This is a bit unclear. Are you claiming they’re like the KKK example? Or that they are skeptical?
Either way, I do want to make one thing clear to anyone else: biased contrarianism is not skepticism. I don’t know much about Drudge, but Breitbart thinks that anything that is contrary to their deliberately slanted news is “fake news.” A skeptic would just be suspicious and verify.
Heck, one of the ways to verify is to check other news organizations, to see what they are reporting. And that’s how easily Breitbart fails. The only backup they get are similarly biased sources.
Breitbart is, to mix the metaphors a bit “alternative news.” (“Alternative facts” + “fake news”).
This discussion reminds me of why I call myself a radical centrist.
I oppose the absolutist pipe dreams of both the left and the right. If the right-wing racists had their way, America would be a horrible hate-filled society. But the “utopia” of the left-wing SJW’s would also be a failure. Human society needs to seek Aristotle’s Golden Middle Way.
But an individual voter can do little to steer the state on an exact course. If we’re heading for a cliff we must yank on the steering wheel as hard as we can. Never mind that if we actually change the vehicular course by 180° we’ll be heading for a river — that’s irrelevant now; we’re just trying to counteract the idiots pulling us toward the cliff. (My mother called this “pushing on the pendulum.”)
I don’t follow European politics — if I did I might support a right-of-center party. But American politics are increasingly dominated by the right-wing. It is not the time to quibble about the details of a progressive utopia when the country is plummeting off the right-wing cliff of hatred and greed.
Breitbart isn’t “alternative news”, Breitbart is ignorant garbage proclaiming to be news. They don’t care about news, they care about pushing their agenda and getting readers.
I never thought I’d see you, of all people, BigT, actually defend Breitbart.
You could, but it wouldn’t make any sense, unlike the claims that the messages you’re presenting are those spread via white nationalist propaganda. It may just be coincidence but it’s not a meritless assertion.
No it isn’t. “It’s OK to be white” surfaced because a bunch of racist 4chan trolls thought it would be fun to stir up shit. You might recall this because it was discussed at the beginning of this thread.
You’re such a trouper, continuing on in the face of people pointing out that the ideas you’re repeating are straight out of right-wing propaganda.
I meant it in the broader sense of any government programs designed to combat historic systemic racism, not just specifically for actual AA programs, so yes, let’s go with it.
Except that it isn’t leaving the working class white community “severely disadvantaged in our society”. It really isn’t. The working class are being screwed over by current economic policies, and the aforementioned white nationalists are telling the working classes that it’s all the fault of minorities and immigrants who are somehow getting all the good jobs and college places. I even linked to a cartoon that illustrates this above, for simplicity’s sake.
The future effect of these practices is that as the level of qualified women and minorities in previously underrepresented areas begins to reach proportional levels to their levels in overall society, the need for these programs will fall away. In the meantime, white men as a class will still have a societal advantage in finding employment and getting promoted.
Your bizarre hyperbole aside, I am aware of what you refer. And even if we disregard the fact that the types of slavery you’re attempt to equate aren’t equitable, you are again taking an artefact of the class system and placing the impact (there’s that word again) on minorities who were and are even further down the social food chain. Why do you suppose you keep doing that?
It’s my skin colour too. And I’m male and straight, and an Anglophone of Anglo-Saxon descent. And I live in London.
The issue isn’t your skin colour. And it’s not your fiancée’s skin colour. It’s your attitude.
Well that’s painting with a rather broad brush - at the level we’re discussing you could say that about EVERY government policy or action. In fact we could say that about your ideas, in which the end (helping “working class whites”) justifies the means (getting rid of programs designed to mitigate systemic biases).
The aim of “racial discrimination laws” is to deter racial discrimination. Have you suddenly decided that quotas are a good thing?
Speak for yourself.
As for the rest of your post, the quotes you’re responding to are from steronz, not me. Do please try to keep this clearer in future multi-quotes.
Do you usually wade into ongoing online debates with “this is something I read in a copy of the Daily Express that I found on a bus” as your opening cite?
Or have you singled out the Dope as the first trial for this tactic?
Yes they stirred it, but they didn’t put the food in the pan in the first place.
So when minority groups of working class are disadvantaged it’s all because of historical racism, but when white people of working class are disadvantaged, and when there are current laws as well as public and private institutions specifically causing disadvantages to them in clear broad daylight, it’s economic policies? Wow…
Fix it for areas that females are under-represented in, don’t bother with the male areas, then get rid of it - gotcha. (Same for minorities).
There are an unbelievable amount of reports out there clearly stating that women are far over-represented in universities and has now recently reached record levels of gender disparity. Do you think we should continue to ignore this until such point that the income gap is non existent? Because by then, all of these older privileged white men will be retiring, and we will have the
The gender gap doubled in 8 years between 2007 and 2015, and has only gotten worse. Yet how often do you hear politicans comment on it? It doesn’t fit the straight white male narrative I suppose.
The interview is not surprising.
If we continue this until the income gap is closed (which by the way is a load of bollocks anyway, it’s already been debunked numerous times over decades. When you filter the impactful criteria regarding taking time off to have children, and comparing part/full time work separately, women are already ahead, and were ahead even 40+ years ago in the states!).
This idea wouldn’t even help anyway, because the older women who (apparently, like I said) earn less, really couldn’t care less that younger women are earning more, and the young men definitely wouldn’t be sitting there saying “It’s alright that we earn less than the women at our age group, because the old fogeys make more”.
So it won’t even represent equality in the gender-pay gap across age groups even remotely.
It would just continue this humongous gender-gap within education, and a growing gender-pay gap that couldn’t possibly be fairly evened out for at least another 2 generations.
Really? I could never have guessed.
Haha true, I should have worded that better. - We all need to set out red lines or it gets out of hand. That’s what I was asking with the 50/50, 80/20 question. Where is your red line on when these programs have gone too far?
The purpose of legalising racial discrimination is to deter racial discrimination. Gotcha.
