Funny how you completely ignored my post that disputes this victim-blaming b.s., and then just went right back to this garbage. Lord.
This is someone who is not interested in having a discussion. They seem to be more interested in blaming women for their own rapes. Not much point in further debate, IMO.
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.
I think the problem is that so far you've asserted that a woman changing her clothing makes her less likely to be raped but have not brought forth evidence of any kind to support your argument. At the same time you've ignored evidence that points to the opposite being true.
@LetItGrow If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.
One way to think about risk mitigation is to think about the endless list of possible failure modes and working to eliminate a many as possible. how you dress, how you act, how you react, where you go, with whom you go, etc. etc. are all possible methods to reduce (hopefully eliminate) some of those failure modes. Safety is a game of small margins sometimes, so every little bit could count. Can one do everything right and still have a problem? Of course, but I don’t believe in any instance of any sort of attack, there wasn’t an action that could have been taken that would have prevented the harm to yourself. Maybe pure luck like catching a red light that prevented getting tee-boned by someone texting, or a line at a bathroom being too short to allow enough time for someone to spike your drink. But maybe it was how you reacted when some thug grabbed your shoulder and made a crude comment. But maybe, just maybe, your choice of dress caused some opportunistic dirtbag to ignore you.
Make it require a horribly unlucky string of events for you to be a victim.
Funny how you completely ignored my post that disputes this victim-blaming b.s., and then just went right back to this garbage. Lord.
This is someone who is not interested in having a discussion. They seem to be more interested in blaming women for their own rapes. Not much point in further debate, IMO.
And this is someone not interested in taking any accountability about things that happen to them.
Ignore the raping. I’ve said that.
Use anything unpleasant that happened to person A in the last month, caused by person B. I am saying that there are actions that could have been taken by Person A to prevent it in almost all cases. Recognizing those actions in advance and taking them seems like it would be good practice.
I am not blaming the victim, I am saying work to not be a victim. If you are not willing to work to not be a victim, then I really don’t understand.
I am not blaming the victim, I am saying work to not be a victim. If you are not willing to work to not be a victim, then I really don’t understand.
I am not blaming the victim, I am saying work to not be a victim. If you are not willing to work to not be a victim, then I really don’t understand.
I do get what you’re saying. I can assure you that you are communicating, and getting your point across. What is happening here is not a failure to communicate your point. What’s happening here is that your point his horrible. Just, unfathomably horrible, and trust me on that one because I fathom a lot of things on a daily basis.
If you legitimacy cannot understand why, then re-read the posts that have replied to you. You have an opportunity for personal growth right here. You can either get all pissy, or you can charge forward into new understanding.
I am not blaming the victim, I am saying work to not be a victim. If you are not willing to work to not be a victim, then I really don’t understand.
I do get what you’re saying. I can assure you that you are communicating, and getting your point across. What is happening here is not a failure to communicate your point. What’s happening here is that your point his horrible. Just, unfathomably horrible, and trust me on that one because I fathom a lot of things on a daily basis.
If you legitimacy cannot understand why, then re-read the posts that have replied to you. You have an opportunity for personal growth right here. You can either get all pissy, or you can charge forward into new understanding.
I legitimately do not understand. Explain why it is bad to take action to protect yourself. Do you look both ways before crossing a street? Hopefully you do, even if the Walk sign is on for you.
I don’t get the attitude of blindly going through life and not working towards not being a victim. There is a very broad set of actions, some super short term, some medium term, and some you have to play the long ball, that one can take to minimize risk. My position is that one should take those actions.
I legitimately do not understand. Explain why it is bad to take action to protect yourself. Do you look both ways before crossing a street? Hopefully you do, even if the Walk sign is on for you.You can try to take all actions that you can think of and still "bad" happens regardless of how much you tried to avoid it. Or you take some measures b/c you thought they might be enough, and shit happens. The point is - imo - that it's still out of your control. Wrong time, wrong place and you're screwed.
I don’t get the attitude of blindly going through life and not working towards not being a victim. There is a very broad set of actions, some super short term, some medium term, and some you have to play the long ball, that one can take to minimize risk. My position is that one should take those actions.
I legitimately do not understand. Explain why it is bad to take action to protect yourself.
I legitimately do not understand. Explain why it is bad to take action to protect yourself.
It's not bad to take action to protect yourself.
Can you share the evidence that you're using to come to the conclusion that the way a woman dresses will protect her from rape in any significant way?
I legitimately do not understand. Explain why it is bad to take action to protect yourself.
It's not bad to take action to protect yourself.
Can you share the evidence that you're using to come to the conclusion that the way a woman dresses will protect her from rape in any significant way?
Can you read any number of my posts where I retracted that piece of the analogy and stop bringing up?
And also, no action itself has to be significant, it is the collection of actions that may help. I say may because I don’t think this is ever a risk free world. My position remains that lowering risk is a positive thing.
I don’t get the attitude of blindly going through life and not working towards not being a victim. There is a very broad set of actions, some super short term, some medium term, and some you have to play the long ball, that one can take to minimize risk. My position is that one should take those actions.
I legitimately do not understand. Explain why it is bad to take action to protect yourself.
It's not bad to take action to protect yourself.
Can you share the evidence that you're using to come to the conclusion that the way a woman dresses will protect her from rape in any significant way?
Can you read any number of my posts where I retracted that piece of the analogy and stop bringing up?
And also, no action itself has to be significant, it is the collection of actions that may help. I say may because I don’t think this is ever a risk free world. My position remains that lowering risk is a positive thing.
I legitimately do not understand. Explain why it is bad to take action to protect yourself. Do you look both ways before crossing a street? Hopefully you do, even if the Walk sign is on for you.You can try to take all actions that you can think of and still "bad" happens regardless of how much you tried to avoid it. Or you take some measures b/c you thought they might be enough, and shit happens. The point is - imo - that it's still out of your control. Wrong time, wrong place and you're screwed.
I don’t get the attitude of blindly going through life and not working towards not being a victim. There is a very broad set of actions, some super short term, some medium term, and some you have to play the long ball, that one can take to minimize risk. My position is that one should take those actions.
So, don't judge the potential preparedness of the victim. You can try to play the odds, nothing wrong with taking risk mitigation measures. That is not the decisive factor, though.
I legitimately do not understand. Explain why it is bad to take action to protect yourself.
It's not bad to take action to protect yourself.
Can you share the evidence that you're using to come to the conclusion that the way a woman dresses will protect her from rape in any significant way?
Can you read any number of my posts where I retracted that piece of the analogy and stop bringing up?
And also, no action itself has to be significant, it is the collection of actions that may help. I say may because I don’t think this is ever a risk free world. My position remains that lowering risk is a positive thing.
When things like this keep coming up:I don’t get the attitude of blindly going through life and not working towards not being a victim. There is a very broad set of actions, some super short term, some medium term, and some you have to play the long ball, that one can take to minimize risk. My position is that one should take those actions.
it becomes increasingly difficult not to bring up the rape/clothing link that you started with. If not that, what victim and what actions are you discussing in the above quote?
I legitimately do not understand. Explain why it is bad to take action to protect yourself.
It's not bad to take action to protect yourself.
Can you share the evidence that you're using to come to the conclusion that the way a woman dresses will protect her from rape in any significant way?
Can you read any number of my posts where I retracted that piece of the analogy and stop bringing up?
And also, no action itself has to be significant, it is the collection of actions that may help. I say may because I don’t think this is ever a risk free world. My position remains that lowering risk is a positive thing.
When things like this keep coming up:I don’t get the attitude of blindly going through life and not working towards not being a victim. There is a very broad set of actions, some super short term, some medium term, and some you have to play the long ball, that one can take to minimize risk. My position is that one should take those actions.
it becomes increasingly difficult not to bring up the rape/clothing link that you started with. If not that, what victim and what actions are you discussing in the above quote?
His original point was asking why ethnic folks don't proactively choose to name their kids white sounding names to try and prevent things like their resumes being ignored.
He then brought up not wearing revealing clothing as an equivalent measure of being proactive in avoiding being victimized.
I legitimately do not understand. Explain why it is bad to take action to protect yourself.
It's not bad to take action to protect yourself.
Can you share the evidence that you're using to come to the conclusion that the way a woman dresses will protect her from rape in any significant way?
Can you read any number of my posts where I retracted that piece of the analogy and stop bringing up?
And also, no action itself has to be significant, it is the collection of actions that may help. I say may because I don’t think this is ever a risk free world. My position remains that lowering risk is a positive thing.
I continue to not want to attack you and I try to see where you are coming from.
I've replied to your original point about naming children ethnic names multiple times and you have yet to reply to any of those.
That is what this all came from after all. So if you want to defend your initial point, then let's get back to that, the position that people from marginalized cultures could name their children more white-passing names in an effort to mitigate racism/bigotry.
Have you read my replies and reflected on why some people from these cultures may put a lot of value in preserving their culture? That those names might really mean something to them? Did you take a minute to understand the guilt or even shame that some of us feel who are members of persecuted people but aren't easily identified as such?
You talk about avoiding naming children according to your own culture as if it's the same as locking your car door when you park it somewhere.
It isn't. Not at all.
It's that false equivalence that, to me, is where the cross communication is happening, and also where you are missing why your words can and do cause injury.
If someone wants to name their child after their war hero grandfather, it's very very painful for them to hear that they just shouldn't do that because others hate that grandfather for his skin pigment.
I legitimately do not understand. Explain why it is bad to take action to protect yourself.
It's not bad to take action to protect yourself.
Can you share the evidence that you're using to come to the conclusion that the way a woman dresses will protect her from rape in any significant way?
Can you read any number of my posts where I retracted that piece of the analogy and stop bringing up?
And also, no action itself has to be significant, it is the collection of actions that may help. I say may because I don’t think this is ever a risk free world. My position remains that lowering risk is a positive thing.
When things like this keep coming up:I don’t get the attitude of blindly going through life and not working towards not being a victim. There is a very broad set of actions, some super short term, some medium term, and some you have to play the long ball, that one can take to minimize risk. My position is that one should take those actions.
it becomes increasingly difficult not to bring up the rape/clothing link that you started with. If not that, what victim and what actions are you discussing in the above quote?
His original point was asking why ethnic folks don't proactively choose to name their kids white sounding names to try and prevent things like their resumes being ignored.
He then brought up not wearing revealing clothing as an equivalent measure of being proactive in avoiding being victimized.
I had the same question about changing kids name though. If employers are racist enough to throw out someone's resume because it has a black sounding name, how much of a chance do you really believe they're going to give a black person who manages to slip through and get an interview?
Changing the name might get you one step further along the interview process but it is not going to solve the problem (racism).
Please stop victim blaming, it's extremely hurtful to survivors of sexual assault. Multiple people have told you why your ideas are wrong and harmful. Rapists are to blame for rape, period. There is no outfit or magical series of behaviours that make someone immune to rape. Second guessing what victims did or wore just makes us less likely to report and allows people to make excuses for why it happened, resulting in rapists getting away with it and feeling emboldened because society focuses on the wrong end of the crime.
@LetItGrow If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.
One way to think about risk mitigation is to think about the endless list of possible failure modes and working to eliminate a many as possible. how you dress, how you act, how you react, where you go, with whom you go, etc. etc. are all possible methods to reduce (hopefully eliminate) some of those failure modes. Safety is a game of small margins sometimes, so every little bit could count. Can one do everything right and still have a problem? Of course, but I don’t believe in any instance of any sort of attack, there wasn’t an action that could have been taken that would have prevented the harm to yourself. Maybe pure luck like catching a red light that prevented getting tee-boned by someone texting, or a line at a bathroom being too short to allow enough time for someone to spike your drink. But maybe it was how you reacted when some thug grabbed your shoulder and made a crude comment. But maybe, just maybe, your choice of dress caused some opportunistic dirtbag to ignore you.
Make it require a horribly unlucky string of events for you to be a victim.
Once you read my other responses you will see where I tried to explain I am not blaming victims. I am challenging everyone to think through things and take actions that decrease risks across all aspects of their lives.
Because there's nothing wrong with wearing a short skirt and there *is* something wrong with being a rapist. (Jesus fuck, I hope we can at least agree on that.) So where should the focus be? In the person doing nothing wrong, or on the one RAPING people.
There's nothing inherently wrong with naming your child Tyrese or Jin or Ahmend. There is something wrong with being racist. So whose behavior should be focus on changing--the one doing nothing wrong, or the racist who won't hire someone whose name doesn't sound white?
That's what's wrong here. It's not saying, on an individual level, "given that the world has a lot of racists fucks in it, one needs to be thoughtful and consider all implications, unfortunately, when choosing a name for a child. It's terrible that we live in a world where people even have to consider erasing a part of their culture in order to prevent judgement or worse, but that's reality. So it's something to consider." That's not wrong (though it's also worded in a way to make clear that the PROBLEM is someone else's fault.) What's wrong is that a proposed solution to facing racism is for the victims or potential victims to change their perfectly benign behaviors, rather than saying the racists need to change theirs.
Can you really not see the nuances in that?
Would you really say to your mother, if she were raped, "in the future, wear a longer skirt and carry a rape whistle, mom. It will help solve the rape problem and maybe prevent you from being raped again!"? Or would you tell Tyrese and Ahmed, or their moms, "It sucks that it's taking you twice as long to find a job as your non-culturally (non-white) named peers. You should change your names and make sure to give your kids very white-sounding names in order to solve that problem."
Would you say that? And not feel like a massive dickhole? Or might you feel just a touch insensitive if you did?
Once you read my other responses you will see where I tried to explain I am not blaming victims. I am challenging everyone to think through things and take actions that decrease risks across all aspects of their lives.
Perhaps this is where a disconnect is. You have stated assumptions around causation even after folks have tried to discuss how they are inaccurate.
Ex: Wearing a skirt is not the cause of assault. Wearing a skirt does not make you more likely to be assaulted*.
However, your view that clothing implies a lack of responsibility by the victim to decrease their risk (which is inaccurate) has real impacts on how rapists are held accountable:
"...a victim dressed in revealing clothing being held significantly more responsible than a victim dressed otherwise."
https://doi.org/10.1016/1359-1789(95)00011-9
Is Clothing Probative of Attitude or Intent - Implications for Rape and Sexual Harassment Cases
https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/lieq11&div=15&id=&page=
*Some places to learn more:
https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/factors-increase-sexual-assault-risk
https://www.inspq.qc.ca/en/sexual-assault/understanding-sexual-assault/risk-factors
http://pact5.org/resources/prevention-and-readiness/risk-factors-for-sexual-assault/
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/485875
What's a "smart sounding" name???
What's a "smart sounding" name???
IQ Von Knowsitall
Because there's nothing wrong with wearing a short skirt and there *is* something wrong with being a rapist. (Jesus fuck, I hope we can at least agree on that.) So where should the focus be? In the person doing nothing wrong, or on the one RAPING people.
There's nothing inherently wrong with naming your child Tyrese or Jin or Ahmend. There is something wrong with being racist. So whose behavior should be focus on changing--the one doing nothing wrong, or the racist who won't hire someone whose name doesn't sound white?
That's what's wrong here. It's not saying, on an individual level, "given that the world has a lot of racists fucks in it, one needs to be thoughtful and consider all implications, unfortunately, when choosing a name for a child. It's terrible that we live in a world where people even have to consider erasing a part of their culture in order to prevent judgement or worse, but that's reality. So it's something to consider." That's not wrong (though it's also worded in a way to make clear that the PROBLEM is someone else's fault.) What's wrong is that a proposed solution to facing racism is for the victims or potential victims to change their perfectly benign behaviors, rather than saying the racists need to change theirs.
Can you really not see the nuances in that?
Would you really say to your mother, if she were raped, "in the future, wear a longer skirt and carry a rape whistle, mom. It will help solve the rape problem and maybe prevent you from being raped again!"? Or would you tell Tyrese and Ahmed, or their moms, "It sucks that it's taking you twice as long to find a job as your non-culturally (non-white) named peers. You should change your names and make sure to give your kids very white-sounding names in order to solve that problem."
Would you say that? And not feel like a massive dickhole? Or might you feel just a touch insensitive if you did?
Why are you acting like a racist, equating smart sounding names to being white? That is disappointing to me.
Did you also miss the four or five times I said i was incorrect to use rape in my analogy?
Because there's nothing wrong with wearing a short skirt and there *is* something wrong with being a rapist. (Jesus fuck, I hope we can at least agree on that.) So where should the focus be? In the person doing nothing wrong, or on the one RAPING people.
There's nothing inherently wrong with naming your child Tyrese or Jin or Ahmend. There is something wrong with being racist. So whose behavior should be focus on changing--the one doing nothing wrong, or the racist who won't hire someone whose name doesn't sound white?
That's what's wrong here. It's not saying, on an individual level, "given that the world has a lot of racists fucks in it, one needs to be thoughtful and consider all implications, unfortunately, when choosing a name for a child. It's terrible that we live in a world where people even have to consider erasing a part of their culture in order to prevent judgement or worse, but that's reality. So it's something to consider." That's not wrong (though it's also worded in a way to make clear that the PROBLEM is someone else's fault.) What's wrong is that a proposed solution to facing racism is for the victims or potential victims to change their perfectly benign behaviors, rather than saying the racists need to change theirs.
Can you really not see the nuances in that?
Would you really say to your mother, if she were raped, "in the future, wear a longer skirt and carry a rape whistle, mom. It will help solve the rape problem and maybe prevent you from being raped again!"? Or would you tell Tyrese and Ahmed, or their moms, "It sucks that it's taking you twice as long to find a job as your non-culturally (non-white) named peers. You should change your names and make sure to give your kids very white-sounding names in order to solve that problem."
Would you say that? And not feel like a massive dickhole? Or might you feel just a touch insensitive if you did?
Why are you acting like a racist, equating smart sounding names to being white? That is disappointing to me.
Did you also miss the four or five times I said i was incorrect to use rape in my analogy?
This couldn't be more intentionally obtuse. But since you fucking called me racist...
Those are they very types of names that don't get interviews. Which was *YOUR* entire point, no? *I* did't equate "smart sounding names" (WTF??) to sounding white. I gave examples of traditionally ethnic (non-white) names because those are the kinds of names that people (racist people) read on a resume and don't give an interview.
And you say that *I* equate "smart-sounding" names to being white? FUck off. And what the hell even is a "smart-sounding name"? that's your term--you are the one who applied that to the opposite of the ethnic names I used as examples. So your are the racist in the piece, but you are "disappointed" in me?
And you said your analogy comparing rape to ethnic-sounding names wasn't a good analogy, but you never said that it wasn't victim blaming or a shitty thing to say. You "retracted the analogy", not the idea or the words. Just the comparison to bigots not hiring based on names. So, you still said it. You haven't taken it back or apologized. You just don'' want us to compare it to the name thing anymore. If you say you were wrong, that telling women not to wear short skirts wouldn't decrease rape, and that it was an inappropriate thing to say and puts the responsibility for fixing rape on the victims instead of the rapists, then we can stop talking about it. Until then, they are your words and people will keep discussing them. Because you said something stupid, gross, hurtful, incorrect, and insensitive. You can't just tell people that it's not up for discussion anymore, and expect them to obey.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/culturally-speaking/201112/colorblind-ideology-is-form-racism
I'm aware of the argument but reject it with every fiber of my being. Calling this outlook out as racism is racism. Telling people that the color of their skin matters because of their lived experiences may be superficially true, but it should by no means be a goal that is accepted. It is terrible to consider accepting this as an incontrovertible truth as opposed to an anachronism that needs to die.
If colorblindness isn't the goal, then what the heck is this all for? How can we have "separate but equal" racial identities without devolving into identity based actions? I want race to be as interesting as eye color; namely, something that I don't even notice day to day. Something that universities don't screen for and something that isn't asked on employment applications. I conceit that to get there we may have to correct for the lasting effects of systemic racism. But to say that colorblindness isn't the end goal counts me out. I will have to unfortunately band with my skin tone because I have not choice on the matter. It will be one of the defining issues with the "left" should they snap up the election, and it's going to be a doozie!
This couldn't be more intentionally obtuse. But since you fucking called me racist...
So you never leave your house to prevent you are getting hit by a drunken, speeding car driver?@LetItGrow If visuals are more impactful, the exhibit "What Were You Wearing?" might be helpful to learn about how inaccurate it is to think *just don't wear a skirt*:
https://www.chicagotribune.com/columns/heidi-stevens/ct-life-stevens-thursday-ku-what-were-you-wearing-0914-story.html
If >0 problems could have been prevented by 'action x' then my point is ‘don’t do action x'. Used rape and assault to set a scenario, and that, no surprise, caused some derailment.
If employers are racist enough to throw out someone's resume because it has a black sounding name, how much of a chance do you really believe they're going to give a black person who manages to slip through and get an interview?From experience in Germany between unmeasurable and quite a bit. For what factors are determining here... let's say that is ongoing research.
What's a "smart sounding" name???X Æ A-12
ETA: just saw his comments about dress and sexual assault were taken back.
Sigh. Yawn. I am fine explicitly saying to remove sexual assault from my analogy. Rape was gone a long time ago.
I still hold fast that every individual should take steps, as many as they can, to mitigate risks.
ETA: just saw his comments about dress and sexual assault were taken back.
Not really though, just doesn't want to use that example for his analogy.Sigh. Yawn. I am fine explicitly saying to remove sexual assault from my analogy. Rape was gone a long time ago.
I still hold fast that every individual should take steps, as many as they can, to mitigate risks.