wait huh
give this shit its credit. institutional racism and systematic abuses don't just happen by chance lol
and we really gotta stop acting like the US is the only country with it too like Brexit wasn't helped along because of excessive brown people. if 'privilege' isn't the word you like to use, then imagine another through localized semantics and/or synonyms.
what would you like to call it?
give this shit its credit. institutional racism and systematic abuses don't just happen by chance lol
and we really gotta stop acting like the US is the only country with it too like Brexit wasn't helped along because of excessive brown people. if 'privilege' isn't the word you like to use, then imagine another through localized semantics and/or synonyms.
what would you like to call it?
By giririsss Go To PostIt isn't. But applying US conventions to it isn't always the best/ correct way to go about it.A lot of privileges are actually human made, that's the whole thing. Society isn't in a vacuum it didn't just get created through random osmosis. We hide certain people away. We choose to create things without other people in mind. We exclude entire groups of individuals from all kinds of processes based on arbitrary criteria or to be cheap douchebags. You can't at this point keep assuming it's not malice it's just incompetence and ignorance. It's done and tired that. People have a responsibility to be better.
Again, i consider those disadvantages to others, more than privilege's to those who do. Maybe it's partially about the context that people try to rope all privilege in together, with racial privilege which is purely a human created privilege with out any basis for existence.
By FortuneFaded Go To PostI am from the UK but now live in Michigan. What did I say that was off? I didn't say white privilege didn't exist, much the opposite based on what I posted. All I did was post about how the main statistics used to prove white privilege (from organisations like Black Lives Matter) can also apply to men but typically those who call out white privilege also call out male privilege. It seems in that situation the statistics that you used before are ignored and replaced with new ones. I am skeptical about outright male privilege in general.
.
Ahhh yes re-reading you got things more clear for me. I also edited "female" in, to make more sense.
Black people are more likely to be shot by police, more likely to be in prison, more likely to get harsher sentences for the same crime, etc.. Therefore white privilege
Men are more likely to be shot by police, more likely to be in prison, more likely to get harsher sentences for the same crime, etc… Therefore female privilege?
Men are physiologically more aggressive and are much larger risk takers. There's science behind this. That biology puts men into scenarios where we are more likely to run into police and more likely to do something illegal. Harsher prison sentences for men is actually a disadvantage for men here, but it's caused by the patriarchy and views of how to punish based on that. There is no natural proclivity for a black person to be any more or less aggressive or be bigger risk takers simply because they're black.
and you know, using certain minority heavy neighborhoods as literal training areas / proving grounds for under-qualified police because you don't trust the guy with a history of psych and domestic violence issues to be a cop in areas where people actually give a damn
not all shootings are the same either btw. i say this as a guy who's worked with security and is anti non lethal force as fuck
not all shootings are the same either btw. i say this as a guy who's worked with security and is anti non lethal force as fuck
By Fenderputty Go To PostAhhh yes re-reading you got things more clear for me. I also edited "female" in, to make more sense.
I wouldn't outright say there is female privilege though. I think if you mapped both genders on a graph based on how good their life is, women would occupy more towards the middle whereas men would take the extremes on both ends.
I don't ever understand some of the relevance of what happens to men independently of women versus what men do (and have done) to women.
I am lethal force as fuck too. I have always been about that "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" mentality. That eye for an eye Hammurabi life. I was born with it. It's in my blood. I'm no religious nutjob, but If there's one thing I believe in, it's fighting fire with fire. Screw all that "two wrongs don't make a right" Gandhi bullshit.
yeah no i say that as a guy who's actually trained and worked with different security forces lol
you don't get to say 'oh shit, the tazer didn't work' when the tazer doesn't work - especially against what's arguably the most heavily armed general population in the world. a good cop doesn't need his face caved in because pepper spray took a minute to kick in. this is also an argument that's firmly based on the idea and that peopled are trained up appropriately (which obviously doesn't happen as much as it needs to).
i'm not saying guys got shit coming or anything like that, but non lethal products simply don't work as well against real threats.
you don't get to say 'oh shit, the tazer didn't work' when the tazer doesn't work - especially against what's arguably the most heavily armed general population in the world. a good cop doesn't need his face caved in because pepper spray took a minute to kick in. this is also an argument that's firmly based on the idea and that peopled are trained up appropriately (which obviously doesn't happen as much as it needs to).
i'm not saying guys got shit coming or anything like that, but non lethal products simply don't work as well against real threats.
By FortuneFaded Go To PostI wouldn't outright say there is female privilege though. I think if you mapped both genders on a graph based on how good their life is, women would occupy more towards the middle whereas men would take the extremes on both ends.This led to a discussion between DY and myself in mod chat. and while your core point was that the person making those posts is very very very far from a perfect human-being herself, you got there in a way that is, for people who have genuinely engaged in this area and thought about it, misguided.
In general, using crime statistics (particularly in isolation) doesn't prove or disprove privilege and is very lazy on the person or organization doing so. It also misses the core of what "white privilege" and "male privilege" is.
By FortuneFaded Go To PostI'm a mathematician; I will always think first and foremost in statistics.Problem is that privilege isn't an equation. You can show signs of it with a menagerie of statistics, which is what an actuary is meant to do (make decisions not on one, but based on broad range of statistics to tell a story). But you also need to take into account social policy.
This here is an example of something that's not a statistic, but systemically part of it, watch to the end.
I believe white GI's were awarded access to that mortgage scheme, but black GI's weren't? (Could be wrong, but i believe that's right). That won't show up straight in any statistic, but is most certainly, privilege (born out of ...).
By FortuneFaded Go To PostI'm probably have a more optimistic view of the situation then you do. I'm thankful that people are now holding politicians accountable.Hold politicians after Trump gets elected is like hosing your lawn down after every news agency announces that the largest forest fire in history is one block away
By s y Go To PostHow come?because they aint shit lol
it takes a cartoon character for you to care about politics and what effects not just the entire world, but the things you deal with every day personally? ppl don't even like freedom is what that says
By FortuneFaded Go To PostI'm a mathematician; I will always think first and foremost in statistics.so kind of the per /36 of racial issues
"Statistics" presented without context or history are bullshit tho.
I could just throw out a number and then say nothing of the context and you're left to draw conclusions that only tell part of a story or work towards some kind of agenda I have.
For instance i've seen people with agendas spew that more white men died in WWII. Which is true. But it conveniently says nothing of which countries were predominantly fighting, segregation and many of those minority regiments not being allowed to fight and instead made to do stuff like build roads as well as the percentage of minority enlistees even compared to their white counterparts. It's statistically true but fucking hollow and meaningless.
I could just throw out a number and then say nothing of the context and you're left to draw conclusions that only tell part of a story or work towards some kind of agenda I have.
For instance i've seen people with agendas spew that more white men died in WWII. Which is true. But it conveniently says nothing of which countries were predominantly fighting, segregation and many of those minority regiments not being allowed to fight and instead made to do stuff like build roads as well as the percentage of minority enlistees even compared to their white counterparts. It's statistically true but fucking hollow and meaningless.
I don't believe in statistics anymore after Trump.
Aren't polls basically statistics?
Edit: tbh tho I don't believe in America anymore after Trump either.
Aren't polls basically statistics?
Edit: tbh tho I don't believe in America anymore after Trump either.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostI don't believe in statistics anymore after Trump.Ya gotta learn to read predictions better. There is a margin of error in each of these things. The election was within 538's published margin of error.
Aren't polls basically statistics?
Edit: tbh tho I don't believe in America anymore after Trump either.
Remember that a 53% chance of Hillary winning also means a 47% chance of Trump winning. At no point did 538 predict 100% Hillary win.
So basically Hillary was such a historically bad candidate that she couldn't even overcome the margins of error and now Gallup out here trying to convince people that she's the most admired woman (16th time straight) and Obama's the most admired man (10th time straight) or some bullshit.
What a lovely propaganda-filled time to be alive.
What a lovely propaganda-filled time to be alive.
By EldritchTrapStar Go To PostBuyer's remorse explains that, easily.
She won the popular vote. Gallop’s article doesn’t rely on an electoral college that fuels smoke dogs insane comments
By Fenderputty Go To PostShe won the popular vote. Gallop’s article doesn’t rely on an electoral college that fuels smoke dogs insane commentsI bet you that of the votes cast for her, ~15% were cast begrudgingly.
I know mine was.
Human beings are exceedingly bad at grappling with probabilistic events with less than 98% certainty.
If Donald Trump winning the election is the difference between Tim Duncan making and missing a free throw (70%, which is what it ultimately came down to) I'm sure people would have been a lot more alarmed during the election cycle.
If Donald Trump winning the election is the difference between Tim Duncan making and missing a free throw (70%, which is what it ultimately came down to) I'm sure people would have been a lot more alarmed during the election cycle.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostI bet you that of the votes cast for her, ~15% were cast begrudgingly.
I know mine was.
So? If anything this is just a depressing outlook on what it would take for a woman to become president. Clearly the most admired one in the country had a hard time.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostI'm alarmed everyday that California seceding isn't a popular measure yet.
You gotta be trollin' with this.
The difference between Brexit and Calexit is that one is becoming a dumpster fire and the other is leaving a dumpster fire, respectively.
Is it possible to be the sixth largest economy in the world without being a self sufficient economy?
At what rank would the two be able to intersect? Lower or higher?
At what rank would the two be able to intersect? Lower or higher?
California splitting from the US via the San Andres fault has more of a chance of occurring than secession through the federal government.
Well, politicians always say "never waste a natural disaster"... California could split from US and join with Canada instead. Cali and CAN wouldn't be contiguous but they have similar industries and cultures at least: Movies. Software. Engineering. Mostly exports based. All that. The advantages are stacked in their favor more than the disadvantages, arguably.
It would be better to be United Provinces of Canada than United States of America right now.
It would be better to be United Provinces of Canada than United States of America right now.
It's just hard for me to believe that California isn't the crown jewel of America right now, and yet the rest of the country is literally as 180-degrees different from it as you could fear.
It just boggles the mind that California isn't perennially the kingmaker in every election of this country. How does that even happen.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostIt's just hard for me to believe that California isn't the crown jewel of America right now, and yet the rest of the country is literally as 180-degrees different from it as you could fear.
Plenty of other good blue states. Their weather just sucks ass comparatively.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostIt just boggles the mind that California isn't perennially the kingmaker in every election of this country. How does that even happen.
There was some rumble about California voting in the primaries earlier than they do. Not sure if anything came of that.
Do this forum allow you to create polls? I don't believe in them but I'd like to see one about whether we should get rid of the superdelegates in the primaries or not.
By Smoke Dogg Go To PostDo this forum allow you to create polls? I don't believe in them but I'd like to see one about whether we should get rid of the superdelegates in the primaries or not.I think most people would agree with getting rid of them from comments during the primaries.
By s y Go To PostI never expected this to be so exhilaratingThat was surprisingly awesome.
By giririsss Go To PostI think most people would agree with getting rid of them from comments during the primaries.
I disagree, but I see the point in super delegates even if they're not used like they should be. They're supposed to be to prevent a populist crazed loon for being on your party ticket. I also find it suspect when people want to get rid of super delegates under the guise of democracy while completely ignoring caucuses.
By Fenderputty Go To PostI disagree, but I see the point in super delegates even if they're not used like they should be. They're supposed to be to prevent a populist crazed loon for being on your party ticket. I also find it suspect when people want to get rid of super delegates under the guise of democracy while completely ignoring caucuses.That's the problem with a failsafe like super delegates, they end up getting abused, like they were.
/me shrug.
I think the american political system is fundamentally broken in more than just one way. But that's for the poli thread, not here.
I had Lidl and Aldi stores open near me recently and the stuff there mostly looked really cheap? Like, I'd never buy produce or meat there.
By rodeoclown Go To PostI had Lidl and Aldi stores open near me recently and the stuff there mostly looked really cheap? Like, I'd never buy produce or meat there.Its all cheap and I heard the meat is of good quality.
By HasphatsAnts Go To PostHuman beings are exceedingly bad at grappling with probabilistic events with less than 98% certainty.the issue is that it should've never been that close
If Donald Trump winning the election is the difference between Tim Duncan making and missing a free throw (70%, which is what it ultimately came down to) I'm sure people would have been a lot more alarmed during the election cycle.
and that many people are active participants in politics because they got a sweater for xmas instead of that hot new oled
By rodeoclown Go To PostI had Lidl and Aldi stores open near me recently and the stuff there mostly looked really cheap? Like, I'd never buy produce or meat there.meat is of mediocre quality. Basically no bargains.
But there specials are usually good, and on stock items they're usually cheaper than the competition.
If you don't buy much, it may not be worth changing over.
