Quote by ElCoco

I thought we were talking about ethnic or racial groups of Americans.

I thought we were replacing some race with some other race.

See you tomorrow.

Quote by ElCoco

I'm not a general person. I'm somebody who's trying to get ahead like everybody else, and now you're saying that something that happened to somebody else in the past makes me, because of the color of my skin, ineligible for what somebody with a different skin color can have.

I'd say that's a racist policy.

You've heard of "royal we"? This is "general you".

If you're white in America, you do better because of it. That's just the truth. You benefit from the systems put in place by other white people, usually men, designed to specifically make white people do better. You don't have to like that white people have this advantage, but if you're truthful, you'll acknowledge it.

So, if we acknowledge that, it isn't something happening to someone else in the past. It's a current system in place right now unevenly benefiting white people. And you think it's unjust to do anything material to change that?

Quote by ElCoco

OK. Now let's replace some race with another race. Is it still very just to you?

Let's see....

You're not entitled as a German to resources put aside for Jewish people because of the atrocities you, a German, inflicted on Jewish people.

Yep. Still sounds just.

Quote by ElCoco

Or you're mixing them up.

I'd say it's unjust to say to anybody, "You're not entitled to what others are because of the color of your skin." Do you think that's the right way to treat people?

In this case, yes I do. You're (general "you") not entitled, as a white person, to resources put aside for non-white people because of the atrocities you, a white person, have done to them. That sounds very just to me.

I thought I would comment since we're coming up on the 4th.

They just need to enforce the rules that are in place. That would be enough, but they don't. One neighbor used to shoot bottle rockets at our tree because he didn't like that we fed birds. Another liked to see if he could get them to land on our roof. The police wouldn't do anything.

Fourth of July here starts around June 30th and lasts until July 10th or so. On the outlying days, fireworks are maybe from sunset until 9:30 or 10:00. That's fine. July 1-5, they start at sunset and go until 1:30 or later.

So, at this point, yeah. Ban them.

Quote by ElCoco

I can’t fault you for being wishy-washy!

Discrimination: the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of ethnicity, age, sex, or disability:

Since the policy discriminates between different categories of people based on race or ethnicity, the policy is racially or ethnically discriminatory. Take your pick.

Since the policy’s racially or ethnically discriminatory, and your answer is “zero racist policies are the right amount for the US government,” then I’d expect you’re against the policy unless you take the ethnically bit as being OK.

Discrimination actually had two definitions. The second one is: recognize a distinction; differentiate. You're mixing the two definitions up.

Keeping white people out of a program intended to make up for the problems caused by white people does "recognize a distinction". However, for your definition to apply, noticing the difference would need to be "unjust". Is it "unjust" to recognize white people as white and accept that they did a lot of bad things that has an generational effect on people who aren't white?

Quote by Chryses

Those services of Interior are specific to native nations, just as State has services specific to other nations. For example, the Country Security Report for [your nation here], The Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, The Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, and The Bureau of African Affairs. Do those bureau names sound familiar? Do you think they are racially based or based upon the nations they serve?

The DoD has analogous geographical services. U.S. Africa Command, U.S. European Command, U.S. Indo-Pacific Command, U.S. Southern Command.

I should be available for daytime conversation this week.

edited

Native Americans are (1) citizens of this country, (2) residents of the states in which they live, (3) AND a member of their specific native nation. In this case, it's services put in place by the federal government (using federal funding) for one specific demographic, just like in the OP. In this case, it's even narrower. It includes only those people of the Native American ethnicity.

Somehow, it's not racist to have programs for just Native Americans but it is racist to have a program that includes "black, African America, Hispanic, Latino, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Eskamo, Hasidic Jew, Asian Indian or Spanish-speaking American".

How is that possible?

Quote by ElCoco

Let's try a different angle. Since nobody's said the policies aren't racist, and felix looks like he understands they are racist, "But in reality, racism against white people in America isn't a thing. Not a thing enough to actually economically or socially put them at a disadvantage", then let's try "How much/many racist policies are the right amount for the US government?"

It isn't racist. Does that help?

The first definition I found for racist was: prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism by an individual, community, or institution against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

I would argue that exclusion in this case is not prejudiced, discriminatory, or antagonistic.

So, currently, the answer is zero racist policies are the right amount for the US government. People who would like to apply the word "racist" to white people who's biggest complaint is that not every program, contract, and program is designed for them any longer, are the same people who like to think we're in a "post-racist" society.

Quote by Chryses

Insofar as it functions as the intermediary between the United States of America and the several Native American Nations, no.

Otherwise, it does have a certain quaintness about it.

So that means that you're also OK with the Department of the Interior having a Bureau of Indian Affairs and Indian Education, the Department of Labor having a "Division of Indian and Native American Programs", and the Federal government having an Indian Health Service.

These aren't intermediaries to native nations. These are services specific to native nations, supported by the federal government. So, this must be racist too, right?

Quote by Chryses

If attacking me and defending racist policies is what floats your boat, by all means have at it! Keep in mind that because the policies are racist, they fail the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Do you have any objection to the Bureau of Indian Affairs?

In this case, does the wreckage being in international water prevent the safety standards from being implemented?

I think they've done done some regulation of the people climbing Mt. Everest.

Quote by PrincessC

In South Africa that’s been part of process for years so it’s really normalised for me. It’s about securing equality of outcome which a lot of people argue is the only method for ensuring equal rights. I would also be one of those people.

I like the term "equality of outcome".

Quote by Chryses

And yet, after all the years that have passed since then, while we have, I think, improved, we are not yet perfected.

That's the point, right?

These are deep problems with roots at every level. That's why it's disingenuous to say the solution is to find, pursue, and eliminate racism. It's not just people; it's laws and cultural judgement and generational poverty. God knows all of that affect business owners.

But let's say you did. Racism is stamped out. That still doesn't eliminate the damage that's been done, essentially since the country's inception. This is one way to address this harm.

Well, we solved it.

All we need is the accumulated wisdom and experience of 500 years of human enlightenment.

Quote by Chryses

One approach would be to find, pursue and eliminate the racism that holds back those who the agency claims to assist.

That would not require implementing racist policies.

Sir, this is the Department of Commerce.

Quote by Chryses

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet.

It's not about what we're calling it. It's about what it is.

White, male owned businesses are not without resources. It's not racist to create resources directed towards people who aren't white. That's the boost in the equity cartoon.

If this is racist, then what do you do to address past history that have left whole demographics at a financial and cultural disadvantage, now? Anything?

Quote by Magical_felix

First of all they are playing soccer? That's xenophobic against Americans.

Secondly, why doesn't the man get a comfortable place to sit down as well?

Thirdly why does the girl in the middle get a second crate?

Why is the man punished?

Quote by Tantaleyes

Do the agency's policies exclude Americans based on their race? If they do, then the policies are racist.

I think Americans should work to eliminate racism, not make racism part of the American government.

What did you think of the image and the idea of equity, in general?

Quote by Tantaleyes

Let's not waste more words. Do you think the right way to correct for the racism in the past is with racism now and into the future?

I wouldn't call it racism. I would call it equity. I do think this is one answer. Have you ever seen this image?

This group is part of the ramp.

Edited to say that I do not endorse the idea that equity creates rainbows.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Is new racism a just response to old racism? I don't think so, but I'm sure there are people who do think so. Revenge isn't justice.

Then what would you do?

Under the way things are, majority white people benefited from the systems that they put in place, which purposely marginalized these groups listed here. Would you do anything? Or would you consider doing anything to be racism, since at the least, you have to name and exclude white people from these provisions?

Also, I thought this was a new agency. It isn't. It was created in 1969. The Infrastructure act just made the agency permanent.

Quote by Tantaleyes

Racism is America's big problem. Having the American government create an agency that excludes its benefits from certain Americans because of their race is racist.

Is it a just response to past racism?

Quote by Tantaleyes

You don't get rid of racism with more racism.

This particular initiative isn't about getting rid of racism. Affirmative Action wasn't either.

Both of these are about giving an advantage to a demographic (or demographics) that have dealt with the effects of marginalization.

Quote by Magical_felix

The only stories I ever read about guards at schools is when they have inappropriate relationships with the kids. Never a story about a guard heroically taking down an active shooter.

No, but there are a disturbing number of stories of "resource officers" leaving their weapons about the school, usually in a restroom or on a school bus.

https://giffords.org/lawcenter/report/every-incident-of-mishandled-guns-in-schools/

Quote by ElCoco

OK, you're aware the piece says, "the data suggest no association".

So, if I'm reading your post right, your current position is if the shooter is suicidal, having an armed guard could make a dangerous situation worse. Do you think all the shooters are suicidal? Not crazy, since they all are, but suicidal?

.

If you don't know the name of the guard, would you provide a link about "the armed guard at Uvalde"? I thought there wasn't one, and it's something I may have missed.

My position is that armed guards, while better than armed teachers, still don't prevent school shootings. When it comes to certain weapons and certain perpetrators, armed guards an make the situation worse.

This is an article that talks about all of the response measures they had in place, including armed guards and dedicated police. Also, if you'd like to see it, there's an article about a woman who responded to Uvalde as police and was applying to be one of these guards. I read an article that said a guard was on site on the day of, but I can't find it now.

https://abcnews.go.com/US/security-measures-uvalde-school-district-place/story?id=84966706

Why, oh why, is there such a push to keep trying things we have tried that we know won't work?

Quote by ElCoco

A couple of points.

I read the piece at your link above and read, "However, the data suggest no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases." Did you see that?

.

What I've read is there wasn't an armed guard at Uvalde. If there was, what's the guard's name?

Yes, I did see that. It's what I opened with in the cut-and-past I used from the article. It's also why I posted it, because there's evidence that could make a school shooting a more dangerous situation if, as my post above says, the shooter is trying to die by police officer.

I have no idea of the name of the guard. What I do know is that that this district spent 40% of it's municipal budget on police. in 2019-2020. The district school system has it's own dedicated police. hat's more than a lot of school systems have, and, yet....

Quote by Chryses

The Infrastructure Act created the Minority Business Development Agency (MBDA MBDA)

The MBDA is to establish a Business Center Program and to provide federal assistance to eligible entities to operate its business centers.

These centers offer technical assistance, business development services, and specialty services to only minority business enterprises.

A Business more than 51% owned by a "Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, American Indian, Alaska Native, Asian, Native Hawaiian, Pacific Islander, Puerto-Rican, Eskimo, Hasidic Jew, Asian Indian, or a Spanish-speaking American" is presumptively considered to be owned by a socially or economically disadvantaged individual.

No other groups are eligible, no matter how socially or economically disadvantaged.

How do you feel this fits with the constitutional requirement of equal treatment under the law?

I feel like this fits perfectly with how equal treatment under the law has been implemented in this country previously.

Quote by ElCoco

If you're going to try, you'll have to start somewhere. Texas thought it would start with one armed security officer or armed school personnel at each public school campus statewide.

Interestingly enough, there WAS an armed guard at Uvalde. He interacted with the shooter before he was shot. The truth is that even armed guards don't work. In fact, they might make the situation worse:

https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/presence-armed-school-officials-and-fatal-and-nonfatal-gunshot

However, the data suggest no association between having an armed officer and deterrence of violence in these cases. An armed officer on the scene was the number one factor associated with increased casualties after the perpetrators’ use of assault rifles or submachine guns. The well-documented weapons effect explains that the presence of a weapon increases aggression. Whenever firearms are present, there is room for error, and even highly trained officers get split-second decisions wrong. Prior research suggests that many school shooters are actively suicidal, intending to die in the act, so an armed officer may be an incentive rather than a deterrent. The majority of shooters who target schools are students of the school, calling into question the effectiveness of hardened security and active shooter drills. Instead, schools must invest in resources to prevent shootings before they occur.

Quote by Buz

It is hard to believe rural residents get less exercise since they generally work in agriculture.

Obesity? When they have access to healthier food?

I'll be on the look out for fat farmers. Usually, the obese can be found shopping ar Walmart.

Now, death and dismemberment from farm machinery accidents, well, l can see that as a big problem.

You do have access to healthier food and fresher meat, but countryside dining has classically been red meat, fried food, and starchy but not green vegetables. If you add alcohol to that, and tobacco in some form or another, it makes sense that you would see more heart disease. You'd have to exercise like Michael Phelps to counteract that.

Quote by WellMadeMale

The original Snowbilly Grifter is still wining and whinging Truth to Power - 8 years later, about that time when Fox News shitcanned her in 2015.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/sarah-palin-goes-on-newsmax-to-say-fox-canceled-her

Newsmax host Eric Bolling on Friday mentioned how, after a Fox News chyron from earlier this week called President Joe Biden a “wannabe dictator,” the producer responsible for it is no longer at the network, as The Daily Beast reported Thursday. That occurrence was proof that Fox “no longer believes in free speech,” as Newsmax’s own chyron declared.

Bolling claimed that “the old Fox” would’ve had no issue with slapping that label on the president. “But now, for some reason, they’re pushing away real conservative values, aren’t they?”

Palin agreed.

I admire a Real American Hero who can nurture and hold, then sharpen a grudge for nearly 8 years...

https://www.politico.com/tipsheets/playbook/2015/06/exclusive-fox-drops-contract-with-sarah-palin-christie-to-announce-soon-power-partnership-labolt-vietor-favreau-merge-firms-212543

Is it OK if I use the term "Snowbilly Grifter"?

Quote by Ironic

So, based on this, I think it's fair to say the idea of ignoring the effects of the Democratic cities' murder rates on the overall state murder rates (like the fraudulent, linked analysis does) doesn't help.

They literally removed the cities. Dude.

Also, you now have data comparing red cites to blue cities. Big blue cites like Los Angeles, population 3.8 million vs smaller red city Tulsa, population 411,000, and the murder rate is 19.64 and 6.74 (/100,000) respectively. Of course this is just one example, but the article gives many others. Altogether, this lends validity to the blue state homicide vs red state homicide trends that were in the article linked in the OP.