You're being willfully obtuse. The points the parent was making were not reliant on a concrete shared definition of 'racism.' Do you want to be part of a discussion, or do you just want the rush of endorphins that contrarianism provides?
I don't think yummyfajitas is. I don't like Trump but I still agree that racist is now used as a general slur.
You may think it is becoming a general slur. Many other people think we are finally just calling things for what they are.
There's a good point there, but I can also see the merit of letting the commander in chief get the benefit of the doubt, especially since we're not talking about U.S. citizens as far as I can tell.
No, but US citizens are affected. The US-born children of long-term non-citizen residents may lose a parent, for example, if that parent isn't let back in. The other day, a lawyer friend of mine had to advise a client of his not to return home to visit his dying father. This client has lived in the US for 20 years, and runs a business employing six US citizens. But if he goes to visit his father, he may not be allowe…
I am. I have a friend here on refugee status from one of the relevant countries.
> Why shouldn't people have the patience to define their language before having a discussion? Most people aren't practiced in keeping sets of definitions in mind that vary from context to context. You're also opening the (aspirationally meaningful) conversation with somewhat involved semantic discussion and debate. "Now that we've labored over the meanings of 'race', 'diversity', and 'equality' for fifteen minutes an…
The implications are overwhelming. To be a meaningful part of the debate would require a great deal, maybe even obsessive, of focus, time and research. I used to love text because it felt unambiguous. I just realized a part of me fears speaking because I don't want to be misunderstood.
Agreed. But I realized I don't need to speak to be misunderstood.
No. I am asking those hysterical about recent events to tell me why one form of selective enforcement is accepted as a matter of course, while another is not. I am using this example to show that selective enforcement of laws is not automatically hatred/bigotry/racism, but may be a matter of different policy goals. BTW, aliens can get ITIN's which are similar to SSN's except they are used only for tax matters. That i…
I feel like in your book, having an ID is a bad thing. You would be surprised that this is a very American thing (and which surprised me a lot when I first learned it); no foreigner thinks like that (bar people that don't want to be found). In fact, you would be surprised at the number of doors that close if you don't have ID or have that crappy ITIN. EG: while I was studying, my friend only had an ITIN on his first…
My point was about the selective enforcement of a requirement, not about the merits of government-issued ID. But it's fair to discuss all aspects of my comment. You are absolutely right that having a government-issued ID and providing it upon demand of government agencies aids the efficient operation of the government. It also is indispensable for efficient government tracking and control of individuals. You might even paraphrase all that as "it helps the trains run on time." Look up that phrase if you are interested in the difference between individual freedom and government efficiency/convenience. I was only annoyed by the more strict requirements for citizens vs non-citizens. Perhaps you missed one of my points (the show-us-your-papers thing) about how it is considered a violation of civil rights for the police to simply request your ID (your papers) without probably cause. How nice for illegal aliens. And to your point about how glad immigrants would be to have SSNs, I question that. The current largest dispute around voting rights is whether requiring a government-issued ID in order to vote is a violation of civil rights. The largest outcry against voter ID requirements comes from the black community and from illegal immigrant rights organizations. Now, why shouldn't they gladly show that ID in order to exercise the right to vote, just as I duly registered and identified my children to receive their rightful education? We are back to the issue of selective enforcement, and selective outrage over this or that brand or degree of selective enforcement. ID for white kids to go to kindergarten? That's good! ID for non-whites and illegals to vote? That's bad! Strict entry requirements for almost every country on Earth? That's good! A pause and reexamination of historically lax US entry requirements? That's bad!
Negative action, thoughts or words based on race. No individual is a stereotype. Treating a racial group as a stereotype is racist. Edit: fortunately we can legislate the hell out of the actions. It's not that difficult. Though I will give you credit for willful ignorance for the sake of argument. Good rhetoric. A-
I was with you almost until the "willful ignorance". I also guess yummyfajitas was with you until the second paragraph as well. My frustration is that your definition doesn't seem to be the one that one is jugded against but rather one that defines us all as racists because of the society we live in, because of our distant relatives etc. Because of this there seems to be no way to defend against this. And since I am…
Do you honestly believe he did not know the meaning of racism? That he was not being deliberately ignorant (the definition of willful ignorance) about racism to make a rhetorical point? Come on now.
I didn't mean to hurt anyone's feelings by calling out the obvious. I apologize.
> The goal would have to be silencing the social media presence of the right *the alt-right Or, less euphemistically, the neo-Nazi.
I'll reference the other thread about 'racism'; I don't know what 'alt-right' even means, so I don't know how to have an opinion about it.
who's fault is that? there's plenty of articles out there, pick one or read a few and synthesize. Or go straight to the source: reddit.com/r/altright (warning: contains explicit white nationalism/anti-semitism)
Every post of mine on this subject gets downvoted, but here goes. There was a grad student that was detained for 30 hours over the weekend at JFK. The CBP tried to put her on a plane three times, and three times she was taken off the plane because her lawyers intervened. For the whole 30 hours, she was not allowed to see her lawyers. Ultimately they released her. Why? Because fuck you, that's why. Arbitrary decisions…
Every post of mine on this subject gets downvoted, but here goes.
I suspect that for many people your username calls to mind the KKK, and this leads them to be more critical of your content than they otherwise would be. Sarcastic spellings that include extra K's are commonly associated with right-wing politics, sometimes as endorsement and sometimes as criticism: https://www.quora.com/Why-do-some-people-spell-America-as-Am....
I agree with his stance on this, and I think Trump and his latest executive orders are awful, but I also think that at this point, "hatred," "bigotry," and "racism" should be excised from public discourse. I totally disagree. How else do you want to describe the contents (and spirit) of this executive order? I think getting into mealy mouthed wiesel words and euphemisms for something that's clearly hateful and bigote…
You know that Obama de facto stopped - or at least severely limited - Iraqi immigration for 6 months in 2011. There was no outright ban, but the flow of Iraqis slowed significantly. Would you call it a hateful act as well?
There is a massive difference between suspending immigration and detaining existing immigrants/permanent residents.
Stop parroting these bullshit alternative facts. In substance and impact, Trump's EO is far more expansive than anything Obama did.
My point is that we should be cautious about assuming that his motives were uncomplicated. For what it's worth, the FBI also found no evidence linking him to ISIL. We can't possibly know what he felt in his heart, but making policy decisions based on the assumption that we can is reckless and only serves to further smooth over any of hint of subtlety left in American public discourse.
So there's no evidence connecting him to Isil (which there generally isn't: Isil spread messages to sympathetic people telling them to do things - ask employees of one well known company who have an unlisted London office because someone wants to slit their throats). Recapping: - The FBI has investigated and found no links that he was a patron of the club. - He has, for a fact, murdered people in the name of Islam. W…
All I'm saying is that it's impossible to know the extent to which those beliefs contributed to his actions. There are millions of people of all religions, including Islam, who aren't too keen on gay people. But the vast majority have never killed anyone.
Incidentally, his actual 'stated motives' were "[his] people... getting killed" in air strikes in general, and the death of Abu Waheeb in particular.
Because Trump went to election on "a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States" [0, donaldjtrump.com] The fact that it was implemented as a ban on citizens from the most prominent Muslim-majority countries (as seen by the eyes of the average American voter, who forgot about Saudi Arabia) could be interpreted as a way for Trump to say he kept his pledge while not being instantly impeached for n…
How are those the "most prominent Muslim majority countries?" They don't have he largest Muslim populations, etc. They're a list of the most unstable Muslim-majority countries.
> They don't have he largest Muslim populations
This is a canard. Indonesia is the largest 'muslim country', but it's not who we anglo countries think of when that term is used. You're trying to support an order made on emotive grounds with non-emotive facts.
> They're a list of the most unstable Muslim-majority countries.
Iran is a lot more stable than Egypt at the moment. However, Egypt is the #2 destination for US military aid ($1.3B, next in line is Iraq with $300M); it's not like they're going to be on such a list.