summary
stringlengths 1
551
| story
stringlengths 0
85.6k
| source
stringclasses 5
values |
|---|---|---|
CMV - Literacy is desirable | Your view that new ( lazy ) methods of communication will ultimately lead to the downfall of both discourse and ultimately civilization itself have been repeated many many many times over the past 200 years. Meanwhile literacy itself has actually skyrocketed and living standards and " western civilization " are as strong or stronger than ever. What makes you believe that your statement is any more valid than all of these learned scholars who professed a similar fear for their respective generations? | cmv |
CMV - Literacy is desirable | I'm not entirely sure what view you want changed. " Literacy is desirable " is probably not something that anyone on this site would disagree with. If you mean text speak, 1337, or whatever, writing in shorthand or coded slang is not going to destroy Western civilization. For one, that happens everywhere. So it would bring down all of civilization if it were actually capable of that. Second, short hand and slang have been around for a long time across many cultures and writing systems. I can't think of one example of a culture falling into ruin because their citizens started abbreviating words or ignoring grammar. Third, " the use of handheld computers " is going to be a thing of the past before any kind of corruption the use of nonstandard language would have on society. Once we can reliably speak our text messages out loud and have our phones ( or whatever ) transcribe them, the days of " gr8 " and " c u " will be gone. | cmv |
I don't believe filibustering should be allowed in any governmental body, CMV. | What I try to keep in mind is that anything and everything can be " politic'd ". Suppose you remove the filabuster - you haven't removed any political tool, you just changed the game. You would see politicians arguing that the opposing side has filabustered at any arbitrary point. " Senator X is wasting Congressional time via an unlawful filabuster! " is somehow only said by people whom Senator X's words did not support. If you set discussion limits, then it becomes a game of whomever can make so many points, such that the opposition cannot possibly openly respond to them all. It does not matter that the points are good, just that they are not countered : " Senator X votes against policies which have a vast majority of uncontested points! " sounds real bad if you try to think of politicians being anything other than politicians. tl ; dr Politicians game every rule as well as every lack of rule. | cmv |
I don't believe filibustering should be allowed in any governmental body, CMV. | Democracy is when two wolves and one sheep vote on what is for dinner. The biggest failure of democracy is when 51 % of the people over - ride the rights or desires of 49 % of the people. The Senate was originally composed of members that were elected by the state and not the people... and were supposed to be diligent defenders of states'rights when the hoi polloi ( elected directly, as are the house members ) got a little hot - headed, polarized or driven by populist ferver. It is unfortunate that the Senate is democratically elected, because democracy is dangerous. Because, as you know, 51 % of " the people " are not always right. But, given that it is what it is, the structure of the Senate should continue to be a " break " against populist passion and fads in sentiment. States'rights ( to the degree it can ) and individual rights. All of which require taking it slow. Taking it slow is a feature, not a bug. | cmv |
I don't believe filibustering should be allowed in any governmental body, CMV. | I agree that the filibuster is too easy to use and can be abused, but I don't think it should be abolished altogether. I don't believe that a simple majority ought to be able to do whatever they like. When the president opposes congress, he gets a veto that requires a supermajority of congress to override. But when the president ( who is sometimes elected by less than a majority of the voting population ) sides with a simple majority of congress, the minority can be trampled over. The filibuster is a tool that forces the majority to consider a minority when trying to pass legislation. I don't have a problem with the idea that it should take 3 / 5 of the body to pass a bill, if the alternative is letting 51 % of the population walk over the other 49 %. | cmv |
I don't believe filibustering should be allowed in any governmental body, CMV. | Keep in mind that, in the current US senate rules, a filibuster can be stopped with the vote of three - fifths of senate members. In practice, what the filibuster means is that you need the three - fifths supermajority to pass almost any legislation. This prevents rapid fluctuations in senate policy. Imagine you have a 51 - 49 split. Without the filibuster, the majority could push through their agenda easily. Two years later, the majority party loses two votes two votes, and the minority party becomes the minority. Now, everything from the previous two years is repealed and a new agenda is pushed through. | cmv |
I don't believe filibustering should be allowed in any governmental body, CMV. | Filibustering is comparatively infrequent and then only on issues that aren't so popular that the attempt can be overruled with cloture ( a 2 / 3rds vote ). The cases where one guy sitting up there and reading stuff off are actually times when between 34 and 49 % of the room are vigorously opposed to whatever is going on there. It's there to stop a small majority from steamrolling a large minority, after all it's these cases that left unchecked lead to recall votes and public policy flip - flopping every two to six years. | cmv |
I don't believe filibustering should be allowed in any governmental body, CMV. | Filibuster is not something that happens because there are rules for filibustering ( well, except in US Senate ). Filibuster is a side effect of rules of mostly unrestricted debating time ( even if not infinite, 1 hour per MP per amendment would be very filibusterable ). Without this, majority could abuse its position to force laws through without even any debate, as indeed frequently happens in other parliamentary systems. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I believe the international fixation with the Israel / Palestine conflict is the result of anti - Semitism / Jew obsession rather than genuine concern for Palestinians. | I had a Jewish coworker who kept a big poster by his desk. It was a young Palestinian girl in tears. It said something like " peace is possible but everyone needs to stop killing each other ". His opinion really CMV'd on this. We can't prevent Israel - Palestine from being a major issue because the pro - Israel faction makes it one. While your other arguments are all very legitimate, this hits home for a lot of loud internet - enabled white people because their families are more involved in it. A lot of people have family in Israel... and Israel's citizens are less and less anti - Palestine than ever. There's a lot of reasons the international fixation with Israel / Palestine exists that don't include an international hatred for Jews. In fact, that's a pretty extraordinary claim, that the Jews are so hated and obsession - worthy. Frankly, the only reason I care about the conflict is because people I know are affected by it, and the government is extremely polarized on it. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I believe the international fixation with the Israel / Palestine conflict is the result of anti - Semitism / Jew obsession rather than genuine concern for Palestinians. | While I agree that Israel gets an inordinate amount of attention in the US, I think there are legitimate reasons for it beyond anti - Semitism or Jew obsession. The US has staked a large claim in that conflict and it can be argued that our support of Israel played an integral part in many of the seminal foreign policy issues of our time ( 9 / 11, Iraq, Afghanistan... pretty much all Middle East policy ). Because we have made ourselves partially responsible ( and suffered many consequences of doing so ), the conflict is of inordinate interest to us. So to directly counter your point, I'd say we give them attention because of our responsibility in the conflict and not an obsession with Jews. | cmv |
[ CMV ] I believe the international fixation with the Israel / Palestine conflict is the result of anti - Semitism / Jew obsession rather than genuine concern for Palestinians. | The Israel / Palestine conflict is far more likely to affect you, and the world at large, than anything that happens in the Congo 1. If there is a third world war leading to nuclear armageddon it will start in one of two places, kashmir or israel / palestine. 2. The various conventional and proxy wars between Israel and the Arab world have cost untold lives and destablised one of the most volatile and geopolitically important areas in the world. ( still more than 40 % of the world's oil production ). These proxy wars have created a cohort of militant islamists who are obviously dangerous globally. 3. It is hard to overestimate how angry the muslim world is about Palestine. See Bin Laden's letter to the world : Reason number one for attacking america - Israel / Palestine. Simply, it has much wider potential consequences than war in the Congo, and therefore gets more coverage | cmv |
[ CMV ] I believe the international fixation with the Israel / Palestine conflict is the result of anti - Semitism / Jew obsession rather than genuine concern for Palestinians. | There is a disturbing amount of Israel - firsters in US politics and media. This is likely caused by the large sums of money that Israel openly bribes US politicians with, combined with the evangelical ties to Israel. When you include the massive amount of financial and logistical support provided to Israel and the cost in terms of the people who hate us because of it, a fixation on Israel is understandable. On many levels Israel is a huge focus of US attention. When that focus is prforming acts that many object to it spurs discussion and criticism. The entire issue is compounded by labeling any criticism of the Israeli govermnent as tantamount to a second holocaust. | cmv |
I think that Edward Snowden is a traitor. CMV. | Do you think terrorist assumed they weren't under surveillance before? Obviously they assumed they were and Snowden simply confirmed it. Also, the realization of the extent of surveillance could act as a deterrent in and by itself. All governments already know that all governments spy on each other. The political reactions we're seeing is for show, they're expected to act surprised. It wasn't illegal, but it was clandestine and it comes with an almost equally high price to democracy. Snowden didn't endanger anyone, there's no evidence to suggest that he have. What he did do was to let the American public aware of a secret government policy and give them the opportunity to act and react through their democratic system. | cmv |
I think that Edward Snowden is a traitor. CMV. | Whether or not you believe Edward Snowden is a traitor, simply comes down to whether or not you are willing to surrender privacy for security. Perhaps we might have been able to foil a couple of domestic terrorist attacks because of NSA but at what cost? I think that the NSA case serves as a precedent in that if it was not foiled who knows what privacy restricting measures would be put into place under the guise of patriotism and security. Tapping phone lines and reading emails sounds scary enough, but it's a slippery slope to a 1984 esque world. By releasing information about the NSA, Edward Snowden kept the government in check and made the public privy to what's actually going on. The government in recent years has been increasingly opaque. People like Edward Snowden make them more accountable. Moreover, in terms of the foreign impact, as others have pointed out, there is no actual proof that Snowden turned over any documents to Russia and China. He has also vehemently denied all such accusations. In short, he is innocent until proven guilty. | cmv |
I believe women who consciously position themselves in a vulnerable situation bare some responsibility if they were assaulted. CMV. | Is a house owner even partly responsable for some one breaking in if he did not have an alarm system? I personally think not. House owners should be able to design and install their house as they like without having to think about burglars. Heck, even if they have a wooden hut with open doors, they are not to blame if people steal their stuff. | cmv |
I believe women who consciously position themselves in a vulnerable situation bare some responsibility if they were assaulted. CMV. | It's not at all clear what you mean by " bear some responsibility if they were assaulted ". Are you simply making a tautological statement that putting yourself in a situation where there's a higher risk of X happening to you, increases the chance of X happening to you? Are you in favour of some particular social norm that involves treating assault victims differently depending on whether they chose to put themselves in such a situation? Do you think an assault victim who " did not exercise sound judgement " should be charged with a crime? | cmv |
I believe women who consciously position themselves in a vulnerable situation bare some responsibility if they were assaulted. CMV. | People who put themselves in vulnerable positions are guilty of putting themselves in vulnerable positions. People who commit crimes against those vulnerable victims deserve 100 % of the blame for the crime. There is no crossover. If a kid copies another kid's answers on a test without the first kid's permission or knowledge, only the second kid is guilty of cheating, even if the first kid could have prevented the cheating by covering all his answers. If the first kid, however, deliberately moved his test over and allowed the second kid to copy the answers, both would share the blame. Your OP implies that a drunk woman in a dark alley is acting more like the second scenario than the first. A drunk woman in a dark alley is guilty of being a drunk woman in a dark alley. She is 0 % guilty of any action that any other person chooses to take as a result of that. | cmv |
I believe women who consciously position themselves in a vulnerable situation bare some responsibility if they were assaulted. CMV. | That's not how any of this works. If someone were to press charges for theft, its the person who did wrong who is charged. Would you call it fair for the thief to press lesser charges to the person they mugged for being too tempting? The whole point of these laws is to make it safer for people to be in those neighbourhoods, not just to limit certain actions just for the sake of it. If we make the blame less in " bad " neighbourhoods, they will always be bad. | cmv |
I believe women who consciously position themselves in a vulnerable situation bare some responsibility if they were assaulted. CMV. | Should we live in constant fear? Do we need to unfailingly evaluate every situation we are in so as not to be victimized? You could argue that just about any crime could have been prevented for some reason or another, where do you draw the line on when the victim is partially responsible and where they are not? | cmv |
I believe women who consciously position themselves in a vulnerable situation bare some responsibility if they were assaulted. CMV. | The issue is not that they are not responsible. Everyone knows that there is responsibility there except for a small segment of extremists. The issue is that some people use this as an argument to not care about what the perpetrators do, and so people have to maintain that the perpetrators were the main actors here. If you mean that yes, people should realize that their actions do have consequences, even if they are only the secondary actor, then yes, obviously you are right. | cmv |
I believe women who consciously position themselves in a vulnerable situation bare some responsibility if they were assaulted. CMV. | You have some misconceptions about rape. Check out this wikipedia page. The majority of cases of rape are committed by people that the victim know. Over two thirds of rapes occur in someone's home ( 27 % occur within the victim's home ). So then how does somebody exercise sound judgment in order to prevent being raped? Don't spend time alone with people that you think you can trust? The percentage of rapes that occur within the stereotype of promiscuously dressed women wandering into allies is quite low. | cmv |
I believe women who consciously position themselves in a vulnerable situation bare some responsibility if they were assaulted. CMV. | The scenarios you described, despite your claim otherwise, do take blame away from the criminal and pass it onto the victim. I don't have the right to take your belongings. Period. I don't have the right to touch your body. Period. I don't have the right to violate your body, even if you are drunk, asleep, or totally naked. Period. End of story. Dismissing these boundaries undermines their worth and excuses the disrespectful, intrusive, lawless behavior that violates individuals'basic human rights and dignity. We must hold ourselves to a higher standard in order to preserve autonomy and a sense of mutual respect between citizens. | cmv |
I believe women who consciously position themselves in a vulnerable situation bare some responsibility if they were assaulted. CMV. | Where do you draw the line between victims who put themselves in vulnerable situations, and victims who exercised sound judgement but were still assaulted? Scantily clad women, alone in alleys, does not describe anywhere near the majority of rape victims. I know that rape inside relationships is common, so if I sleep in my boyfriends bed and he assaults me, is it my fault? I've seen the statistics. I should have known better. You could pick out reasons you the victim is partially responsible from any scenario. She should have locked her doors, she shouldn't have worn that lipstick, she shouldn't have led me on, she shouldn't have smiled at me, she shouldn't have accepted that drink I bought her. There are a million reasons rapists could give you for why they couldn't control themselves, why they assaulted that specific person. The only solid constant in assaults is one party doing something to someone's body against their will. It would be insane to make all of my choices with rape in mind. | cmv |
I believe women who consciously position themselves in a vulnerable situation bare some responsibility if they were assaulted. CMV. | By arguing that women shouldn't dress promiscuously or go in certain neighborhoods or drink, you are essentially saying that women are responsible for the major ethical wallop of a man forcing himself onto someone, as well as encouraging the ongoing idea that women lack the same freedoms as men. While I am a realist and understand that women do face certain dangers in this world simply by being female, I don't understand your point of view. If a woman is drunk and dressed " promiscuously " and walks down an alley, how is it her responsibility not to be assaulted? How is it just that a woman shouldn't be able to walk down an alley just because she may be assaulted? Should women throw away any clothes that show their ankle? Your logic can be extended to a ridiculous length. A woman is more likely to be assaulted by someone she knows than a stranger, for example, family members. There is no real way to be not vulnerable around an attacker. | cmv |
I believe women who consciously position themselves in a vulnerable situation bare some responsibility if they were assaulted. CMV. | The issue of acknowledgment of that level of responsibility does create issues of shifting blame in legal evaluation and in evaluation of laws and their merit. If they share responsibility, for creating a situation where the law could be broken, should only one of them have to shoulder the responsibility for being the actively aggressive party in the law being broken? It's just safer for society to view it the way it does. The potential for exploitation is too great. | cmv |
I think that democracy is not suitable for some countries CMV. | All of the problems besetting democracy - tribalism, corruption, demagoguery - beset other government forms to even greater degrees. Humankind has yet to try a method of choosing leaders which has proven to be as effective as democratic election. Every other option has proven to be far worse. | cmv |
I believe the death penalty is appropriate. CMV. | First : sentencing someone to death is up to 10x more expensive than sentencing them to life in prison. Second : research has not proven that the death penalties deters crime. While there are many studies on this, the opinions vary wildly. While the death penalty may be proper justice in the eyes on some, the economic burden is almost enough to discredit. It is 10 times more expensive without lowering crime rates significantly. If we are choosing to focus on the needs of the many, the death penalty should be eliminated to free up tax dollars rather than killing a human being for the gratification of the victim's family. The majority of people are not murdered or know a family member who has been murdered. Helping the many in this case would be saving eveyone money. TL ; DR : the death penalty isn't proven to deter crime and it is more expensive. Best alternative is life in prison : the murderer has his / her life ruined while saving money. | cmv |
I believe the death penalty is appropriate. CMV. | Death penalty only works if you can make it a reality in the person's eyes. Thinking about getting executed and walking down the hall for the last time are two completely different things. Just like you can't know for sure if you like roller coasters or if you don't, just looking at them doesn't give the same experience as riding one. | cmv |
i think that the united states constitution should be scraped and re - written. cmv | All 50 states would become independant, and the union would collapse. Many states would refuse admittance into the new union, and the USA would be no more, in fact the NEW USA would me much less. I think there would probably be 3 to 4 new nations in place of the old one. | cmv |
i think that the united states constitution should be scraped and re - written. cmv | The point of amendments is for us to constantly update the Constitution as we see fit without having to start over. We have a basis for our laws that we can tweak as we see fit, including the language, which isn't really too outdated. Besides, the process of " translating " the constitution would involve, at some point, picking the " right interpretation " anyway, which is the same thing we're already arguing over. Your solution doesn't get us around the fact that we would have to agree on a " best " interpretation. You would just be leaving the interpretation up to a few " translators " or legislators instead of the entire nation. That's unfair, no? | cmv |
I believe criminals with offensive tattoos should have them filled - in / removed in prison, CMV. | Your suggestion is unconstitutional for a number of reasons. It is a cruel and unusual punishment, and it is censoring the person's freedom of speech ( a criminal is still a person ). Also it is way too vague and up to the opinions of individual prison employees, which would lead to things like religious / atheist tattoos being removed because the individual employee thought it was offensive. Think along the lines of High School Dress Code, very non - standardized and up to the opinions of a few, meaning certain kids get away with wearing shorts that others couldn't. Your heart is in the right place, trying to reduce violence and crimes and trying to stop them from being glorified. But there are other ways to go about doing that besides censorship. I think more crime - prevention education for young people in high - crime areas is a good start, and following that to a degree could reduce the fashion of violent crimes. | cmv |
I believe criminals with offensive tattoos should have them filled - in / removed in prison, CMV. | " The jury finds you guilty. You are sentenced to 1 year in prison on drug charges. Also, we're going to take away your constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression and subject you to the cruel and unusual punishment of being stabbed repeatedly with needles for two hours. " Your proposed law has taken away 2 / 10 of a person's basic constitutional rights in the United States in one fell swoop. So, I think that might be a problem. | cmv |
I believe criminals with offensive tattoos should have them filled - in / removed in prison, CMV. | Gangs will simply find a different way of identifying themselves. How would even differentiate between a gang tattoo and a " regular " tattoo anyway? Or are you going to cover up all tattoos? It's going to be pretty expensive, and it's not really going to have any affect. Also, when did the government get the right to mark and brand individuals like cattle? This is essentially equivalent to that since it would be done against their will. | cmv |
I believe that any argument for abortion that does not deny the humanity of the fetus is also, necessarily, a good argument against gun control CMV. | First off, interesting post. When getting an abortion, only the female and fetus are the affected parties. However when owning a gun, the potential parties affected are not just the attacker and the victim. The gun can be used for a variety of things that are not self defense. Another point, is that an abortion is the only solution to an unwanted pregnancy ( the only safe one to my knowledge ). However self defense is not limited to equipping and using a gun, there are many other alternatives. | cmv |
I believe that any argument for abortion that does not deny the humanity of the fetus is also, necessarily, a good argument against gun control CMV. | Legalizing and regulating abortion means that they can be performed safely by trained professionals, rather than by unlicensed people or unsafe home remedies. Legalizing and regulating guns ( gun control ) also means that guns can be sold by reputable dealers and there are at least some safeguards against convicted criminals and / or the mentally ill from purchasing guns. Those are not contradictory. I'll even go one better, and flip your argument on you. Do you really think that if abortion is made illegal that they will never be performed? The sad reality is, abortions happen. If a woman wants to get rid of a pregnancy badly enough, she will, but odds are she'll use un - prescribed medication, a sharp implement, or something, and can end up severely injured. Just how I don't believe that regulating guns means that no criminals or mentally ill will get their hands on one, but I do think some regulations can put in reasonable safeguards that mean that most gun sales are to responsible people. | cmv |
I believe that any argument for abortion that does not deny the humanity of the fetus is also, necessarily, a good argument against gun control CMV. | Being pro gun control is not the same as being anti self - defense. I mean, a stun gun, or even a birdshot shotgun is quite different from an ak - 47. And if we're talking about evicting trespassers, the ethical means is to evict the trespassers as humanely as possible. For the fetus this sadly requires death, but death is not required for an adult who doesn't need you uterus to live. So it's a false equivalency because there are alternatives in the case of an independent person, whereas there is not an alternative in the case of a fetus, so because harsh treatment is used on one does not justify the same on the other. | cmv |
I believe that any argument for abortion that does not deny the humanity of the fetus is also, necessarily, a good argument against gun control CMV. | It's quite easy to suggest that gun control would work to end gun violence, just as it is quite easy to suggest that making abortions illegal would end abortion ( Except in cases to save the mother. ) Take me for an example, I'm pro - choice and I believe abortions should be legal. I hate gun violence but believe guns should be legal. There's a great difference between what should be, and what needs to be. | cmv |
I believe that any argument for abortion that does not deny the humanity of the fetus is also, necessarily, a good argument against gun control CMV. | Guns are a double edged sword, they can be used to protect or violate bodily autonomy whereas abortion is not. You can believe that x gun control legislation will decrease the amount of guns used to violate bodily autonomy more than it will prevent people from using guns to protect bodily autonomy. The two stances are not contradictory. | cmv |
I think that abortion is morally wrong when the sex that created it was consensual. CMV. | The newborn infant is less intelligent than the pigs we eat on a day to day basis. A fetus is even less intelligent. Why should they have more rights than pigs? | cmv |
I think that abortion is morally wrong when the sex that created it was consensual. CMV. | There's a different argument I can make but it's quite far removed from the ones in the other comment thread so I'll start a new one. Even if you've somehow made the absurd conclusion that someone's status as a rape victim somehow impacts their right to an abortion, how do you plan to legislate that? Rape is one of the most notoriously difficult crimes to actually prove. Are you saying that people who can't prove rape in, what, a court of law should be denied an abortion? That's going to leave a large number of people that even you think should be able to get one unable to. | cmv |
I think that abortion is morally wrong when the sex that created it was consensual. CMV. | Do you realize this boils down to " Women aren't allowed to enjoy sex for the sake of orgasms or pair bonding only. " You also completely disregard the fact that men would also be on the hook for the child support for any resulting child? People have sex to feel good. People have sex to feel intimate physically and emotionally with people they love. People deserve the option to have these things without dealing with a child, especially when they take precautions to avoid pregnancy, even if those precautions are not 100 %. | cmv |
I think that abortion is morally wrong when the sex that created it was consensual. CMV. | Spiders eating their young is perfectly moral behavior as far as spiders are concerned. There are countless lifeforms on this planet each different ideas about what should be done in a given moment. Some humans think its morally wrong to raise a child in a poor environment. Some humans raise their children to obey their God because the divine is ultimately what counts. With all these various views of morality who is to say that any act is moral? We're complex chemistry doing whatever's easiest in the present moment. | cmv |
I believe that Canada's policy of multiculturalism ( as well as other countries'similar policies ) is absurd. CMV | Mounties are just people, what's wrong with being Sikh and a Mountie? To base a restriction on identity based on headgear is absurd. You've essentially said " these identities are all based on headgear, pick one and only one " | cmv |
I believe that Canada's policy of multiculturalism ( as well as other countries'similar policies ) is absurd. CMV | I don't think you've seen American multiculturalism. I live in Los Angeles ; like any big, coastal city, we have plenty of immigrants from everywhere and they bring their culture with them. Sure, children of immigrants tend to assimilate but no Vietnamese person passes their citizenship test and says " What the hell is pho? " We've got Koreatown and Chinatown and Little Tokyo and Little Italy and Little Havana and so on. It's not a policy, that's how immigration works and it's a great thing. Can you imagine life without Pad Thai? I can't. | cmv |
I believe that the US should never supply weapons to a war they are not directly involved in, only medical or similar supplies. CMV. | The important thing to consider is what you consider as morally just. Is it morally just for a nation to maximize it's influence to protect it's citizen? What is the morally just thing for a nation to do? It's sole job is to protect it's people. So if you take that into context, then the moral measurement of justice changes significantly. | cmv |
I believe that the US should never supply weapons to a war they are not directly involved in, only medical or similar supplies. CMV. | That would mean allowing large foreign powers to invade smaller countries while we sit back and watch. It would be like in high school, watching a bully beat up a smaller kid, then handing him a band aid. When the better thing to do, if you didn't want to get directly involved, would be to give him something that would at least level the odds. Be that a stick or a heavy book bag, so he could defend himself. Add to that, most sales of munitions to foreign countries are done from private business, not the government. | cmv |
I believe that the US should never supply weapons to a war they are not directly involved in, only medical or similar supplies. CMV. | I think you are comparing two methods of doing the same thing : prolonging the war. No matter if you supply guns or supplies it will result in more deaths. When you start supporting a side in a conflict however you have a vested interest in their success. If they fail you will have an enemy state arise. Therefore you should support them in anyway necessary be that more supplies or weapons. | cmv |
I believe that the US should never supply weapons to a war they are not directly involved in, only medical or similar supplies. CMV. | So you believe in an absolute prohibition on military supplies, but you admit that at times there is a black and white situation when determining the good guys. So you wouldn't consider Lend Lease to the United Kingdom, and certainly not to the Soviet Union in 1941. You say this because it's impossible to determine who's the good guys and who's the bad guys in a fight. I'll agree that it's difficult, and the US can get it wrong, but the reality is that the world can be a dangerous place and there are shades of morality that must be weighed. And the US is uniquely situated as the most powerful and wealthy nation on earth, as the one nation that all others look to when the worse happens. We, like it or not, have that responsibility. So we should not give assistance to the Nigerian military in their fight against Boko Haram because we don't fully trust them? We shouldn't arm rebels in Syria against a genocidal regime because some supporters aren't democrats? Someone will arm them. I'd rather it be the US or another democratic power with standards of morality. | cmv |
I think Transvestite ( specifically not transsexuals ) weaken the LGBTQ community's goals CMV. | A strict and exclusive gender binary is oppressive because it keeps people who don't conform perfectly to either gender from being true to and happy with themselves. This does not mean that the existence of genders is oppressive in and of itself. As long as we are accepting and loving of everyone regardless of gender identity ( a personal choice and something that can be propagated ), what does it matter if there exist predominant genders? Male and female genders are not going away because many people find comfort and peace in roles that their families and societies make easy for their tendencies and habits. What needs to change is the way that our families and societies accept and understand anyone who doesn't simply fit into one of these roles. Who is anyone to say that someone dressing'like a man or a woman'isn't actually dressing like themselves? None of us has that authority. | cmv |
I think Transvestite ( specifically not transsexuals ) weaken the LGBTQ community's goals CMV. | I don't think you're using the word'transvestite'properly. A transvestite is someone who dresses in the opposite sex's garments, sometimes for sexual stimulation. Cross dressers are transvestites who dress in the clothes of the opposite gender, typically straight men dressing as women, but this doesn't have the same sexual connotation. A man who identifies as a woman is transgender. It don't think either challenges the idea of a spectrum. I don't think there is a clear point along the spectrum that is male or female. I think they are ranges on the spectrum of gender. And dressing as a female or male correlates to dressing similarly to other people who identify as being in that gender range. Even if gender is a spectrum, the concept of male and female exist, they just aren't as absolute. Gender and sexuality are completely different spectrums as a side note. | cmv |
I think Transvestite ( specifically not transsexuals ) weaken the LGBTQ community's goals CMV. | I think the problem is that you're trying to decide what other people think for them. You even say that people dressing like themselves could result in cross - dressing. And yet, you don't believe in it, so it's apparent that you've decided people who cross - dress can't think for themselves. | cmv |
I think Transvestite ( specifically not transsexuals ) weaken the LGBTQ community's goals CMV. | You make the mistaken assumption that most members of the LBGTQ community care about semantics and reinforcing stereotypes. In reality, most want to live their lives free to dress how they want and behave how they want. They are not hugely politically correct, and as such, they adopt the terminology and phrasing of popular culture at large. Who is more likely to be effective at convincing others to let people live and let live? The politically correct person, with confusing terminology, who polices others in using words right and behaving right, who judges those who don't live up to their standards? Or the more casual person, who does what they want and tries to convince others to be nice to them? I think the more casual one is more likely to be successful in supporting the community, as they can better make friends with outsiders and convince them that LGBTQ people are ok. This very much happened with homosexuals and lesbians. One of the major reasons why they have become more accepted was because of non politically correct people in popular media doing their thing. | cmv |
Giving cash to panhandlers is an unwise practice. CMV | Most economists believe that by far the most efficient way to redistribute wealth is cash transfers. This is in contrast to payments - in - kind, such as food stamps, subsidized housing, healthcare, or child support. This is one reason why the Earned Income Tax Credit has been so successful ( both economically, as well as politically - on both sides of the spectrum ). Following this logic, why shouldn't I pursue the most efficient course of action and give cash directly to panhandlers, rather than donate to a shelter or training program? | cmv |
I don't consider poverty to, on average, be a choice. CMV | Formerly poor here. Ambition + Luck = Wealth. I am no longer poor because my mother said I would not be, because I am strong American boy who have better life than in Italy. You work hard, son, you too smart to not. And like hell would I disappoint my single Italian two job working mother. | cmv |
I don't consider poverty to, on average, be a choice. CMV | Devil's Advocate : I think the issue that you're describing is that no one chooses to be in poverty, I agree, that wouldn't make a lot of sense. But I think the argument that a lot of people are presenting is that some people in poverty are remaining there due to their laziness. For instance, someone who is receiving welfare and foodstamps is able to use that aid in order to splurge on things like booze and cigarettes, two vices that people who are having money issues cannot afford to take part in. I agree that getting out of poverty is hard, but from the point of view people who think this way, they see many people on welfare smoking, sitting around, getting drunk, being on drugs. To them, this isn't how someone gets out and they don't understand how hard it is to break out of these habits long enough to get themselves in a better financial situation. | cmv |
I believe that minimum wage is ineffective in application and should be taken out of practice. CMV | The minimum wage has vast benefits for the government. Working 40 hrs a week at a minimum wage job is already below the living wage for most jobs, so many work a part time job ( s ) as well. If the new " minimum " wage ( agreed upon point ), is significantly lower, you're going to have more people unable to support themselves and / or their families. With the social programs in place, that means a larger portion of people that the government has to support in some way, shape, or form. Alternatively, the government just draws in its " safety net, " and much of the now larger poor population becomes homeless. Basically, we'd go back to the Great Depression and shantytowns, which have significantly higher crime rates and incidences of drug abuse. Quality of life as a whole would drop, riots ( work and otherwise ) would be more likely, etc., etc. | cmv |
I believe that minimum wage is ineffective in application and should be taken out of practice. CMV | I agree with you on the sense that I believe minimum wage is ineffective, but I feel I do need to make this point : Minimum wage is designed to protect high school kids from being abused. Kids just going into the workforce at 17 don't have the necessary skills to really barter for their own wages, and its there to keep little timmy from being taken advantage of. If you're 35 and making minimum wage because you've worked at fast food all your life, I don't feel sorry for you. | cmv |
I believe that minimum wage is ineffective in application and should be taken out of practice. CMV | Labor does not act like a traditional good. If I have an apple, and you offer me a penny for it, I have a choice. I can eat the apple, or I can take the penny. But if I am unemployed, and you offer me a job for a dollar an hour, I can sit at home twiddling my thumbs or I can accept. | cmv |
I believe that minimum wage is ineffective in application and should be taken out of practice. CMV | The founding assumption behind all of your ideas is that people are able to make a free choice. They are not. This is the reason behind minimum wage. In situations where no choice is available, because of education, location, type of work, etc., minimum wage legally performs the bargaining for them. By being a citizen of this country, you've had a basic wage level negotiated for you. This really helps out the disenfranchised, the poor, the uneducated, the meager, who cannot otherwise bargain. The minimum wage is low so as not to impeded the flow of commerce as a matter of policy. So in this regard, the two competing interests of helping those not able to bargain and not imposing too much on business are satisfied. There is no free market, so all of your ideas working from that assumption are incorrect. | cmv |
I think that me voting in large eg. presidential / parliamentary elections is pointless CMV | You seem to take the stance that the only possible reason to vote is to possibly change the outcome of the election. Like you're playing a lottery in which you win the choice of candidate. Do you think this is why the millions of people who do vote, vote? Or why do you think they vote? | cmv |
I think that me voting in large eg. presidential / parliamentary elections is pointless CMV | But your assumption that your vote has zero weight is wrong. Because you pointed it out yourself that your vote has close to zero weight. You dismiss it as " not even worth talking about ". But it is not zero weight. Zero weight would be that your vote won't actually count. So any of your conclusion based on the assumption that your vote is close to zero weight is also wrong. If your argument is that the close to zero weight is not worth your time in your assessment of cost vs benefit analysis, then that would be a different discussion. | cmv |
I think that me voting in large eg. presidential / parliamentary elections is pointless CMV | I'm from Florida and did not vote in the 2000 election. I would have voted for Gore. If me and a couple hundred more people actually voted for Gore, he might have been President. I had enough people in my phone to change the outcome of a presidential election. | cmv |
I think that me voting in large eg. presidential / parliamentary elections is pointless CMV | Voting is the means by which we peacefully change power. It is an unprecedented advancement of civilization. Not voting is a vote to revert to a less civilized means of transferring power. It is a similar choice to the Amish choosing not to use electricity or the fundamentalist Muslims refusal to recognize the rights of women. It is a rejection of the progress of civilization. Not voting is an indication that you don't intend to make a peaceful transition of power work. That you are waiting for the previous method of changing power by blood and death. | cmv |
I think that me voting in large eg. presidential / parliamentary elections is pointless CMV | Actually, you are right. A single vote doesn't matter. I can't tell you why you should vote, I can only tell you why other people vote. People vote because there is utility in expressing yourself. If you want to learn more about it, read'A Logic of Expressive Choice'by Alexander A. Schuessler. | cmv |
I think that me voting in large eg. presidential / parliamentary elections is pointless CMV | It sounds like you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want a democracy, but you want your vote to be decisive. That defeats the whole purpose of a democracy. The purpose of a democracy is to keep power in the hands of the many rather than in one person, such as yourself. You seem to value a system where you have a greater relative power than other people. That's why you only value time spent voting when your vote is decisive. You should vote because you value democracy, and because it reminds you that your desires are only one in a sea of millions. However, I think a point can be made that our votes are rendered meaningless by the political / economic system that leads to our choices in candidates and their actions once in office. But if your complaint is that 1 vote is meaningless just because of how many voters there are, then I think my argument stands. | cmv |
I think that me voting in large eg. presidential / parliamentary elections is pointless CMV | Enough droplets do make a flood. Your assumption that your vote has zero weight is simply false, and since you can't be 100 % certain of any outcome, to not vote is the same as to not care about the results. It's not a slippery slope argument, it's a mathematical one. A prisoner's dilemma. Assuming your vote doesn't matter is how Bart lost the election for class president. So I can't accept your assumption because it's blatantly false.. 00000001 is not equal to 0 Re : florida. Let's assume democracy works, and that counts are reliable. Injustice over recounts is another matter from your 0 % assumption, so pick one or the other at least. | cmv |
I believe that transsexual youth should have full access to hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery. CMV | More a question than an attempt to change your view as you seem to know more about this than me? What are the issues with giving trans kids access to hormone blockers until they are mature enough to make an informed decision about whether they want to undertake hrt during puberty or not? There is a social stigma attached to going through puberty late, but, without diminishing how damaging that social stigma can be, are there other issues? | cmv |
I believe that transsexual youth should have full access to hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery. CMV | Developmental psychology tends to be somewhat unpredictable. Children tend to be highly malleable and that is why we typically don't officially diagnose people younger than 18 with adult disorders such as borderline personality disorder because we can never be as confident with such a diagnosis as with an adult. For things like ADHD, giving kids drugs for treating those things typically isn't a big deal because they don't have extremely severe side effects and can be discontinued relatively easily. Based on what I know, hormone therapy is a much larger dedication and investment, and results in much larger changes. There are also relatively severe side effects that can occur which can potentially mess up a child's development. Unless the accuracy of these identifying tests are very close to 100 %, we run the risk of seriously derailing the regular development of a child. | cmv |
I believe that transsexual youth should have full access to hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery. CMV | Regarding your argument about sex reassignment surgery : There is an issue of legal parental consent. Minors can't undergo ANY elective surgery without their parents'permission. ( With one exception being abortions for teens of certain ages in a handful of states. ) Why should minors be allowed to have sex reassignment surgery if they can't get their tonsils out without their parents'consent? Almost all minors are on their parents'health insurance plans, too. This adds another element of parental consent being a factor. | cmv |
I believe that lowering the US drinking age to 18 is a terrible idea. CMV. | After looking at a list of all the legal drinking ages around the world, I get the impression that our government and our society ( and OP ) somehow feels that American teenagers are uniquely immature and irresponsible compared to their counterparts from the rest of the world. As Americans we're almost constantly indoctrinated from birth that we're " the greatest country on Earth " and that we're " the land of the free, " and we always use countries such as Russia, China, and North Korea as examples of repressive, totalitarian regimes. Yet in those countries ( as well as in the overwhelming majority of all other countries ), the legal drinking age is 18. Something ain't right here. | cmv |
I believe that lowering the US drinking age to 18 is a terrible idea. CMV. | One reason is simply because people are adults well before they're 21. You can be trusted to take out a loan, live alone, and fight in a war before you're allowed to drink. It makes the drinking age seem like pointless bureaucracy compared to those. However, the primary reason might be that binge drinking tends to reduce when it is legal. College students and some high school students drink either way, but they tend to drink more when it isn't allowed. | cmv |
I believe that lowering the US drinking age to 18 is a terrible idea. CMV. | The goal was to reduce traffic fatalities, but the number was still arbitrary. The fatalities were not caused by the lower age, but by young people driving to states with a lower age then driving home. All that matters is that the ages are the same. Other than that the number of fatalities doesn't change much. Does it have to be either 18 or 21? Lots of places have 19 as the drinking age. Kids are out of high school by then, but they are not absurdly old, either ( yes, 21 is absurd ). | cmv |
I believe that lowering the US drinking age to 18 is a terrible idea. CMV. | As far as I'm concerned, the main benefit of a lower drinking age is that it means that young people can become accustomed to alcohol in a home / family setting. This has the dual advantage that there are responsible adults to limit the amount consumed / take care of the young drinker if they do go overboard and that it normalises alcohol as a social drug ( rather than one you just use to get wasted ). Of course, you could argue that people drink at home with their parents before the legal drinking age ( I certainly did, but it probably depends on your parents ) but that in itself is an argument for lowering the drinking age. | cmv |
I believe that lowering the US drinking age to 18 is a terrible idea. CMV. | At 17 I was in the Army. By 18 I was trained to kill people and launch a nuclear missile. I was not allowed to drink. That is, in the US. My first station was Europe where drinking age is 18 with none of the dire consequences you speak of. In fact the drinking age is really 14 at a restricted level ( beer & wine when with adults ) and expands in steps to full freedom by the time they are 18. This is an intelligent approach that encourages education and gradual maturity instead of prohibition an ignorance with a sudden legality that encourages binge drinking. Think of it this way : what we do now is like the Republicans would like for sex education - - abstinence only. | cmv |
I believe that lowering the US drinking age to 18 is a terrible idea. CMV. | Doing something illegal is way more fun than doing something legal. Kids, especially kids on their way to college, are going to want to dabble in breaking the law and really partying for the first time in their lives. If the drinking age were lowered to 18, society would be forced to further educate our children and stigmatize alcohol abuse before they reach that age. By the time they reach 18 years of age, kids would have been so heavily educated about alcohol's effects on the body and mind that they would have much more respect for it. As it stands now, kids are tempted to try alcohol before they reach 21 because it's been painted as this " forbidden fruit. " Because society doesn't expect kids to be drinking by age 21, kids aren't prepared as well as they should be, and then its the naiveté that kills them. | cmv |
I believe that lowering the US drinking age to 18 is a terrible idea. CMV. | I grew up in Greece. Now, in Greece the drinking age is 18 legally, the real drinking age is 16. One would assume that Greeks would thusly be constantly drunk ( rowdy teens, right? ) and traffic accidents by teens would be up. However, I have noticed the exact opposite. Generally teens, while they do drink, don't have the US ( and Canadian style ) of getting out SPECIFICALLY to get drunk the moment they become 21. In fact, most Greeks hate being drunk ( me included ) and will stop at the " slightly tipsy " stage. The reason for that is probably because we don't consider drinking a big deal or a " must do to have fun ". We will drink casually and that is it. The only thing that setting the drinking age to 21 and strictly enforcing it does is gloryfying alcohol as a " mature people " thing. | cmv |
I believe that lowering the US drinking age to 18 is a terrible idea. CMV. | I'm 18 and I have been drinking for roughly 2 years. Since I started I have been setting my own limits and I have not had a problem with that. A high drinking age is the governments way of setting my own limits for me and when they do that it prevents me from learning those limits and how to find them. If people are legally adults at 18 they should be treated as such. Drinking a beer is not that hard. | cmv |
I believe that lowering the US drinking age to 18 is a terrible idea. CMV. | It's doing an awfully bad job of keeping younger people from drinking. The problem is that students go to college at 17 - 18ish. At this point everyone has easy access to drinking and parties and bad influences. The only thing I can think of that lowering the drinking age WOULD do is make it seem like less of a rebellion. If anything, I think that in some cases people will be MORE responsible drinking. They would hide it less. They wouldn't be worried about taking a friend who might be having alcohol poisoning. I don't see in any way how it would make it worse. | cmv |
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV | For starters, I tend to agree with you because on this issue, and have debated it on more than one occasion, and so I will give you some of the arguments I had heard after having this discussion following the Gen. Petreas scandal. Constituents should be allowed to judge their representatives based on moral standards. Though the sex may be consensual, it is usually an extramarital transgression, which is generally considered in society as morally wrong. Those being represented tend to want a Rep. that they feel has good moral stature, not to mention is loyal, not only to the country and to the voices of their constituents, but also to their spouse. And I agree with you, that it can possibly unjustly ruin the reputation of an otherwise good or even great politician, but you must also consider what it means in terms of the way they prioritize. All politicians know the effect that an extramarital affair would have on their reputation, regardless of if it is an over the top reaction. If they are still willing to have that affair, they are stating that they prioritize having the affair over their reputation. Either that, or they are naive to the fact that it will most likely leak, and in either case that is not someone you want as a politician. It's either someone with incorrect priorities for his / her position or a naive person, either way that is not a someone you want representing your wants and needs as an elected official. | cmv |
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV | I'm going to challenge your premise that sex scandals are disproportionally harmful. I'm on my phone, but I encourage you to look up a recent Slate piece that determined that sex scandals usually cause a drop of around 5 percentage points in the polls at a maximum. Most voters really don't care! And for the voters that do, it is often because of adjacent factors like deceit or hypocrisy rather than the sex itself. We only need to look at examples like Bill Clinton, Mark Sanford, and David Vitter ( a scandal most people haven't heard of ) to determine that extra - marital sex doesn't ruin one's career. In fact, Weiner seems to be the exception rather than the rule — if not for the most recent revelation destroying his credibility, he had a decent chance at gaining some sort of political office once again. For context, scandals based on true betrayals of public trust such as bribery and corruption result in much worse blowback. | cmv |
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV | In Oregon, we are currently in the midst of a scandal involving the chair of our most populous county. If you look carefully at these sexual scandals, very many of them will be based on a power imbalance. In other words, a powerful man ( mostly ) having an inappropriate relationship with a less powerful, younger woman, who is often a possible recipient of job favors. So you can ask, who's the victim, outside of wronged spouses? We all are the victims when we suspect that sleeping around is the way to get ahead in government. | cmv |
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV | We hire politicians for one " true " purpose... to have good judgement. A sex scandal should have the same political outcome as other choices like driving drunk, taking bribes, etc... their judgement comes into question and therefore we have to wonder if they are truly up to the task we voted them to. I don't think that sex scandals should be treated so much worse than other lapses in judgement, but certainly they should be a contributing factor to our assessment of their abilities. Of course, they are disproportionately allocated more significance than the other example I give because they are salacious and easily discussed in the media, especially in a rather prudish society. That should be blamed on the media, who would rather talk about something as simple as where a penis goes, rather than the deep topics like banking reform that don't fit into a 30 second news clip. | cmv |
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV | It makes them look bad, but not from a " legal " standpoint necessarily. The point is that if some politician's wife can't even trust him, then why should voters trust him? There are millions of people who are perfectly capable of upholding the trust of their spouse in everyday life who aren't simultaneously being trusted with lawmaking decisions. The people we are trusting with these important decisions should at least be able to hold their personal lives together. | cmv |
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV | Do you feel likewise with respect to people that hold security clearances? They discount people that have " indiscretions " in private because that tends to give people who want to blackmail them into giving up secrets from work something to grab them by. I don't think the damage is all that much more than anyone else that has lost their job for that reason, it's just that due to the public nature of their job, it gets reported and spread about to a far wider audience. While there is a disturbing tendency for people belonging to whatever opposing party to never let go of this kind of thing until the horse has been beaten into the ground and popped up on the other side of the Earth, they're still amateurs compared to some about - to - be - ex - spouses. The real solution to that problem is for more people to stop being so scandalized by the fact that people enjoy sex and want to have it as much as possible with the most attractive people they can manage to hook up with. If airing a scandal doesn't cause the type of scandal folks are after, it'll stop being a tool that people use every chance they can. | cmv |
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV | Sex scandals are damaging to anyone who's in the public eye. Sponsors dropped Tiger Woods when he got caught cheating. And it's certainly not impossible for politicians to redeem themselves. Bill Clinton is still very popular. Maybe it's stupid to care so much about politicians'personal lives. But being a " talented politician " is not the same as being a " talented surgeon. " I'm not convinced that we as a society are unnecessarily wasting human capital by making Anthony Weiner be city comptroller or whatever for the rest of his life. | cmv |
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV | In terms of the Weiner case, he is a married man. A married man running around sexting some young woman does raise concerns about his character. If he was unmarried then who cares, it's not hurting a single person, but you've got to question the character of that person if they are married. | cmv |
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV | This is a really short comment, but the biggest issue isn't morality, it is the potential for blackmail. If an elected politician is willing to behave in a way that could have severe negative outcomes if brought to light, publicly or privately, they can't be trusted. They're potentially corruptible. | cmv |
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV | A guy who is willing to screw people other than their wives will have no qualms about screwing you. A marriage is contract and agreement between two parties. The oath they take is to each other much like the oath to uphold the constitution. If a person is willing to break an oath for sex, then what will they do for money and power ( or even more sex )? Our relationship with politicians is much like that of husband and wife, We have to be able to trust that they are not screwing behind our backs. | cmv |
Legal, consensual sex scandals cause disproportionate damage to political leaders careers. CMV | It doesn't matter what you base your campaign on. If your constituents care about family values, you can bet they're going to be upset when you do things like take picture of your penis and send them out. That violates their morality, and it's their decision who to elect, whether or not you agree with how they think. | cmv |
I believe contracting to paramilitary groups like Blackwater is wrong and should be illegal. CMV. | What about the purpose of them to protect companies employees oversees? You think it's a bad idea for a shipping co to hire black water to protect against somali pirates? The world is not a nice place, and sometimes companies or individuals need force to protect themselves. | cmv |
I believe contracting to paramilitary groups like Blackwater is wrong and should be illegal. CMV. | Theoretically, the free market is more efficient that a government run service, because there's competition and the incentive for profit. The government has a blank check on everything it does, so it wastes money. Therefore, in a perfect world, it would be cheaper to use blackwater. | cmv |
I believe contracting to paramilitary groups like Blackwater is wrong and should be illegal. CMV. | Private Security firms like Blackwater are not authorized to engage in offensive operations in combat. However, they are authorized to defend themselves against threats. In the kind of irregular warfare we saw in Iraq they often were target of attacks as frequently as coalition troops leading to them be involved in altercations. Private Security Firms primarily escort supply convoys and VIP's to their destinations. Outsourcing these jobs allows the military to focus primarily in engaging enemies or protecting extremely at risk convoys. | cmv |
I think referring to large numbers of black people as the " black community " is racist. CMV | You have some very solid points, I doubt anyone on this sub disagrees with you 100 %. That said, it's not an example of racism as much as it is a potentially mistaken example of racialization, which isn't in itself a bad thing. It may have negative consequences overall, it may have positive, it all depends on what value judgements are attached to the racialized category. Would it be racist for me to start using the term " the white community ", or would it rather be such a severe simplification as to be a useless descriptive? I still hear terms like WASP ( White Anglo - Saxon Protestant ) used to describe a social group with enough homogeneity in the issues they care about / the perspective they tend to adopt that it still seems useful to many ( half my family are WASPS, their assumptions overlap almost a lot ). In this way, many feel there's enough political homogeneity in the'black community'to warrant the terms use. Personally, I don't - it seems far too vague and blanket to me. Perhaps the category should be broken down further according to socioeconomic brackets? There are a set of issues that uniquely affect black people, which prompts a unique and to - some - degree - shared passion and perspective on relevant political questions. Referencing this overlap doesn't strike me as racist so much as undesirably simple. | cmv |
I think referring to large numbers of black people as the " black community " is racist. CMV | It is not racist because African American culture is very much a community. There are individuals and every stereotype will have exceptions, but much of the culture posesses collective themes. Look at how often " family " is showcased in African American movies like Soulfood and Death at a Funeral. Some people may use the term in a derogative fashion and that is racist, but African American culture does bear distinctions from the whole of American culture. Those distinctions are what make the " Black Community " a beautiful and essential part of our identity as Americans. | cmv |
I think referring to large numbers of black people as the " black community " is racist. CMV | The point of talking about the phrase " black community " is, ideally, to recognize the fact that black people have many concerns in common, which exist partly because they are black. You never hear about the " white community " because white people have very few such problems. For example, your article. Cashin's problem isn't that rich black people don't want to live or work in the ghetto. It would be silly ( and probably racist, yes ) to argue that they ought to. The problem is that rich black people often adopt a weird attitude towards black people in general, that's very similar to the attitude of rich white people. They think that poor urban black people are fundamentally different from normal people, and couldn't possibly integrate into their society. That attitude is racist, and doesn't become less so when it's black people expressing it. | cmv |
I think referring to large numbers of black people as the " black community " is racist. CMV | Groups of people are not called communities because out - group people have a need to call them such, but because they self - organize in communities and gladly use that term ( or similar terms ). Black people, Hispanic people, LGBT people, members of a specific religion, atheists etc. all form communities on their own initiative. White people for the most part don't, at least not using race as a single group characteristic. That's why it wouldn't make sense to talk about " the white community ". | cmv |
I think referring to large numbers of black people as the " black community " is racist. CMV | The term " black community " is not intended to lump all black people into one monolithic group. It's just a term that sounds nicer than " black people " or " blacks, " which can carry some hostile connotations. But I do think you're wrong on a larger level. Racial groups that form a numerical minority in a country will always have concerns that those in the dominant majority don't have. Those concerns naturally engender a sort of solidarity that you wouldn't see otherwise, so it makes sense that people might refer to a minority group with more collective language. | cmv |
I think the discrepancies between races are not caused by social bias, but the races themselves. Please CMV. | Most Asians moved voluntarily and when they were ready and had a plan. It's a lot easier if you decided what franchise you would buy into before making the trip. They also had to get through immigration, so they were probably educated before they came. | cmv |
I think the discrepancies between races are not caused by social bias, but the races themselves. Please CMV. | The blame is on something you said yourself, the cycle. It is not in the hands of any one particular person, group, or entity. It is almost on nature itself. The white people alive did not start the cycle but in many instances we have perpetuated the inequality. It should not be on a culture or race to crawl out of hole someone else threw them in. | cmv |
I think the discrepancies between races are not caused by social bias, but the races themselves. Please CMV. | White and asian kids get warnings for crimes that black and latin kids get prison for... White kid smokes pot : " he's learned his lesson " Black kid smokes pot : " he is a cancer on society, lock him up ". you can't blame blacks and mexicans for this truth. that is one hundred percent bias based... and this ( along with other bias derived hardships ) trickles out over society as a whole to disadvantage many minorities. | cmv |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.