JayJayH

15/16

Actually, conservative is more in line with black people than anything else. A strong religious background, smaller government(since black people know better than anyone outside of the Native Americans and the Japanese Americans what can go sideways), these things would be music to our ears if the GOP wasn't so damn intent on letting us know how much they can't stand us.

Tim Scott, Michael Steele I can roll with. Even Colin Powell can get some love. The rest of those dudes, can go sit down somewhere. It's so strange to see black people who become GOP darlings by being straight hateful towards their own people. Which for some reason seems to be a requirement.

http://all-len-all.com/dear-gop-dont-ever-send-black-republicans-to-recruit-black-people/

First, black people REGULARLY vote for white people – we have little choice. In my almost 45 years on this earth, I have voted for a black person for President exactly twice. Once in 2008 and once in 2012. In prior elections, I didn’t stay home, I voted for the white man. In 2016, I may be voting for a white woman. In local elections, too, I have mostly voted for white people and have often voted for them over black people.

Second, black Republicans – at least the vocal ones, the public ones, the kind that you see on Sean Hannity and Bill O’Reilly, the ones trying to be spokesmen for the Republican party are, for the most part, terrible people. They have to be, or else, they wouldn’t be black republicans.

Allen West and Larry Elders are repeat offenders. And even though I didn't like Bush, I don't hate him. And I think the racist language Biden used wasn't right, since he played off the racial fears. But I know hating on Carson and the rest of them comes from it feeling like a sign of betrayal when they are spouting the same ####### white people who burn crosses in their yards do.

As for the Alt Right, I can't agree with you on that. I've gone toe to toe with about 8 of them at once, and it's straight about white pride. Matter of fact, the conversation was going good until I mentioned I was black and that Muslims are not an issue here. F******* chimp was my name from then on, then his boys jumped in. Told me black people and Muslims are what's wrong with this country. How anyone who isn't white needs to get out of their country. Janelle came in and she was drug as well. So this Alt right nonsense about them having love for country is half right, it's good if you're white. And if it's wrong, they have an image problem.

If you're calling me an animal that's long been associated with racism, or telling me to get out of a country I was born in, at what point does it become racist?

Few things piss me off more than right wingers telling Americans of various skin colors to 'go home.' African American culture, Chinese American culture, Italian American culture etc. etc. it's all American culture. That's a beautiful thing.

I think the problem with 'alt-right' is that it isn't any sort of established group. Alt-right can be applied to anyone ranging from Jeff Bezos to Milo Yiannopoulos to a random 42 year-old unemployed loser who makes Nazi internet memes in his mom's basement. 'Alt-right' is, for now, what you make of it. You can see 'alt-right' and to you it means the Nazis in the basement, while I see 'alt-right' and it means a rejection of cultural Marxism. More often and more 'officially' I see it referred to as a fragment of the political right that is becoming more and more populist in style rather than traditional conservative. I say "western supremacist" because aside from the obviously neo-Nazi nutjobs, the arguments I hear from the alt-right are generally more in the line of "free speech trumps your feelings" and a dismissal of the more authoritarian side of progressivism and campus activism. I think that's healthy. But the internet also gives the ostracized crazies an anonymous megaphone, an unfortunate side-effect.

As far as black Republicans. You would have to pay me a very generous sum of money to ever vote for a nutjob like Carson. Unless his only opponent was a ranging shameless tumblr feminist, it would not cross my mind in a million years. That being said, I disagree that there is anything wrong what so ever with being a black Republican. Anything more than I think there is anything wrong with being a black golf player, a black violinist or a black Jew. In essence, the entire notion that your skin color somehow makes you puts you on this or that team is absurd.

Jay: the topic of this thread was regarding confusion over why there is no outcry on gender segregated mosques? Well, how do you feel about gender segregation in religion in general? Because it's not just in some of the Muslim faith... but you can find it all over Judaism and Christianity too. If there is freedom of religion in this country, and in Canada too - then this practice is not something we can complain about under the domain of the law. I could certainly explain to you why this practice and others are towards women, and they come from the same shared root in all three religions. It's not some unique thing. Are these 'medieval' instead of modern in nature? Sure, you could make that argument. But so are many aspects we have in all religions, things many simply take for granted and accepted practices even.

I'm not a fan of gender segregation under any denomination, nor do I think any law should be made to force religious congregations to do anything. I would find it curious if Elizabeth Warren went to speak about the wonders of religious diversity at a segregated church in Idaho as well.

sticking strictly to the op here (honestly, because i don't agree with the big picture you're trying to paint and you're sort of all over the place):

1. this is what politicians do, they reach out to all sorts. trudeau is popular with muslims, seems to make sense that he would make such an appearance for eid.

2. speaking of a crude violence filter, should we be applying this to ourselves? our own terror connections and funding and oops did we leave all these weapons and humvees lying about err uh, thanks for the cash?

I have no problem with a politician reaching out to Muslims. I just wish 'progressives' on the left would promote secular Islam. You know, reformist Muslims who face death threats from Islamists and allegations of "Uncle Tomism" from leftists. When was the last time you saw a secular Muslim on MSNBC saying "We need more acceptance of womens' rights and LGBT rights within Islam, and we need an honest discussion about extremism." - You don't. Instead, they tend to end up on conservative talk shows, branded as suspicious Islamophobes.

It baffles my mind that liberal secularists like Maajid Nawaz and Ali Rizvi are usually relegated to short segments on Fox News, while Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sarah Haider, Faisal Saeed al-Muttar etc. are generally persona non grata everywhere they go in liberal circles.

are you saying that western ideals are white ideals? minorities should get on board or else those ideals are racist? there's so much spinning going on in this thread. specifically what ideals are you speaking of and how exactly are those ideals white to begin with?

No, he was saying the exact opposite. There is nothing racial about the term 'western.' So if I say 'western values' or 'western culture' is superior to anything else we've had in human history, that statement has nothing to do with white supremacy, racism or the like. The only way you can tie 'western' and 'race' together is if you believe inherently that the United States is somehow a 'white nation.' Which of course is pure rubbish.

Whenever you take this racism issue between black and whites in the USA to another level you deflect away from the simple fact

that racism exists and try to explain it away by talking about Greek, Italian and Irish immigrants. You know very well what the issue is.

I never denied the discrimination against the immigrants or the discrimination that still exists today against white immigrants and non white

immigrants.

I will not engage in your deflection any further but bring you back to the core point. The civil rights era was not about whites being

oppressed. White people in the USA oppressed blacks and not the other way around. The stench of it remains. Core point.

I don't consider that deflection. The reason I bring up Italian immigrants, Irish immigrants, Russian immigrants etc. is because the way the 'progressive' left talks about issues concerning race tend to end up something like this:

"White people owe something to people of color." That's why we have wonderful websites like reparations.me isn't it?

If we're going to talk about "white" and "black" people in terms of one being an oppressor and one being oppressed and something being "owed" in the context of current issues, it is useful to know who "white" is, and who "black" is. Are 2nd generation Somali immigrants being oppressed by 1st generation Hungarian Jews? Do 3rd generation Italian immigrants in New Jersey need to take responsibility for what southern English Americans did in Georgia 200 years ago? Do I as a 1st generation Norwegian immigrant owe something to my black friend who makes more money than I do?

Unless we're landing at the conclusion that no one owes anyone anything based on skin color, these are highly relevant questions.

Sure, agreed, the stench of Jim Crow laws and segregation is still evident today. That's partly why there are statistical income disparities between Americans of African ancestry and Americans of European ancestry. If you're a black American born into a middle class household in America today though, there are no laws preventing you from he same upward mobility that an Asian, white or Hispanic middle class kid would have. Now, aside from saying "I don't care what color your skin is" and promoting that mantra, what do you suggest we do? Keep making policies specifically directed at people based purely on their perceived skin pigmentation (identity politics)?

Jay: Strange religion is in the eye of the beholder. If the religion breaks no laws and the person is participating of their own free will, then what is the harm? Freedom of religion means freedom of religion. Hijabs, are in the same way and reason why a nun covers her head, why a Jew covers their head, the Amish wear caps, and why many conservative Christian religions all use some form of female head covering/modest dress/long hair. Would I go as far as saying it is feminist by definition? No. In many of these religions though, these women choose to cover themselves of their own free will and dedication to their god.

I had a conversation with a friend over the 'burkini' controversy. To some degree, these garments are empowering to Muslim women, who before, may not have been comfortable going to the beach and would have otherwise had much less freedom, experiences, and enjoying themselves. These garments have little difference between 'modest swimwear' used by some Christian and Jewish sects. It may be hard to understand how someone would associate feminism and empowerment with hijabs or even burkinis. In a male dominated fashion society, which tells women they must act, look, dress, and behave a certain way has made many feminists note that it usually resolves around the beautification or sexualization of a female of which a woman must always be concerned with. We must 'put up' with being ogled if we look 'pretty' and must put up with being frowned upon as frumpy if we want to simply be comfortable. If we rebel against these 'norms' we are considered freaks, ugly, weird, or different. In religions that concern themselves with purity and the value of a woman's worth, for them, they believe they are freed by being modest. They are accepted and no longer have to worry about sexualization or seeming unwanted advances. They can concern themselves with how their religion says they can dress the most honorably, and stop worrying about the fear of if they are sinning or causing others to sin, rather than what society says. For the woman in the Guardian article I can understand her position, but at the same time how a feminist chooses to be a feminist is up to her. For most, I suspect, they would say they don't care what people think about how they look, and they shouldn't have to hide behind something for no reason other than how men look at her.

To me a hijab is no different than any other religious head covering or jewelry item of significance. A hijab is no more offensive to me than any of these. The dogma of covering oneself and modesty, comes from the same root in all religions. Why are people so offended by one thing and not another?

We should be not necessarily promoting, but being inclusive to all religions. That is the spirit of freedom of religion.

I'm not saying the hijab is any different from orthodox Jewish headwear or Amish dresses. I'm not saying that because I personally find hijabs to be ridiculous, they need to be banned. I think spaghetti strainers are a ridiculous headgear as well, but I wouldn't favor a ban. That would be incredibly authoritarian of me.

While I respect that the hijab, niqab, burka etc. is a personal choice for many, reality is that it is forced upon women, either by law or immense social pressure in vast swathes of the Islamic world. They are no more a 'personal choice' than an arranged marriage. I've seen women being hit by religious police for having semi-see-through sleeves. Hijabs are about the sexualization of women no matter how you put it. The reason the word 'modesty' is even connected to the word 'headscarf' is because someone, somewhere, at some time decided that a woman's hair is too tempting for men to be shown in public. The fact that some women feel that they must cover up in order to go to the beach and enjoy themselves says more about the actual patriarchy they live under than it does about anything else.

I don't mind some strange sect somewhere mandating that women wear blue hats on Tuesdays. But I'm in awe when western liberals wear blue hats on Tuesdays in solidarity, celebrate 'world blue hat day' and try to normalize the custom in the name of 'diversity' and 'inclusion.'

JayJay, I get your frustration with the nature of PC culture gone awry, but I think you are twisting it in a strange way. I think, for instance, that feminism has been set back a bit, and am saddened that "being kind to foreign cultures" somehow means that we forget the things that we, as the west, have been fighting for for decades. But this mosque is not necessarily sexist just because they separate by gender. Don't you believe that it could be possible that the people attending want to experience history in a material way, and want to participate in worship the way their ancestors did? It doesn't mean that they think, necessarily, that men and women can't sit next to each other in other places, like restaurants, the public bus, or the airplane. They just choose to do their religious service like this.

I mean, monks and nuns live in separate abbeys, do you think that is sexist? I think that there might be value in experiencing an environment with ones own sex only, from time to time. Maybe there isn't. But I don't think it's bad to try and see what happens if the people participating do so with free will.

And I don't "save" my criticism of things that I think deserve criticism in the name of freedom or globalization or whatever. I find hijabs offensive. But this mosque's seating arrangement isn't it.

Harpa, I think you're onto something. I do not necessarily find the practice of praying separated by gender to be 'sexist' by default. If an orthodox church wants to have male priests only, that's their business. If a religious congregation wants its women to wear Victorian dresses. That really is their prerogative. As long as it's strictly your own choice to leave the religion of course.

Do I think strange religious practices should be promoted and normalized? Absolutely not, that's part of the reason I've always considered myself a liberal. I view conservative Islam in the same prism as I view some of the craziest evangelical churches. Yet I see a unified left ridiculing and putting Kim Davis in jail for refusing to issue same-sex marriage licenses, while at the same time applauding the Minneapolis Police Department for altering their uniform so as not to discriminate against conservative Muslim women who insist on wearing hijabs in the line of duty.

I'm sure part of this is confirmation bias on my end. I've been to mosques, I think they're beautiful places. I've been Ayatollah Khomeini's mausoleum, one of the most beautiful places I've seen. But I really do struggle to find any consistency on the left nowadays - Let's be honest, in what other context would you ever see a 'feminist' head of state saluting 'the sisters upstairs' in a speech about how wonderful diversity is? In what other context would a religious nutjob gun down 52 LGBT people, while the political left's first knee-jerk reaction is a strange mix of "nothing to do with [religion]!" / "All religions are equally bad!"

You mention the hijab, and I couldn't agree more.

"Wearing the hijab doesn't have to be about religious dedication. For me, it is political, feminist and empowering" - https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/28/hijab-society-women-religious-political

"Sometimes a Hijab Represents Feminism, Not Oppression" - http://www.teenvogue.com/story/hijab-feminist-statement

"Fifteen-year-old Rayouf Alhumedhi, who now lives in Germany, was disappointed to see no emoji for women who wear headscarves." - http://www.npr.org/2016/09/17/494360201/saudi-teen-launches-campaign-for-hijab-emoji

Most of this is dogmatic religious BS promoted by big money in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf. Why the political left has chosen to embrace this as diversity, while casting secularists like Maajid Nawaz, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Sarah Haider, Ali Rizvi, Faisal Saeed al-Muttar etc. into the proverbial basket of deplorables is beyond me.

But, here's the problem, it's happened. The bridge incident. The incident where they shot that kid 16 times while he was walking away from the cops. Where the guy was killed in front of his girl and child. Or the dude who was shot in Walmart. Or the emails that show a cop going into detail about how to frame black men. Or the reports that show PD's are rife with police bias towards black people.

So my question is, how do you make the case? Because when I got a PD that's got officers high fiving after they just shot and killed an unarmed black teen, what can we say to that?

First of all, I think it helps to put into perspective that in 2015, 102 unarmed black people were killed by police. That's 0.0002% of the black population of America, meaning 99.9998% of black Americans were not unarmed black people killed by police. We can then discuss back and forth how many of them were violent or charging at police and how many were truly murdered for no reason whatsoever. The point is, at least some of them were killed as result of unjustifiable police brutality. I just find the popular narrative quite.. Sensationalist in nature. Either way, it is an important issue, and it is one that should be discussed in the open.

I think the BLM protests were effective at first in that they garnered national attention around a topic that, let's face it, wasn't discussed as much as it should have been. That's what protests are ultimately good for - Create national attention. When attention is on your topic of interest, the ball is sort of in your court. This is where I wish BLM had turned into more of a non-partisan, well-organized movement than the messy partisan protest organization it is today. I say "messy" because BLM has allowed nearly anything to fly under their banner, be it shutting down the 405 freeway in LA, or marching the streets of Brooklyn shouting "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!" I think most people know that BLM is not advocating for dead cops. But just like "Republicans hate gays" became the brand they created for themselves by failing to rein in their crazies, BLM has become synonymous with rioting, looting, polarizing slogans and disruptive in-your-face activism to something like 50% of American voters.

What's worse I think, is that a climate has developed where questioning BLM's tactics (note, not message) is now construed as racist by scores of well-meaning idiots.

In a polarized political climate, the opposing side is going to take anything they can to paint you in a certain light. It doesn't matter what your intentions are. At this point, there is nothing what so ever the GOP can really say to make the LGBT community forget about Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee. Likewise, there is virtually nothing BLM can do to make conservatives forget about "What do we want? Dead cops!" and thus the short step from there to Dallas.

So when BLM had national attention following Ferguson, and the ball was in their court, I wish there had been more focus on cooperation with law enforcement, with a leadership that publicly came down hard on fringe activists - Attempting to come to some mutual understanding rather than accusations back and forth. I think BLM has some very legitimate concerns, and likewise I think various PDs have some very legitimate concerns. In the end, the vast majority of police officers are husbands, fathers, sons and daughters who are going home to their families after work, and so are the people in the communities they police. When your work place is the south side of Chicago or inner city Baltimore at 2am, I think the burden of proof to convict you, frankly, should be high. The last thing you want is for police officers to avoid those areas, which is now happening in Chicago. Likewise, there are few things worse than an innocent person being murdered by the very people whose sworn duty it is to protect them.

Right now, it seems like every time a cop pulls a trigger, hordes of protesters come out shouting questionable slogans at a situation they really know nothing about.

Likewise, on the right, scores of people are ready to make generalized statements about a dead person whose life they nothing nothing about.

That's not effective protest from either side. That's polarization in a nut shell.

Touche. I've seen some black people do this. Problem is, this isn't just trolls. I've had educated white men and women(one case a Mexican dude who was my friend got into it about the TM debacle, guess which stat he fell back on) come to me with this. Which is funny, because I don't accuse anyone IRL they suffer from WP. What I do is point out the comparisons.

That's the difference, I can only throw WP when it's applicable. Any other time I'd sound like an idiot. Blk on Blk crime is interchangeable, it's like the perfect pair of shoes. It goes with everything.

As much as I cringe at virtually everything social justicy, I have no problem conceding that there are circumstances in which white people in this country have privilege. I used to joke with my black roommate back in the day that I should drive when we went to Jack in the Box at 1am, in case we got pulled over. There was obviously some truth behind this, sadly, as I've experienced and witnessed first hand. Am I weary of calling it white-specific privilege? Yes. Because 1. it is incredibly polarizing - Singling out people based on race is rarely ever a winning strategy (unless it's harmless humor), and 2. cops were usually even easier on my Asian college roommate than they ever were on me.

Us: Black Lives Matter seeks to end the abuse by the state against—

You: First, your people need to address black-on-black crime!

Us: Let’s discuss the inequities in education, employment, housing—

You: Let’s talk about black-on-black crime!!!

Us: It looks like the Zika virus is spreading to—

You: It’s not spreading as fast as black-on-black crime!

Us: Have you seen this black woman who went missing?

You: She probably took a wrong turn in y’all’s black-on-black crime and got lost. (HAHA, love it)

I completely agree with you in that we need dialogue. Dialogue, and dialogue only, can solve any of this. I do understand your frustration as far as arguing certain topics and the replies that you get. However, here's what it sounds like from the other side:

Us: Statistics don't show an epidemic of —

You: That's just your white privilege speaking! Shut up whitey!

Us: Let’s discuss the inequities in education, employment, housing—

You: It's because white supremacy!

Us: It looks like the Zika virus is spreading to—

You: It’s not spreading as fast as racism, xenophobia, white supremacy, Islamophobia, transphobia, sexism and homophobia!

Us: Have you seen this woman who went missing?

You: Why do we only care about it when a white woman goes missing??

Trolls exist everywhere. They're on the far left, they're on the far right, and their only function is to try to get a reaction. The fringes of the alt right and social justice warrior brigades probably are your stereotypical 40-year-old in mom's basement. Or maybe 16-year-olds with nothing better to do. The problem in society today is that political statements have largely turned into out-of-context internet memes and 140 character trolling tweets. The vast majority of our political interactions happen with people whom we either don't know or don't see face-to-face, or both.

But even without trolls, memes and tweets. I do think that identity politics and this immense fixation on race - Even on race related issues, is counter-productive at best, incredibly dangerous at worst.

You do realize that we're in a stats class right?

The video does what every single white person/black GOP member does. Why is crime the ONLY thing you want to talk about? Do we have a right to say we don't want to be treated like animals? And black on black crime doesn't exist, unless you're going to say that white on white crime is a thing as well.

The video is flat out WRONG. BLM doesn't kill anyone. I'm not a killer, nor are the members. And who's denying facts? We hear about crime stats EVERY DAY in this forum. Even when a white person kills people, someone trots them out. Which is weird being that this forum is 98% white. I could give a more accurate number if I had the full number of forum members, but anyway. And it's not 75%

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-43

Total number 27.8 percent of crime being committed by blacks here in this country. 69.4% committed by whites. What's up with all that white on white crime? How would you feel if every day that's how you were greeted? Man I had a hard day at work. But what about all that white on white crime tho? I mean, you have to understand how demeaning that is, especially when it's the ONLY subject you want to discuss, in a space with only 2 other black people, who have degrees, who work, and are so far removed from the stereotype it's a shame. Hate welfare, hate not working, still in school, and check black and white people on racism. We should be y'all buddies, but we are constantly reminded of black on black crime, why? Because we're black?

Why Oriz? Because he made a point to say he doesn't see the racism. Let me post a video with the title saying White Guys with Guns Kill People and post some recent mass shootings. Think it would fly?

Honestly, if I were you I'll concede that I'd be pretty fed up with the "what about black on black crime!?" argument. The point I'm trying to make is not that police brutality isn't a thing. It is. It affects Americans of all skin colors, and perhaps especially blacks and Hispanics. This again can be attributed to the fact that people in poorer neighborhoods have far more encounters with police than people in middle and upper class neighborhoods - And a disproportionate number of blacks and Hispanics live in poorer neighborhoods. While many Hispanic families have heads of households making less than minimum wage due to immigration status (estimated 18%), income disparities for black Americans can easily be attributed in large due to historic injustices. I'm not sure that I've ever met a single person who seriously disputes that.

But frankly, BLM's tactics and strategy is akin to setting itself up for that sort of argumentation from the other side. You can speak up against police brutality and people will listen. Or, you can do what BLM, the media and campus activists have been doing for the past few years - Politicize an issue that has no one political home. Make the case that we have an epidemic of gestapo police officers indiscriminately murdering black people for target practice. If you make a case for the apocalypse, don't expect the other side to answer with reason and deep insight.

What I miss from BLM is pan-political appeal, self reflection and intelligent debate - Kind of what I spent 20 years missing from the religious right on most social issues.

But this is how polarized we are as a nation today. Arguing with people on the far left/far right is generally like speaking to a wall.

So people voted for a man who promised to commit unregulated, on the spot first degree murder and you see nothing wrong with this. No due process so u can accuse your neighbor, or that lady with the family member that's married to an American of drug dealing and they are snuffed out. Hmmmm

Thank you. They are really defending this insanity

Nowhere, not anywhere, did I voice support for Duterte's policies. I'm simply stating that he was elected in a near landslide, and enjoys a sky high approval rating.

Corruption, inaction, poverty and neglect can lead people to support some fairly wacky policies.

And then we can argue back and forth whether western people have the right to tell people in third world countries what values they should or shouldn't abide by.

Man, I'm going to need some receipts on this one.

Haha. I do hear you keep receipts.

I couldn't have said it better myself. And I will add to it, that there is nothing "white" or racist in western ideals, unless the black, Asian and hispanic(or muslims or other minorities) that you mentioned don't want to share these ideals. If they don't want to do that how is that white people's fault?

Also, to add to what was just said in a different thread, even assuming one is misguided, how does that make them racist?

Agreed.

I don't understand what in "free speech", "American", "freedom of religion", "western values" or even "the right to bear arms" that by definition exludes minorities. Some people will throw a tantrum if you mention "western values." I'm always left wondering why they insist black people or whoever else can't be part of western values..?

The only conclusion I can make is that they believe America to be, by definition, a white country and that minorities, by definition, don't belong here. Far right and far left typically have a lot in common in their underlying world views.

The terms "racism" and "bigotry" have been so abused that sadly, they bear little meaning to anyone outside of social justice echo chambers anymore. The left has gone over to abusing the term "white supremacy" instead to give it the punch they want.

I can use my favorite social justice article as a prime example.

http://qz.com/775492/what-minority-students-hear-when-white-teachers-mispronounce-their-names/

"The lasting impact of white teachers who mispronounce minority student names"

If I have a daughter and name her the traditional Norwegian name Kjellbjørg, or a son, going full viking and naming him Aðalbrandur. Who is to blame if they come home crying because the teacher got their name wrong at roll call? The far left would blame "racism" and "white people" according to this article. I'm realistic enough that I would probably suck it up and blame myself.

That being said, I'm sure there exists solid empirical research to determine why it won't leave a lasting impression if it's a non-white teaching mispronouncing it

i totally disagree with this in bold. it isn't about taking the side of the victim, it's about believing the victim has a right to be heard. that's it. i don't have to make myself out to be a victim of sexual assault if i respect and listen to victims of sexual assault POV. that's it, not taking sides.

now, i don't agree with gender segregated religious congregation, but i don't see much point in religious congregation at all. so i have a seat and allow others to decide what religious congregations they want to be a part of. any further action on my point is sort of, none of my business. tyrannical even. religion is a personal choice, and women are just as capable as men to decide what religion they want to submit to.

also, all feminists are self proclaimed - no need to call out trudeau like he didn't get properly beat in to the gang.

I agree with what you're saying, but I don't see how this is relevant to any leftist group currently in possession of a loud speaker.

The problem on the left today is that it is no longer guided by actual liberal ideals. It's guided by who the bigger victim is. That's why there is so little discussion on the left regarding the medieval nature of conservative Islam. That's why the "0.72 cents on the dollar wage gap" argument has become almost folkloric. That's why Milo Yiannopoulos was banned on Twitter, while Leslie Jones can continue to tweet "get the f**k outta here a white boy is best dj #######?" and "Lord have mercy…white people ####"

That's why you can end up with prominent liberals actually arguing that "only white people can be racist" and claiming the hijab to be symbol of feminism.

To put it in simple terms: I lost faith in the GOP to rein in its crazies a long time ago. I wouldn't be surprised if Ted Cruz visited some strange congregation in rural Kansas where women sat in the basement.

Yet, I see liberals (supposedly my side) now doing the same thing, but being excused. Why? Because Islam is a "bigger victim" than the crazy congregation in Kansas, so we can overlook the complete illiberal nature of much of the religion.

If you still believe religion is purely a personal choice, I suggest you read and listen to some prominent ex-Muslims like Sarah Haider, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Faisal Saeed al-Muttar, Ali Rizvi or even secular Muslims like Maajid Nawaz and the Quilliam Foundation. It's not a coincidence that the term "regressive left" was coined by a secular Muslim.

Man, I'm going to need some receipts on this one.

My TF is full of left leaning folks, and all of them are pretty much for equal rights and level headed. I got some folks that use a potty mouth, but only because I see what gets thrown at them. But those cats on the right? I got some questions for you.

What is it with the Alt Right, and just right leaning in general obsession with the GOP of old? It's getting irritating that every single one of them want to bring up that the GOP freed the slaves and fought for civil rights. Like it was yesterday. We can't blame 400 plus years of slavery, 60 years of segregation, and a system built to assist in suppression of rights that's still functioning to this day, but they want to claim this.

And we all know the Democrats started with the KKK, seriously. That doesn't seem to be as important as where the KKK currently resides right now.

Frankly, it was Republican ideals of limited government and strict adherence to the constitution that abolished slavery. Similarly, much of the civil rights movement was driven by Republican ideals of small government and equal rights. Sadly for the GOP, it was the same adherence to small government that led Barry Goldwater to drown the Republican brand in a bizarre argument for states rights over desegregation. It was Eisenhower that sent the military to Arkansas to enforce Brown vs. Board of Education.

I'll tell you why you hear this a lot. The Democratic Party and much of the American left in recent decades has tried to paint conservatism as somehow "racist." Though I don't agree with much of the GOP platform, there is nothing "racist" about opposing big government or same-sex marriage. I remember in 2012, when Mitt Romney was going to put "black people back in chains," and I remember the "racist, fascist George W. Bush" - Never mind that he did more than perhaps any other person in history to combat HIV and AIDS. Meanwhile today, prominent Republicans like Tim Scott, Ben Carson, Larry Elder, Allen West, Michael Steele still have oreo cookies thrown at them, "porch monkey" and other racial slurs thrown at them while "anti-racists" on the left scratch their heads at how black people can be free thinkers and not in line with the opinions their skin color should determine them to have.

The Alt Right, contrary to your belief is not a white supremacy movement. I'd argue perhaps that it's a western supremacy movement, as it focuses heavily on western ideals like free speech and traditional western values. There is nothing exclusively "white" in the term western however. Unless of course you believe that black, Asian and Hispanic Americans somehow aren't American.

As far as the KKK - They reside far outside the bounds of any current American party platform. They've been, rightfully, ostracized and shamed out of public life.

Why don't you post some examples of white people being systematically discriminated against.

Race quotas.

Every time a [fill in color] woman is promoted over a white male because she's a [fill in color] woman, that's discrimination.

Every time a white person (or Asian for that matter) is rejected at a university because the university wants more [fill in color] students, that's discrimination.

Discrimination is discrimination whether it's supposedly for a good cause or not.

Whether John Smith was white or black or brown is completely irrelevant to my life. So why should it affect me that John Smith was promoted, but now Company X wants someone of a different skin tone, so I can no longer be promoted?

In essence. The very notion that organizations or institutions are promoted to differentiate people based exclusively on their skin color is, by definition, systemic discrimination.

I can't think of any other openly enforced system on the books today that actually differentiates people based exclusively on skin color. Not one.

When you stop following the far right/social justice left mantra of people as somehow belonging to specific color-based groups rather than being individuals, the entire idea of racism becomes a little obsolete. I believe that's what MLK fought for, no?

Except you left out the flashing neon sign that there never was systemic racism and oppression of white people like there was and still is for black

and brown people. Your "trigger terms" is what we actually hear and see every day. Matter of fact it sounds like Trump supporters on a daily basis.

The links about whites you provided sprang from racism for minorities. Such a simple truth yet so difficult to grasp for some.

If black people are discriminated against and shot like rabbits then where is the issue in a BLM movement to raise awareness of the fact ?

Black Lives Matter.

Now if whites are discriminated against, shot like rabbits, oppressed and turn out to be the minority one day then there will be a WLM

movement. What is so hard to understand about that ? It is too simple to even quarrel over. It is a fact of live. The oppressed will rebel.

Stop the oppression and there is no cause for the movement. Cause and effect.

Don't tell me whites are discriminated against in regards to housing, jobs, loans and profiling. Blacks/Browns are. Period.

Who are "white people"?

Ashkenazi Jews never encountered racism or oppression? Irish immigrants, Italian immigrants, Greek immigrants etc. etc. etc. were all subject to widespread discrimination. JFK being catholic was enough for millions of Americans not to vote for him. During WW2, German and Italian Americans were placed in internment camps while their sons were fighting the Nazis and Fascists in Europe. If/When a publication uses the headline "The Black Guy Problem", they are rightly ostracized and shamed out of public existence. I don't understand why stereotypical blanket statements about an entire ethnic group is ok, so long as it's not a minority. Would "The Hispanic Problem" be an ok headline in California? "Asian Men Must Be Stopped" would be ok in Hawaii?

Black people in America today are not "shot like rabbits" and I have never in my life seen a FICO score indicating a person's skin color. The reason people mention black-on-black crime is because if you're going to make the argument that black people are "shot like rabbits", then you have to at some point reconcile with the fact that the vast majority of black homicides are committed by other blacks. This isn't due to widespread modern-day oppression. It is a result, in part, of historic oppression.

Do black Americans, on average, make less than white or Asian Americans? Yes. And with income disparities come all sorts of other nasty statistics, especially related to crime and police interactions. Where do these income disparities stem from? Historic injustice, incredibly "stupid" drug laws, a breakdown of black families and the fact that a large percentage of black Americans (especially in the Midwest) live in urban areas with failing economies and lack of investment.

If you're going to shout systemic or institutional racism, then show me which system/institution is racist and I'll gladly protest against them. Is it Wells Fargo? The Justice Dept.? The Ohio Dept. of Corrections? Stanford University? Milwaukee PD?

As for browns - Indian Americans have the highest average income in America, coupled with some of the lowest incarceration rates, highest standard of living and highest education levels. Followed, inconveniently by Taiwanese and Filipino Americans. I still struggle to understand how this is possible in a country that is allegedly run on white supremacy.

No, I'm just trying to see if some of my fellow PI people can answer this for me. A country that has problems with murder, sanctioned murder in the name of curving drug addiction and drug dealing. Sooooooo at any time anyone can be accused and off with his head!

Duterte seems to be a product of corruption and inaction more than anything else. You have an important issue affecting too many people for too long go ignored or unsolved, people will eventually elect the guy whose campaign promise was to kill 100,000 people. At least unless/until someone comes up with a more popular/effective solution.

"According to a recent nationwide survey by Pulse Asia, 91 percent of Filipinos trust Duterte."

http://www.dw.com/en/why-is-duterte-so-popular-in-the-philippines/a-19540056

Until I start hearing stories of the PI putting political dissidents in prison, I have no real reason not to trust those numbers.

i don't see any censoring. where's the censoring?

I see none in this piece either. Censorship is a different topic.

It's not really hard to figure out. Diversity is a problem for some people, they just can't say it out loud.

And for the record, skin color is ALWAYS relevant. And that's the fault of the majority.

I do struggle to figure it out. Modern day leftism generally seems to be about taking the side of the victim. Victimhood is applied to groups instead of individuals, in which case you have to have a bigger victim, and you have to measure them up by group, rather than individual circumstance.

That's the only way in which a self-proclaimed feminist head of state would stand in a gender segregated religious congregation and celebrate its diversity. Islam is a bigger victim, so we can figure can ignore misogyny for a bit so to not be Islamophobic.

Skin color might be relevant when you think of people as part of a pre-determined group rather than as individuals. This is pretty normal on the far right and one the far left, though it is becoming mainstream on the left. I'm not sure if there is any good reason whatsoever why I should think of you as a black person, rather than a person. Likewise, I'm not sure there is any good reason anyone should refer to me as "white person Jayjay" instead of just "Jayjay."

Funny that black on black is always pointed out and white on white is not. Who the heck even says white on white crime ? So why black

on black ?

Because no one claims "WHITE LIVES MATTER."

If "WLM" became a serious organization, they'd be expected to address crimes in West Virginia and Idaho, but uttering "white" in a sentence is racist and social justice heresy.. so.. We've inadvertently (oops) forced society to focus on everything "black" now. Thank you identity politics and leftist race fetishism.

It goes deep, it springs from systemic racism. Only 60 years ago little Ruby was escorted to school with a mob behind her, so it goes on and on disguised in different ways as this forum clearly speaks for itself that a person's skin is still such a major part of daily discussions. Shameful for America.

Some just can't move on and discuss life in general, no they must obsess about skin color. Daily. On an immigration forum. Really ?!

I despised the Tea Party back in 2010. But I can't remember anyone on the right obsessing as much over skin color as some of the blatantly bigoted hypocrites I've met on the left. Skin color became a major issue when the following headlines became "acceptable" to the mainstream left:

The White Guy Problem

White Men Must be Stopped: The Very Future of Mankind Depends on It

I Don’t Know What To Do With Good White People

Ten Things White People Need To Stop Saying

Dear White People: Here’s a List of Things We’d Wish You’d Stop Doing

I'll rephrase in trigger terms:

"The Black Guy Problem"

"Hispanic Men Must Be Stopped: The Very Future of Mankind Depends on It"

"I Don't Know What To Do With Good Asian People"

"Ten Things Native American People Need To Stop Saying"

"Dear Brown People: Here's a List of Things We'd Wish You'd Stop Doing"

And then leftists sit there like:

"Hmm.. I wonder why 50 million working class whites won't vote for Hillary or Bernie "

Let's see, how would Trump put this. Oh yeah: They started it! :crying: :crying:

'You were born in a Taco Bell': Trump's rhetoric fuels school bullies across US

The xenophobic spirit of the presumptive Republican nominee has led to playground spats and ugly exchanges in classrooms across the country

... “Marginalized students are feeling very frightened, especially Muslims and Mexicans. Many teachers use the word terrified.” The children who did the taunting were echoing Trump’s rhetoric, she said. “Bad behavior has been normalized. They think it’s OK.”

Whole Article: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/09/california-primary-trump-rhetoric-school-bully

I'm sorry, but some liberals I've met are just as racist as these kids.

No side has a monopoly on racism. Some of the worst stuff I've seen has come from the left. I've seen some of the most outrageous racial slurs thrown at black and Hispanic conservatives from so-called "anti-racists" - Not just verbal, but outright assumptions that they're not "actually black."

I've seen some comments thrown at Hillary, very few thrown at Bernie. The ways I've seen some liberals talk about Ben Carson, Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio however is often as if it was taken straight out of a racist handbook. Still remember Michael Steele having oreo cookies thrown at him, liberals referring to Tim Scott as a "porch monkey", Ben Carson as a "race traitor" and Marco Rubio having being called things the same people would want to see banned as "hate speech."

White privilege - Being able to think outside the liberal realms without having racial slurs thrown at you from the left.

All I'm saying is.. This fetish with race from both sides is downright scary.

Shock

Create hashtag

Pray for Turkey

Nothing to with Islam

Repeat

States rights are a kind of dog whistle for conservatives. Sorry, but the reason the word United is placed in front of the word States is because it is a country and not a just a couple loosely connected colonies. Also States rights was a originally invoked as a means to defend slavery, and the Republican party for a significant part of its history, was a strong supporter of an activist Federal government. It became anti-federal government as a means to appeal to Dixiecrats who weren't too Happy with Lyndon Johnson and his civil rights act. But never mind history, just carry on with the fake narrative that Democrats are racist.

I'd pull my pocket constitution out Khizr Kahn style and ask you if you've ever read the 10th amendment - It lays out federalism pretty well, stating that the federal government holds only those powers delegated to it by the constitution. All other powers are to remain with the states or the people.

Abolishing slavery and the civil rights act were both clearly within the bounds of any sane federal official. Barry Goldwater disagreed and lost the 1964 elections in one of the biggest landslides in history. And then we can argue back and forth what else is within bounds of the powers delegated to the federal government. I tend to take the position that the most sensible approach lies somewhere in between Antonin Scalia and the Progressive movement.

I didn't say "Democrats are racist." But no significant political faction on the right has any policy to bring back segregation. When racial segregation is discussed in the 21st century, it is under the guise of "progressive" safe spaces where people can go to "feel safe" from people of other skin colors.

The two major parties flip-flopped platforms over time since the Civic War. In a very simplistic view, the Republicans were the liberals back then and the Democrats were the conservatives. The actual switch in ideologies took a long time. Several sources explain this. If you have the time, here is one source that is typical in explanation:

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-Democrats-used-to-be-the-conservative-party-and-Republicans-used-to-be-the-progressive-party

Yes and no. Ideologically, you could easily argue that the libertarian wing of the Republican party is the most liberal political faction of any size in the U.S. today. The GOP was taken over by the religious right at some point in the past decades, and went from small government to obsessing over what people smoke, say and do in the privacy of their bedrooms. It's hard to argue for small government, while at the same time promoting conversion therapy and prison for pot smokers.

But the traditional mantra of the GOP was never "ban this, ban that" (except for drugs). It has been states rights vs. federal power. For example, Barry Goldwater (as much as I disagree) never campaigned for segregation, but rather against federal involvement. Obviously a miserable failure, drowning the Republican brand in murky waters. Likewise, the gay marriage debate, bathroom debate, abortion debate etc. has never been outright "ban it", but rather "leave it up to the states." The state vs. feds dichotomy is a very common misconception among many liberals today, where the lack of federal regulation is seen as lack of caring.

I'd argue that the Democratic Party has the same fetish for racial issues today as it did in the 60s, but in a different light. That's what identity politics is. The far left wing of the party is no more anti-segregationist than the southern Democrats of the 60s were. Today it's just been renamed "safe spaces." You don't have to be a Trump supporter to see that there is nothing progressive about various progressive movements. http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/25748/

"At UCLA, the Afrikan Student Union is insisting upon an “Afrikan Diaspora floor” as well as an “Afro-house.”

“Black students lack spaces where they feel safe and comfortable,” the UCLA demands state. “The Afrikan Diaspora floor is a way for us to connect more to other Black students, the Afrikan Student Union, and the Afro-Am department. The floor should be branded as a safe space for all Black students.”

You say you heard illegal as implied. But he did say Mexico. No where in his speech did he say anything about illegals. He said people from Mexico. I heard it just like you did.

Now, let's be clear. You're a college educated man running for the highest office in the land. If you lack the ability to phrase your comments without offending an entire country, why are you running for president?

I heard Mexico in a speech which he referred to as a speech about illegal immigration, and problems at the border, yes. I have a hard time applying that to all Mexicans, or Americans of Mexican ancestry. As an immigrant, nothing Trump has ever said has offended me by any stretch of the imagination. I'm more offended when I'm lumped in under the broader imaginary monolithic identity umbrella of "immigrants." But Trump's complete inability to phrase his opinions any better than my 81 year-old Norwegian uncle after two shots of aquavit over a poker table is indeed worrisome to me.

That doesn't make some of the issues he brings up any less relevant however. I've said multiple times on this forum that I support many of BLM's underlying messages, I just think their larger, unorganized and often combative approach is extremely counter-productive. I'll say the exact same for Trump. I support many (far from all) of the campaign's underlying messages. I think the approach is incredibly counter-productive.

So as for your last point, beats me, I've never supported Trump for president.

The only reason I defend Donald Trump is because he has become, in my view, the ultimate boogeyman for much of the left. I don't agree with the way he words himself, and I don't agree with many of his policies - Frankly, I don't actually know where he stands on a lot of issues.

But I do believe he has faced a lot of undue criticism where people will (rightly) criticize wording, pull it (somewhat) out of context, and completely and utterly fail to debate the issue in question. I heard the word illegal as implied because he mentioned the border and border guards several times.

So maybe you heard the word illegal as implied..but in the speech on question
"

"When do we beat Mexico at the border?

[...]

When Mexico sends its people, theyre not sending their best. Theyre not sending you. Theyre not sending you. Theyre sending people that have lots of problems, and theyre bringing those problems with us. Theyre bringing drugs. Theyre bringing crime. Theyre rapists. And some, I assume, are good people."

But I speak to border guards and they tell us what we're getting. And it only makes common sense. It only makes common sense. They're sending us not the right people."

I heard "illegal" as implied. You may have heard "Mexican."

I think the debate around judge Curiel is the ultimate example of this.

To go after an American judge simply because of his parents' heritage is beyond absurd and, to quote Paul Ryan "the textbook definition of racism."

But to pretend that a La Raza-affiliated judge has no conflict of interest on the matter is a very serious threat to our entire judicial system. The failure to even debate or talk about the issues he has brought up is the reason Donald Trump became so popular in the first place. Donald Trump is not a product of white supremacy and evil people any more than BLM is a fascist organization of evil people. Trump is a product of a lack of debate/action on difficult, but serious topics where people have been and continue to be silenced - Which is exactly how Black Lives Matter grew so quickly when it first took off.

So how do you deal with the Trump train? You tackle difficult questions in an honest way. You listen and try to understand. But you don't silence, ridicule and name call the 42% of voters who say they support him in the polls. I would apply the same medicine to BLM. You listen and try to understand without resorting to name calling.

And especially, you don't ban people from saying what they want under the guise of hate speech or offense.

Nope. Illegal Immigration is a problem. One that could be greatly solved if folks weren't so eager to hire them and exploit them for cheap labor. A few Trump Towers were build on this premise.

But point blank, when you make a statement calling the folks in Mexico rapists and murderers, it's racist. No matter how you spin it.

Agreed 100%.

Mandatory e-verify, far more aggressive prosecuting of those who hire illegal immigrants and a visa exit tracking system would probably solve half the problem.

Too bad one side right now is treating it like the apocalypse, while the other side hasn't said a word about it in over a year (I actually read the entire Hillary Clinton campaign website. Not a word on enforcement or prevention)

As far as Trump's statement - He didn't say "Mexicans are...", he said the ones who come illegally. But I too would say "some" and not "most."