The soft left summed up in under four minutes.

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Calling someone out on his apparent opinions is now trolling? If so, aren't you the biggest troll on this forum.

I've always liked when you do that and I never seen it as trolling but rather a valid argument of beliefs that you challenge but somehow it's now Trolling?

This is why sarcasm is a dismal failure on the internet.

 

[J.Wilkins]

This is why sarcasm is a dismal failure on the internet.

Well, at least it is better than Trumpism... that is a failure of life in and of itself.

My apologies for the apparent misunderstanding.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Nice so you actually are a racist. Ok, the drumpf idolatry is making more and more sense.

he's dropped so many breadcrumbs leading us here but he just dropped the whole loaf on that post and said 'fuck it, I'm a racist, here's my link to prove it'

The guy who says the only true racism is against whites wants everyone else to know he's not racist.

I am so glad this thread continued on after two pages as your meltdown here is amazing.

You guys fit the OP so very well. I mean it in what I thought was clear, the true institutionalized racism today is against the white male. FACT.

I've also acknowledged racism exists against minorities as well, and that's not right. But it isn't institutionalized like it is against white males today, but it exists and is a problem. I don't think there will ever be a time where racism is wiped out entirely.

This is how things always devolve with the left. You're either 100% on board with the group think or eventually they call you a racist. You ARE exactly why Trump won, you're so far beyond common sense and full of hatred.

 

[Starbuck1975]

Sure you are retard.

Wut

 

[mect]

You guys fit the OP so very well. I mean it in what I thought was clear, the true institutionalized racism today is against the white male. FACT.

I've also acknowledged racism exists against minorities as well, and that's not right. But it isn't institutionalized like it is against white males today, but it exists and is a problem. I don't think there will ever be a time where racism is wiped out entirely.

This is how things always devolve with the left. You're either 100% on board with the group think or eventually they call you a racist. You ARE exactly why Trump won, you're so far beyond common sense and full of hatred.

The problem is you don't seem to understand what racism is. Affirmative action is not racism. Trying to lift an oppressed minority while not providing the same supports to a privileged majority is not racism. The problem is that all your facts are wrong.

 

[mect]

No, when enough people feel abandoned and disenfranchised, they will vote for the candidate that validates or acknowledges what they perceive as the root cause of their frustration.

What is amazing is that Democrats still don't understand why they lost.

I will agree that Democrats have a perception problem when it comes to white males. But it is difficult to combat a perception problem caused by ignorance. When white people think they have a harder time obtaining employment than black people, all you can do is give them the data, but as is shown in this thread, the natural impulse is to reject it and just continue to feel threatened.

 

[obidamnkenobi]

Ignoring the troll. It's a clever often used tactic, shifting from an untenable position to a new one.

Since you can no longer say "black people are inferior and we should discriminate against them", the conversation on the right is now: "Discrimination against blacks (or others) doesn't exist. But white men are discriminated against"!

So not only can they dismiss any effort to combat racism against minorities as unfair/unnecessary, they get to play the racism card for white men! Those most in need of help, wha wha

 

[SlowSpyder]

The problem is you don't seem to understand what racism is. Affirmative action is not racism. Trying to lift an oppressed minority while not providing the same supports to a privileged majority is not racism. The problem is that all your facts are wrong.

Yes, it is racism. It is trying to combat racism with socially acceptable racism. No wonder it hasn't been working.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I will agree that Democrats have a perception problem when it comes to white males. But it is difficult to combat a perception problem caused by ignorance. When white people think they have a harder time obtaining employment than black people, all you can do is give them the data, but as is shown in this thread, the natural impulse is to reject it and just continue to feel threatened.

I don't think many white people honestly think they have it worse than minorities relative to finding employment.

I do think they are suffering the effects of rapid globalization and automation to the extent that the American dream is now dead for much of what was industrial America.

Under those conditions, tribalism is the natural response. Empirical evidence will never defeat tribalism.

 

[realibrad]

But then you are arguing that objectivity is inherently impossible. Every individual's perspective of the world is perceived through a purely subjective reality. How then, in any situation, is it ever possible to reach an objective opinion?

One would say that it is the group-wide opinion of multiple subjective perspectives as the only way to reach an objective opinion, no?

No again.

Objective parties can observe, but any judgement is subjective. In my original question, I asked would it be sexual harassment if one person felt the action of another was harassment but the other party did not. The Objective observer is objective in the sense that they do not come into the situation with any individual bias against the people (hopefully, things like racism exist so not always) that would cloud their judgement. What is observed must be interpreted and that can only be done subjectively. That is why two people can watch the same thing and think two different things.

So, a man tells a woman he does not know "your outfit looks great on you". She takes it to mean that he is making a comment on how sexually attractive she is. He is actually saying that the clothes seem to fit her as if it were made for her. He may not have had any intent to make her feel uncomfortable and yet she ended up feeling sexually harassed.

The question is given that hypothetical, could there be objective sexual harassment, or is sexual harassment subjective?

 

[SlowSpyder]

I won't confuse a guy who spends his days posting here as somebody who actually works for a living.

Don't hate because I'm good at what I do. Got my four to-dos done today, off my white board. Gotta run though, team meeting in two minutes.

BTW, you spend a lot of time here, all day in fact... just sayin

 

[mect]

Yes, it is racism. It is trying to combat racism with socially acceptable racism. No wonder it hasn't been working.

So now you're trying to redefine racism. Following is a widely accepted definition of racism. "Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior." I don't see any way affirmative action in any way fits within that definition.

 

[ch33zw1z]

No again.

Objective parties can observe, but any judgement is subjective. In my original question, I asked would it be sexual harassment if one person felt the action of another was harassment but the other party did not. The Objective observer is objective in the sense that they do not come into the situation with any individual bias against the people (hopefully, things like racism exist so not always) that would cloud their judgement. What is observed must be interpreted and that can only be done subjectively. That is why two people can watch the same thing and think two different things.

So, a man tells a woman he does not know "your outfit looks great on you". She takes it to mean that he is making a comment on how sexually attractive she is. He is actually saying that the clothes seem to fit her as if it were made for her. He may not have had any intent to make her feel uncomfortable and yet she ended up feeling sexually harassed.

The question is given that hypothetical, could there be objective sexual harassment, or is sexual harassment subjective?

objective: you dont say stuff like that to people you dont know. lesson learned.

 

[mect]

I don't think many white people honestly think they have it worse than minorities relative to finding employment.

I do think they are suffering the effects of rapid globalization and automation to the extent that the American dream is now dead for much of what was industrial America.

Under those conditions, tribalism is the natural response. Empirical evidence will never defeat tribalism.

Absolutely, it is very challenging to convince people with data if it contradicts their personal perceptions. I do agree that there is a large segment of middle class white males that feel abandoned by the democratic party because so little emphasis is placed on issues they are directly dealing with compared to other demographics.

 

[brycejones]

Don't hate because I'm good at what I do. Got my four to-dos done today, off my white board. Gotta run though, team meeting in two minutes.

BTW, you spend a lot of time here, all day in fact... just sayin

4 tasks on shortbusspyder's whiteboard:

1. Put on underroos
2. Shit pants
3. Change underroos
4. Drool on keyboard

 

[cfenton]

Yes a table has four legs. We are not talking about that. We are talking about political parties aligning themselves along the fault lines over who has the best table.

I was just using a simple example to show how truth corresponds to reality, not belief. The discussion had been about racial discrimination in hiring. fskimospy provided lots of evidence that people of color are discriminated against in hiring more than white people are. This suggests that people who believe that most white people are discriminated against when trying to find a job are probably wrong.That's not to say that no white people are ever discriminated against because they are white, that would be an absurd claim. Rather, the claim is that being white is not a disadvantage when trying to get a job.

I don't think many white people honestly think they have it worse than minorities relative to finding employment.

I do think they are suffering the effects of rapid globalization and automation to the extent that the American dream is now dead for much of what was industrial America.

Under those conditions, tribalism is the natural response. Empirical evidence will never defeat tribalism.

This is just an argument that most people are irrational. They know minority groups haven't actually caused their problems, but discriminate against them anyway. It should be terrifying that anyone who is irrational has any power to decide what goes on in the world.

 

[Jaskalas]

Oooooo! How many is enough?!

I would say enough to win a national election is enough

So in truth, just 70,000 people need to be discriminated against.

 

[realibrad]

objective: you dont say stuff like that to people you dont know. lesson learned.

Amazingly dumb response. You could have dealt with the abstraction, but instead you decided to stick your head firmly up your own ass.

 

[realibrad]

4 tasks on shortbusspyder's whiteboard:

1. Put on underroos
2. Shit pants
3. Change underroos
4. Drool on keyboard

Sick burn on the mentally disabled. Fuck those guys.

 

[Jaskalas]

I was agreeing with @SlowSpyder that the life experiences of enough blue collar middle class Americans contradicts the empirical evidence or notion of privilege. What discussion are you having?

Why would a bunch of anecdotes matter when compared to actual empirical research? The whole point of research like that is to remove the bias of selective memories and experiences.

It's not that individual experiences being discriminated against are a substitute for your precious stats. It's that those stats are immaterial, they mean nothing to the people that are harmed. "Oh honey, lost your job? Well OTHER white people have privilege go STFU". Not going to work, or win people over. Discriminate against enough people, in the right places, and presto... no more Presidency for you.

It shouldn't be such a pickle to figure out attacking people isn't the best solution to building a new majority. Too many people are left behind in America, no one should have their noses rubbed in it. We should be seen as being there FOR them, not against them.

 

[fskimospy]

It's not that individual experiences being discriminated against are a substitute for your precious stats. It's that those stats are immaterial, they mean nothing to the people that are harmed. "Oh honey, lost your job? Well OTHER white people have privilege go STFU". Not going to work, or win people over. Discriminate against enough people, in the right places, and presto... no more Presidency for you.

It shouldn't be such a pickle to figure out attacking people isn't the best solution to building a new majority. Too many people are left behind in America, no one should have their noses rubbed in it. We should be seen as being there FOR them, not against them.

All my 'precious stats' are doing is telling you what is. What you want to do with that information is up to you.

 

[umbrella39]

Why is the left so soft today? What happened? I'm no Russian troll. This is what today's left does, create an alt-reality, a bubble to live in when you don't like something.

I'm sorry. Indian troll? Kalyan is an Indian name. I see you still like vodka soaked boys underwear though. That would be off but you are a conservative and many like underage kids. At least that's what I am hearing. Typical beta cuck snowflake cry baby victim. Go back to where you came from. Oh and PLONK. This is by far your weakest iteration of your sock puppet personas...

 

[obidamnkenobi]

It's not that individual experiences being discriminated against are a substitute for your precious stats. It's that those stats are immaterial, they mean nothing to the people that are harmed. "Oh honey, lost your job? Well OTHER white people have privilege go STFU". Not going to work, or win people over. Discriminate against enough people, in the right places, and presto... no more Presidency for you.

It shouldn't be such a pickle to figure out attacking people isn't the best solution to building a new majority. Too many people are left behind in America, no one should have their noses rubbed in it. We should be seen as being there FOR them, not against them.

Exactly who is "attacking" white men? I looked through the Democrat's party platform and did not see "fuck white people", or anything like it anywhere there. Parading out some loon on YouTube who say all white people are racist doesn't count.

And btw, judging by GOP actions helping white men amounts to disarming EPA, removing net neutrality and taxes on $5 mill + estates. Has that really been the problems?

 

[J.Wilkins]

Wut

Did I stutter?

 

[jackstar7]

Beliefs, resentment, anger, frustration. These things are all born from some nugget of truth.

There is ample empirical evidence that the American middle class is shrinking, and that upward mobility is at a standstill. This dynamic is true for all Americans, regardless of race.

Enough Americans attributed that empirical truth to globalization and inmigration to the extent that Trump exploited it for political gain.

Justifying religion right here.