>Would you feel comfortable that you still have your job and your reputation after going in front of the nation and saying "I think interracial marriages should be illegal"?
That's not what people are getting fired for, though. People always do this- argue for speech limitations by using examples like "we should kill all the X", while the people they then ban have said things like "I think diversity decreases social trust and that there are biological differences between men and women".
Through the mixing pot of America we can come together and overcome our natural tendency towards division. This is part of what makes America a great nation.
Again, the racially-oriented thinkers often just exacerbate division.
America's history has a continuous component of oppression. At no point since the founding of the country have all folk present on this land been equal and free. Pretending that past (and current) atrocities didn't happen, and ignoring whom they targeted, means that the inequalities they created will linger.
Even today, COVID 19 affects Black and Latino folks at greater rates. That is a real, physical, manifestation of racial injustice. Ignoring that means ignoring structural problems in America.
This is the case for every single country on Earth, and is actually still the case for most countries on Earth. Show me a country today and I'll show you a set of groups who are oppressed in that country.
However it is America that has come the farthest in overcoming racial discrimination, which is why people from around the world want to come here in droves.
Those groups are disproportionately affected because they are disproportionately living in cities, which has nothing to do with racial oppression.
The Latino population has swelled in recent decades and new immigrants to the US are almost always poorer than the general population. That's been true for the last 200 years and there's nothing wrong with that.
Yet racialists like yourself ignore this and try to claim discrimination. It's intellectually dishonest.
As for Blacks in America, the only thing that will bring them up and negate past discrimination is a improvement of their culture and focusing on the future. Most of black poverty today is caused by broken homes and other cultural issues, not oppression.
This idea that there was historical disadvantage to the Irish comes from a single photograph of a sign that says "Irish Need Not Apply". This is the equivalent of putting an individual Tweet from 2016 saying "Kill All White Men" in history textbooks as some sort of meaningful thing.
That number is wildly inaccurate but even so, it's no doubt very different from the bad old days:
Certain private universities, most notably Harvard, introduced policies which effectively placed a quota on the number of Jews admitted to the university. According to historian David Oshinsky, on writing about Jonas Salk, "Most of the surrounding medical schools (Cornell, Columbia, Pennsylvania, and Yale) had rigid quotas in place. In 1935 Yale accepted 76 applicants from a pool of 501. About 200 of those applicants were Jewish and only five got in." He notes that Dean Milton Winternitz's instructions were remarkably precise: "Never admit more than five Jews, take only two Italian Catholics, and take no blacks at all."
If Jews are extremely over-represented (with respect to their share in the US population, which is about 1.7%), shouldn't there be an affirmative action for non-jewish students?
so this is saying Yale accepted 5 jews out of 76 students accepted overall. That's still a whopping 6% of all students accepted even though they make up < 2% of the population. How is that the bad?
Jews have always had it pretty good in the US, don't know what there really is to complain about.
Your statement is like claiming there is no scientific basis for family. Two people of the same race are more genetically related than half-siblings born to the same father and mothers of different races. The categories we call "race" are genetic clusters of populations who developed in different regions/environments. It's the level of taxonomy below species and above one's family. Overlap between these clusters does not invalidate them any more than the existence of purple invalidates our ability to describe something as "red" or "blue".
The exact point is that what is called “race” is a sociological sense isn’t based on meaningful generic clusters — saying someone’s (genetic cluster) race has a 1:1 mapping to skin colour is like saying their (genetic cluster) race has a 1:1 mapping to their hair colour.
From my eyes you guys differentiate on skin colors on offensive and use diversity card on defensive to further and further ingrain the notion that “others” has weirdly colored skins.
If all of western world would cut the BS and use something like “white asian non-christian” which is what “yellow” stands for in actuality, I can tolerate those racial elitism a bit better.
One might be tempted to say it’s not about skin tones, but people taught in white/black/yellow system tries to fit surface albedo of actual human beings to those visual wavelength responses out of cognitive dissonance, through pigmenting, cinematographic techniques or other technological means, or by verbally abusing creators, artists, races, cultures so I strongly believe accurate visual representations in the context of pure racism matters if it’s not going to completely entirely permanently disappear by tomorrow morning.
You guys hate it when we don’t look #FFFF00, like for real. That happens and that’s insulting.
It sounds like you’re angrily agreeing with me, but I’m not sure.
Side point: I’m not American, and what you wrote reads like “you guys” means “white Americans” (I’m not sure which political block, if any, is implied); this impression is in part because in my experience only Americans say “in actuality”.
Our knowledge of crime rates doesn't come form arrest records, but rather victims surveys. Yes, we know that certain neighborhoods/populations have higher rates of crime and not just arrests.
There should be a bounty where any prisoner who solves one of the millennium problems is granted freedom. I feel like it'd help to reduce violence and focus the purposelessness of their time into something productive to both themselves and society, would be cool to see gangs replaced by people collaborating.
What if a man solves one of the problems in secret before committing a crime? Your suggestion could then be interpreted as "permit millennium problem solvers to commit, with no legal consequence, any one crime of their choosing." That would seem like a questionable proposition to anyone not fully devoted to mathematics.
I don't know if you've ever visited an American prison, but they're a vestige of 19th-century social mores (ie - norms from an era where slavery, then Jim Crow, seemed reasonable to the average American). If you want to empower prisoners to study difficult topics like advanced mathematics, you're probably going to have to start treating them like people first.
That's not what people are getting fired for, though. People always do this- argue for speech limitations by using examples like "we should kill all the X", while the people they then ban have said things like "I think diversity decreases social trust and that there are biological differences between men and women".