The Impeachment of Trump?

[rangerx]

At rallies, Trump incited violence against protesters. Comments like "I'd like to punch them" or "I'll pay your legal costs". He loudly defended a supporter who sucker punched a protester. Conservatives had no issue with that.

In a press conference, Trump said he could "shoot someone" and would not lose votes. Conservatives were okay with that.

Trump cajoled 2nd Amendment advocates to murder Hillary Clinton. Conservatives excused it, accepting the bogus claim it was "a joke".

Trump tweeted a video of a caricature of himself violently assaulting a CNN reporter. Conservatives brushed it off as deserved for producing fake news.

In a speech to law enforcement, Trump decreed it was acceptable to use excessive force. Conservatives were silent.

Fox News contributor Tucker Carlson posts a video on his news site, How to "Mow down Protestors". Conservatives let it stand.

A hate openly group organizes a violent rally carrying torches, shouting antisemitic, anti-black rhetoric and violently contravenes (they attested to keep the peace as a condition) their permit by charging through protesters in an uncivil manner, then a supporter violently charges a crowd of protesters with a speeding automobile, killing one person, injuring several more and destroyed an automobile with two women waiting to make a turn. Conservatives are outraged, that protesters carried sticks to protect themselves from gun toting, shield carrying, epithet hurling neo-nazis coming at them.

Trump morally equates protesters to the hate groups. Now, as demonstrated by a few political bigots who showed up here like Charlton Heston at a Columbine rally broadly declare all liberals are violent.

The height of hypocrisy, despair and deflection, if not insane.

 

Edited August 18, 2017 by rangerx

[koti]

I just watched the Vice documentary from a couple days back posted by iNow a few posts back and I'm going to drop my two cents on this.
Let me quickly explain where I'm coming from, I'm not American but I spent a few years living in the US and I blended in as a teenager in Ann Arbor Michigan (Detroit area) I traveled the whole country over a period of 5 months, just a handful of states that I haven't been into - I know the American customs, mentality and I have the general feel for how things are in the US - this was in the early 90's. On the other hand I am completely detached from what's going on in the US, at least in a sense that it doesn't concern me directly which should make me objective. I could be considered a liberal or even a radical leftist by Poland's standards - I'm really struggling with the fact that a right wing government is running my country into alienating us from the EU, I despise the homophobic, xenophobic and strong nationalist and racist agendas being pushed by my government which ends up in the division of people - just like whats happening in the US right now.
I was shell shocked when Trump was elected in the US and still am - I think the current POTUS is a disgrace and a global danger. Coming from Poland, my family had it's share of suffering from the Nazi's during WWII, many people from my family and their friends were murdered by Nazis in Auschwitz and other places, the stories are straight up Hell Raiser horrible. My Grandfather spent 5 years in a German working camp and survived (it's beyond me how he survived, the stories he told were unthinkable). Naturally, I have a strong fear of the Nazi ideology coming back and there's probably not many people in this thread as much opposed to Nazi and racist ideologies as I am...history tends to repeat itself and it's definitely a threat especially in the current global geo-political situation.
Having said the above, the majority of the right wing, so called Nazi's (whether it's Poland or the US or other countries) are half brained morons who can't spell "ideology" or "racist" not to mention to truly being capable of reviving or following an ideology. The other half are people like the guy from the Vice documentary - a "prep guy" having "fun" running around strapped with his guns, knives and rifle - he will run away screaming like a 7 year old girl at first sign of any serious confrontation. The thing is that these people are not really a threat, they are scary at first glance because they cary swastika signs, shout nazi and racist rhetoric, etc. It is scary as we automatically jump into a "remember the Nazi Germany" mode but it's not really a big deal I think...all this is, is a bunch of half brained racists running around trying to make themselves look like they have bigger dicks than they really have when in fact they subscribe to schizophrenic agendas because they're bored not knowing what to do with themselves due to too much free time or too high standard of living in exchange for too little work or other trivial reasons. Don't get me wrong, I think the reaction to the Charlotte hit & run and death should be as firm as possible especially that the current POTUS being POTUS is actually capable of running this into a situation where real, next level threats might emerge which might not be so trivial anymore if no resistance will be shown right now.
On a different note...why is the "White Male Privilege" thing being involved with the "Neo-Nazi" or "White Nationalist" issue of Charlotte? or any other racist issue for that matter? This really makes me think that people (I think it was Delta1212 who mentioned this) should review their rhetoric. It almost looks like being a white male these days is some kind of a felony punished by repercussions.
Posting it here, on this forum would be a form of masochism I guess but I'm considering again to start a thread on the "The Red Pill" documentary.
 

[Delta1212]

6 minutes ago, koti said:

I just watched the Vice documentary from a couple days back posted by iNow a few posts back and I'm going to drop my two cents on this.
Let me quickly explain where I'm coming from, I'm not American but I spent a few years living in the US and I blended in as a teenager in Ann Arbor Michigan (Detroit area) I traveled the whole country over a period of 5 months, just a handful of states that I haven't been into - I know the American customs, mentality and I have the general feel for how things are in the US - this was in the early 90's. On the other hand I am completely detached from what's going on in the US, at least in a sense that it doesn't concern me directly which should make me objective. I could be considered a liberal or even a radical leftist by Poland's standards - I'm really struggling with the fact that a right wing government is running my country into alienating us from the EU, I despise the homophobic, xenophobic and strong nationalist and racist agendas being pushed by my government which ends up in the division of people - just like whats happening in the US right now.
I was shell shocked when Trump was elected in the US and still am - I think the current POTUS is a disgrace and a global danger. Coming from Poland, my family had it's share of suffering from the Nazi's during WWII, many people from my family and their friends were murdered by Nazis in Auschwitz and other places, the stories are straight up Hell Raiser horrible. My Grandfather spent 5 years in a German working camp and survived (it's beyond me how he survived, the stories he told were unthinkable). Naturally, I have a strong fear of the Nazi ideology coming back and there's probably not many people in this thread as much opposed to Nazi and racist ideologies as I am...history tends to repeat itself and it's definitely a threat especially in the current global geo-political situation.
Having said the above, the majority of the right wing, so called Nazi's (whether it's Poland or the US or other countries) are half brained morons who can't spell "ideology" or "racist" not to mention to truly being capable of reviving or following an ideology. The other half are people like the guy from the Vice documentary - a "prep guy" having "fun" running around strapped with his guns, knives and rifle - he will run away screaming like a 7 year old girl at first sign of any serious confrontation. The thing is that these people are not really a threat, they are scary at first glance because they cary swastika signs, shout nazi and racist rhetoric, etc. It is scary as we automatically jump into a "remember the Nazi Germany" mode but it's not really a big deal I think...all this is, is a bunch of half brained racists running around trying to make themselves look like they have bigger dicks than they really have when in fact they subscribe to schizophrenic agendas because they're bored not knowing what to do with themselves due to too much free time or too high standard of living in exchange for too little work or other trivial reasons. Don't get me wrong, I think the reaction to the Charlotte hit & run and death should be as firm as possible especially that the current POTUS being POTUS is actually capable of running this into a situation where real, next level threats might emerge which might not be so trivial anymore if no resistance will be shown right now.
On a different note...why is the "White Male Privilege" thing being involved with the "Neo-Nazi" or "White Nationalist" issue of Charlotte? or any other racist issue for that matter? This really makes me think that people (I think it was Delta1212 who mentioned this) should review their rhetoric. It almost looks like being a white male these days is some kind of a felony punished by repercussions.
Posting it here, on this forum would be a form of masochism I guess but I'm considering again to start a thread on the "The Red Pill" documentary.
 

It was not.

[koti]

4 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

It was not.

I'm sorry Delta, it was Arete. It's not such a big deal though, I was just asking because I'm genuinely curious why the "White male" vs "Charlotte thing" is being knitted together. 

[iNow]

White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism. It's not that all white males are evil, only that the people expressing evil ideologies right now are doing so on the basis of white supremacy. 

[rangerx]

27 minutes ago, koti said:

On a different note...why is the "White Male Privilege" thing being involved with the "Neo-Nazi" or "White Nationalist" issue of Charlotte? or any other racist issue for that matter? This really makes me think that people (I think it was Delta1212 who mentioned this) should review their rhetoric. It almost looks like being a white male these days is some kind of a felony punished by repercussions.
 

White privilege is a standard applied to the "get off your lazy welfare mooching asses, get a job and clean up your neighborhoods"  attitude. Without directly implying races or minorities as to appear racist. Left or right ideologies are not exempt from this. It's deeply ingrained into both. Conservatives don't deny it, even openly advocate it throwing it out like a blanket that everyone must comply, irrespective of social economic status. Liberals don't admit it readily, but do a lot uphold it in a more passive, calculating sort of way. Facilitating exceptions, compromises or additional support.  That drives conservatives around the bend.

 

There's a miriad of other things, like "driving while black" or other disadvantaged or disenfranchised social issues that are usually painted by the wide brush of white privilege. It needs to be addressed if change is to come, but a great part of the privileged fight inclusion or deny it's existence altogether

[koti]

19 minutes ago, rangerx said:

White privilege is a standard applied to the "get off your lazy welfare mooching asses, get a job and clean up your neighborhoods"  attitude.

 

Your description of "White Privilege" above seems to apply to a "get up from bed at 2pm, 4 times a week Big Lebowski watching, 7g a day joint smoking hippy" with the exception of what you wrote about "cleaning up the neighborhoods" which implies I don't even know what and completely confuses me.

But this is the Trump Impeachment thread so just leave me confused and dont answer.

Edited August 18, 2017 by koti

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, koti said:

I'm sorry Delta, it was Arete. It's not such a big deal though, I was just asking because I'm genuinely curious why the "White male" vs "Charlotte thing" is being knitted together. 

I can't see anything in the post indicating white privilege or white privilege being mentioned. Only that it was white males running around, which, afaik is the main demogrpahics of white supremacists (there are also white women, though both numerically, as well as structurally they traditionally played a lesser role and often where considered to be responsible for breeding).

But based on the usage of the term I feel that there is still a misconception of the academic concept of white privilege. of which white male is presumably a subcategory. It does not help that the term has also undergo historic shifts and has regional variations. I feel that it is a bit in vain as typically everyone just interjects their view on it by since apparently I am a sucker for punishment but here is a short outline for the typical academic use in the USA

- around and before the Civil Rights Act (1964) the term denotes the structural and especially governmental privileges provided specifically to whites. The most notorious example were the limitation of voter rights of non-whites but also other forms of active discrimination.

- in more modern usage this has shifted (often also denoted as racial privilege to be used as an universal term) in order to describe prevalent, often subconscious factors that result in some level of relative burden to groups that are not considered the norm. This results in systemic differences in treatment and perceptionHowever, it does not mean that any group has access to more rights per se. It can often be trivial, like entering a group of people and not immediate appear as an outsider (like e.g. walking in a bar and realize that one is the only white person there). But it can have significant impact on everyday life  (e.g. certain groups getting higher punishments and higher conviction rates despite similar offense rates, or more likely to get bail, or getting hired, underdeveloping certain areas etc.). The advantage is typically not visible to the majority group, and sometimes makes it different to appreciate that effect. As a whole, it has developed as an outgrowth of racial hegemony in which assumptions and actions are borne out of a limited set of experiences.

As an anecdote I chatted with a black student a few years back who told me that she had issues at posh school (she had a huge Afro, which was considered ethnic and disruptive (like having a punk hairdo). It was just not clear to them that if she simply washes and dries her hair it becomes and afro and that it takes huge efforts to straighten them to make them more European. Another common theme is that students from immigrant background feel that they have to work harder just to perceived as equals and so on.

- due to historic reason, white privilege and white male privilege is sometimes conflated as historically, men were the political actors (after all, women in the USA got their voting rights after African Americans, though the latter were severely limited in their ability to do so). There is a growing tendency to take apart gender roles which some desire to have some fine-grained analyses. Much of the racial studies is still relatively gender blind, though.

Edited August 18, 2017 by CharonY

[koti]

1 hour ago, iNow said:

White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism. It's not that all white males are evil, only that the people expressing evil ideologies right now are doing so on the basis of white supremacy. 

I'm sorry iNow but could you explain where your underlined rhetoric is coming from? I mean who would you expect to be at the heart of the KKK - black females? Plus your statement that "White males are at the heart of current extremism" is false from the global, political and religious point of view of whats going on with extremism right now globally. When looking at it just from the point of view of the US this statement seems at least weird as well.

20 minutes ago, CharonY said:

...But it can have significant impact on everyday life  (e.g. certain groups getting higher punishments and higher conviction rates despite similar offense rates, or more likely to get bail, or getting hired, etc.). The advantage is typically not visible to the majority group, and sometimes makes it different to appreciate that effect. 

 

I'm curious, which groups are more likely to get hired in the US? I'll tell you this...While looking for a job recently, I applied to probably a couple of thousand job offers in various countries including a 100 or maybe 150 jobs in the US in the last few months. Every single job offer that I applied for in the US was asking for my ethnicity, religion and gender as opposed to other countries where I never got asked about my ethnicity, gender or religion. Kinda makes you think doesn't it. 

Edited August 18, 2017 by koti

[CharonY]

21 minutes ago, koti said:

I'm sorry iNow but could you explain where your underlined rhetoric is coming from? I mean who would you expect to be at the heart of the KKK - black females? Plus your statement that "White males are at the heart of current extremism" is false from the global, political and religious point of view of whats going on with extremism right now globally. When looking at it just from the point of view of the US this statement seems at least weird as well.

I'm curious, which groups are more likely to get hired in the US? I'll tell you this...While looking for a job recently, I applied to probably a couple of thousand job offers in various countries including a 100 or maybe 150 jobs in the US in the last few months. Every single job offer that I applied for in the US was asking for my ethnicity, religion and gender as opposed to other countries where I never got asked about my ethnicity, gender or religion. Kinda makes you think doesn't it. 

If you think that people get preferentially hired by ethnicity... that is not what happens. Neither statistic nor actual hiring practice support that. Rather, it is a bit of legislative thing here that is required to cover your arse. Essentially companies are prohibited to discriminate based on religion, race or gender and collecting information from applicants helps them to document that they are not doing that. For example if they can show that they only had a 10% application rate from women to begin with, they have some ammo to counter a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, for example. 

There are quite a few studies around where people sent out identical CVs and looked for calls for interviews or even simple assessment of fit. Rather consistently names associated with black people scored the lowest whereas white names got more callbacks. Gender difference is strongly associated with the type of jobs. Administrative jobs has higher callback for female names, management jobs has a bias for male names.

To provide some numbers I have here randomly a paper (I really need to clean my desks at some point) from Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004 Am. Econom Rev) in which they sent out 5000 resumes using white and African American names, respectively. Throughout all job groups, the callback was consistently (on average 50%) lower for African American sounding names than for white names, using identical resumes. There are quite a few of those out there, but in all of them minorities were consistently evaluated lower.

That is not to say that similar discrimination does not exist within racial groups. White names associated with lower social classes (more common in Europe) also score lower, for example.

 

For your specific situation, if you are not an US citizen or have a greencard your options are, frankly, limited. Unless you are in a highly specialized profession with few experts, or having strong connections it will be very difficult to even make them look at your CV. 

[iNow]

Koti - I wonder if perhaps you're stripping context from my comments? I thought it obvious that whites are the key demographic expressing white supremacy.

As for related conversations, white privilege is also being able to walk into a town carrying torches and rifles and not get beaten up or killed by police... having online sentiment support your free speech... all the while black men get killed for selling loose cigarettes, or get attacked for taking a knee during the national anthem at football games. 

[koti]

46 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If you think that people get preferentially hired by ethnicity... that is not what happens. Neither statistic nor actual hiring practice support that. Rather, it is a bit of legislative thing here that is required to cover your arse. Essentially companies are prohibited to discriminate based on religion, race or gender and collecting information from applicants helps them to document that they are not doing that. For example if they can show that they only had a 10% application rate from women to begin with, they have some ammo to counter a lawsuit alleging gender discrimination, for example. 

There are quite a few studies around where people sent out identical CVs and looked for calls for interviews or even simple assessment of fit. Rather consistently names associated with black people scored the lowest whereas white names got more callbacks. Gender difference is strongly associated with the type of jobs. Administrative jobs has higher callback for female names, management jobs has a bias for male names.

To provide some numbers I have here randomly a paper (I really need to clean my desks at some point) from Bertrand and Mullainathan (2004 Am. Econom Rev) in which they sent out 5000 resumes using white and African American names, respectively. Throughout all job groups, the callback was consistently (on average 50%) lower for African American sounding names than for white names, using identical resumes. There are quite a few of those out there, but in all of them minorities were consistently evaluated lower.

That is not to say that similar discrimination does not exist within racial groups. White names associated with lower social classes (more common in Europe) also score lower, for example.

 

For your specific situation, if you are not an US citizen or have a greencard your options are, frankly, limited. Unless you are in a highly specialized profession with few experts, or having strong connections it will be very difficult to even make them look at your CV. 

Charon, what I underlined in your post is the crux of the matter. Legislation, covering asses, potential lawsuits - only in America (and South Africa for that matter) Surely one cannot think that European companies are racist or fail to incorporate equality into their hiring processes because they do not subscribe to the above. I get it though, its just weird and numbingly alien to me sometimes. As for my specific situation, I very much realize what you said. it was just a few desperate days that I spent on it online.

15 minutes ago, iNow said:

Koti - I wonder if perhaps you're stripping context from my comments? I thought it obvious that whites are the key demographic expressing white supremacy.

As for related conversations, white privilege is also being able to walk into a town carrying torches and rifles and not get beaten up or killed by police... having online sentiment support your free speech... all the while black men get killed for selling loose cigarettes, or get attacked for taking a knee during the national anthem at football games. 

Why of course the whites are the key demographic expressing white supremacy, I mean what other demographic would you imagine would be expressing white supremacy?
I also like how you skipped the "male" in the "white male" which of course was the crux of the matter
Not the thread for this tho... lets remember this is about Trump being impeached and my fingers are crossed.

Edited August 18, 2017 by koti

[Delta1212]

13 minutes ago, koti said:

Charon, what I underlined in your post is the crux of the matter. Legislation, covering asses, potential lawsuits - only in America (and South Africa for that matter) Surely one cannot think that European companies are racist or fail to incorporate equality into their hiring processes because they do not subscribe to the above. I get it though, its just weird and numbingly alien to me sometimes. As for my specific situation, I very much realize what you said. it was just a few desperate days that I spent online on it. 

No, but at the same time, I don't know to what degree the same problems exist in European hiring practices that CharonY laid out as being present in American hiring practices as I'm not as familiar with the history or present of race relations in Europe as I am, obviously, with America. I also don't know what alternative solutions, if any, to the same problem have been implemented elsewhere in the world instead of the ones that we have here.

The interplay between native populations, colonialism, slavery and waves of immigration has put a very specific mark on the way that race and ethnic background works in the Western Hemisphere so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that the way the topic is approached is often a bit different from what you would typically find in, for instance, much of Europe.

[MigL]

Well, since I didn't get a suspension...

"White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism. It's not that all white males are evil, only that the people expressing evil ideologies right now are doing so on the basis of white supremacy."   Posted by iNow ( credit where credit is due )

Now, in light of recent similar happenings in Barcelona, replace white males with Muslims and white supremacy with Islam...

'Muslims are at the heart of both ISIS and current global terror. It's not that all Muslims are evil, only that the people expressing evil and terror right now are doing so on the basis of Islam"

If one can paint all white males with the white supremacist brush, how can you possibly weasel out of painting Islam with the terrorist brush ?

The answer is simple, you should not do either !

Also by iNow ( I'm not picking on you, just ignoring two of your buddies )...

"These people respect strength. We must push back against them with overwhelming force, overwhelming numbers, and overwhelming passion. Silence is no longer an option."

If we again apply this to the situation in the Muslim world, where any slight affront to their religion results in massive demonstrations, firing of AK-47s, burning the American flag or effigies of Presiidents, and chants of 'death to America/Satan', should we then push back with overwhelming force/numbers/passion ? Better yet, if these kind of people respect strength, let's show them what our nukes are capable of.

Do you really think that would be a wise course of action, or are a lot of you deliberately biased against American terrorism, but willing to turn a blind eye to Middle eastern terrorism ?
Seems to me, if you want to be consistent, you should be asking the same questions about both. What is causing their disenfranchisement, that compels these atrocious acts.
That's the only real way forward.
But what do I know, I'm a racist for bringing this stuff up.

 

[CharonY]

25 minutes ago, koti said:

Charon, what I underlined in your post is the crux of the matter. Legislation, covering asses, potential lawsuits - only in America (and South Africa for that matter) Surely one cannot think that European companies are racist or fail to incorporate equality into their hiring processes because they do not subscribe to the above.

 

It is a litigation issue. However, the legislation is in place partially because it has been shown that these types of often (but not always) subconscious racism is persistent. Obviously it is difficult to directly compare data between countries, but similar studies in Europe have resulted in pretty much the same results along ethnic lines. The fact that one is getting evaluated worse solely due to a name (or in some cases, pictures, again, an European thing) shows that there is consistent bias. Note that you use the term racist in a derogatory fashion, implying that they have active discriminatory practices, whereas I am saying that internal bias, potentially at least partially driven by ethnic hegemony can lead to certain groups being consistently evaluated worse despite the same qualification.

Interestingly a study in the UK showed that very large corporation as well as public sectors tend to have lower discrimination rates.

[koti]

11 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

No, but at the same time, I don't know to what degree the same problems exist in European hiring practices that CharonY laid out as being present in American hiring practices as I'm not as familiar with the history or present of race relations in Europe as I am, obviously, with America. I also don't know what alternative solutions, if any, to the same problem have been implemented elsewhere in the world instead of the ones that we have here.

The interplay between native populations, colonialism, slavery and waves of immigration has put a very specific mark on the way that race and ethnic background works in the Western Hemisphere so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that the way the topic is approached is often a bit different from what you would typically find in, for instance, much of Europe.

Yep, you're right.

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, MigL said:

"White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism. It's not that all white males are evil, only that the people expressing evil ideologies right now are doing so on the basis of white supremacy."   Posted by iNow ( credit where credit is due )

Now, in light of recent similar happenings in Barcelona, replace white males with Muslims and white supremacy with Islam...

'Muslims are at the heart of both ISIS and current global terror. It's not that all Muslims are evil, only that the people expressing evil and terror right now are doing so on the basis of Islam"

 

I do not see an egregious issue with that statement in itself. I would probably qualify it with Islamic terror groups rather than global terror, as there are plenty of groups around that happen not to be Muslims. KKK and Nazis and other supremacy group are obviously white (I am not sure about the gender statistic), and ISIS terrorist do at least at some point call themselves Muslims. I note that because of the curious new terrorists that appear to not be devout for the most part (with reports of being heavy drinkers, for example) and seem to undergo a flash conversion to radical Islam...

..I am not sure, what was the point again?

18 minutes ago, Delta1212 said:

No, but at the same time, I don't know to what degree the same problems exist in European hiring practices that CharonY laid out as being present in American hiring practices as I'm not as familiar with the history or present of race relations in Europe as I am, obviously, with America. I also don't know what alternative solutions, if any, to the same problem have been implemented elsewhere in the world instead of the ones that we have here.

The interplay between native populations, colonialism, slavery and waves of immigration has put a very specific mark on the way that race and ethnic background works in the Western Hemisphere so it shouldn't come as too much of a surprise that the way the topic is approached is often a bit different from what you would typically find in, for instance, much of Europe.

Actually no, in Europe (at least in Germany with personal experience, and second hand stories from other countries) the bias is still there but has a different background and is expressed differently. As I have noted above, rates are the same. However, in contrast to North America Europe, for the most part, does not consider itself an immigrant country and treats visible minorities less like citizen but more like partial guests. Due to differences in law you do, on occasion hear what hiring people really think. Among the things I have heard were stuff like "nah, she is too young, if we hire her and she gets pregnant it will be a problem for us" or, "I am not sure that people coming in want to see a black dude first thing". So it is pretty much a problem amplified with the fact that nationality in many parts of Europe are still coupled to ethnicity (for historic reasons).

 However, up recently, visible minorities were very rare. During my childhood schools were almost 100% white. But although demographics have changed, the thinking follows only slowly. Only recently Germany acknowledged that Germany is in fact an immigration country (and before that the most worry was about East European immigrants after the fall of the Iron Curtain). The sudden realization in Europe that one cannot no longer ignore the foreign-looking part of the citizenry has sent political shockwaves through the population with calls to close borders (which is silly as most by now are the second or third generation citizens already....).

Anyway, short story is that many European countries pride themselves of having no racial issues and being no basis either by a) ignoring the problem or b) frankly not having many non-whites to begin with. The good thing I found in the USA or Canada, for that matter, is that at least there are open discussions about issues and the fact that they are more accepting of people who look differently but declare themselves to be citizens. 

[rangerx]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

If you think that people get preferentially hired by ethnicity... that is not what happens. Neither statistic nor actual hiring practice support that. Rather, it is a bit of legislative thing here that is required to cover your arse. Essentially companies are prohibited to discriminate based on religion, race or gender and collecting information from applicants helps them to document that they are not doing that.

You make an excellent point. In recent times it's true, but it always wasn't like that. When I finished school, I became a telegraph operator on the Canadian Pacific Railway (yeah, I'm that old.). At the time, the railroad ran on local control and resources. Crews, shops, clerks etc. were managed by distinct racial groups. For example, blacks were porters, first nations were track maintenance crews, Italians were rolling stock inspection and repair, The French were chefs, cooks and architectural designers, Jews were sleeping car conductors. The list goes on an on. There were no nepotism laws in those days and many of the local managers or foremen could hire locally and often did. So it stands to reason, race often played into it. Technically it was unfair to any race, including some classes of whites, because white privilege excludes some whites too. White trash, if you will, for lack of a better description (as opposed to epithet).

The system worked because it utilized the useful, advantageous attributes of certain cultures. First nations people for example are highly adept at traversing, navigating and inhabiting traditional lands, so it stands to reason they'd be ready and knowledgeable to get those jobs. The problem rises from classes. Blacks get a dollar an hour for toting bags and I get three dollars for issuing train orders because my white privilege. It's not that the porter couldn't be a telegrapher either. It's because I wouldn't teach him. I taught my white friends. That pretty much makes me a racist, even though I had a terrific time in the bar car with my friend from Barbados, or the sleeping car conductor I bribed with a jar of Mom's dill pickles, or the exquisite meals from the french bull cooks in the middle of nowhere. The difference being between liberal and conservative whites being, I'm all for trying to change this, not pretend it doesn't exist. Something had to change.

Now with all the cut backs, down sizing, centralization and employment standards, everyone must apply for a job based on their performance merits only. This undermines white privilege, as a race from monopolizing the highest classes and some whites just cannot bring themselves to accept that without threatening the public interest and using extremism as their terms of reference.

To keep it on topic. I'll call it like it is, the bottom line being... Trump copped to white privilege. In doing so he painted and group protesting him with the same brush as nazis. Period.

White boy drives an auto into a crowd = murderer. Muslum drives a speeding auto into a crowd = terrorist. White privilege, hands down. Though  Donald thinks that's win win for Donald, it's a tragedy for America.

Moussillni (sp) was a nazi. He was garrotted and hung by his feet in public by violent anti-fascist protesters. I don't hear too many necons complaining about that. Beat on a few nazis (with lighter armor and weapons than the nazis have) at a rally though, claim liberals need to be pilloried for their blatant propensity toward violence toward "very fine" people.

For shame.

[koti]

2 hours ago, iNow said:

White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism. It's not that all white males are evil, only that the people expressing evil ideologies right now are doing so on the basis of white supremacy. 

 

16 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I do not see an egregious issue with that statement in itself. 

 

..I am not sure, what was the point again?

The point is that subscribing to the above rhetoric is like saying that all rapists are males therefore all males are rapists. Or that women give birth to children therefore all women have to have children. 

[CharonY]

Just now, koti said:

 

The point is that subscribing to the above rhetoric is like saying that all rapists are males therefore all males are rapists. Or that women give birth to children therefore all women have to have children. 

I think iNow and MigL have clearly qualified their statements to ensure that it precisely does not read like that. The second sentence in the quoted part directly negates the logical fallacy in your statement.

[iNow]

43 minutes ago, MigL said:

If one can paint all white males with the white supremacist brush ...

 

13 minutes ago, koti said:

The point is that subscribing to the above rhetoric is like saying that all rapists are males therefore all males are rapists. Or that women give birth to children therefore all women have to have children. 

 

FFS, fellas. Does this really need to be so muddy? My language was clear. I'm sorry your comprehension was not.

Here, once more. This time with bold:

3 hours ago, iNow said:

White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism. It's not that all white males are evil, only that the people expressing evil ideologies right now are doing so on the basis of white supremacy. 

 

[koti]

4 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I think iNow and MigL have clearly qualified their statements to ensure that it precisely does not read like that. The second sentence in the quoted part directly negates the logical fallacy in your statement.

Well...I think that iNow's and Your statements clearly read what they read and I replied accordingly to my view.
As for your quoted sentence negating my alleged logical fallacy - great, I guess the fallacy is not there.

2 minutes ago, iNow said:

 

 

FFS, fellas. Does this really need to be so muddy? My language was clear. I'm sorry your comprehension was not.

Here, once more. This time with bold:

White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism. It's not that all white males are evil, only that the people expressing evil ideologies right now are doing so on the basis of white supremacy. 

 

iNow, I think I'll need to break it to you that making some part of the sentence bold actually does not make the other part of the sentence magically disappear. Especially when that other part is the crux of the matter. I do take into account that we are online as opposed to chatting live over single malt in a nice relaxed atmosphere but as you noted - FFS.

[iNow]

I've had a busy week and am tired. Explain it to me like I'm a kindergartner. What exactly is your problem with what I typed?

[CharonY]

I am dead tired anyway, so let me try to see if I can clarify things (or whether it gets muddier). 

Quote

White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism

Statement:  KKK (P) -> white male (Q). Meaning the if you got a KKK member, it is most likely a white male (disregarding female KKKs for now). The reverse based on that : white male  (Q)-> KKK (P) is a common logical fallacy called affirming the consequent.

Likewise are the statements (my bold)

52 minutes ago, koti said:

that all rapists (P) are males (Q) therefore all males (Q) are rapists (P). Or that women give birth to children therefore all women have to have children. 

However, since this is a common fallacy, iNow qualified the statement specifically to state that 

 

35 minutes ago, iNow said:

It's not that all white males (Q) are evil (P), 

which is basically 

Edited August 19, 2017 by CharonY

[koti]

3 minutes ago, iNow said:

I've had a busy week and am tired. Explain it to me like I'm a kindergartner. What exactly is your problem with what I typed?

Your statement: "White males are at the heart of both the KKK and current extremism"
I think that it's trivially wrong to approach the problem of racism from the point of gender or race. If that doesn't help here's my previous statement:
"Subscribing to that rhetoric is like saying that all rapists are males therefore all males are rapists"
You can relax now as I'm sure we both agree on this.