The Dink Network

So as you may know, terrorists strike again, and this time with a few twists.
First of all, let's not forget those terrorists were none other than refugees, refugees which(may I remind you) our dear Angela Merkel welcomed.
I'm not racist, of course, but all of those terrorists destroy the reputation of the muslims all over the world, and now everyone tries to steer clear of anyone which may look suspicious.
What's up with those people? Are they mentally limited or something? What has this world gone to?

I read this article a while back and it's probably still relevant.

tl;dr version: Daesh is trying to get another war going with Europe in the middle east so that they can start Armageddon because yes, shit is that insane there right now.

Just read about what happened in Belgium. Hope Kyle is doing ok.

someone explain so i don't have to research anything.

Some guy went boom in an airport in Belgium, then another one went boom in a railway station. They managed to kill some people. We're hoping that no Belgian Dink ppl (such as Kyle or Voj) are caught up in the whole mess.

voj

One hell of a world we live in

let's stalk terrorism.

That too.

America had something to do with it

eh, probably.

They were not refugees. Merkel welcomed them because she's a decent person; Daesh is a horrible organization, and decent people help those who want to get away from them.

Here's what I consider terrorism: throwing more than 20000 bombs and missiles on a country, killing seemingly random people in the streets, at weddings and even in hospitals. That's what the west, lead by the US, is doing to the middle east. Should we really be surprised that the people who live there, who see their friends and family killed by this terrorism, want to fight back? That when Daesh tells them "those people are evil, we must fight them", that they agree?

Presidential candidates here (in the US), especially republicans, are now saying that not only should there be more bombs thrown on Syria, but we should be less concerned about civilian casualties (and the two main contenders, Trump and Cruz, even say they should actively try to make more civilian casualties, talking about going after family members of suspects and carpet bombing). That is not only advocating war crimes, it is also extremely counterproductive. Saying at the same time that anyone fleeing the region should be denied help makes them even more horrible people.

My take on it: the leaders of Daesh are evil. So are the leaders of the US. The fighters on both sides are misled and in some cases perhaps a little dumb. But most of all they are used for evil purposes. And the people living in and fleeing from the region, plus all the muslims all around the world, are innocent victims. They deserve our support.

And let's be clear: refugees are not cavemen; lots of them are well educated, and accepting them into your country isn't a burden in every way. They will also work and pay taxes, and participate in the economy.

But most of all: let's put the blame where it should be. Not with the powerless refugees. Not even with the mostly powerless fighters on both sides, who are forced to do this. Let's blame the leaders who push for more war, who want to send more weapons and refuse to help people in need.

Of course I'm not saying that ALL refugees are terrorists. I was talking about the terrorists who disguised themselves as simple refugees. BUT There is something sneaky about the Syrians.
As you know, I am from Romania, and when this whole refugee thing appeared, many of them avoided Romania and any other small countries. Like literally, they walked outside Romania to get to Hungary.
Why?

I'm not sure about Romania, but refugees will try to avoid certain countries because there might not be any job opportunity there, or the country is very xenophobic so they'll be treated like shit most of the time.

>And let's be clear: refugees are not cavemen; lots of them are well educated, and accepting them into your country isn't a burden in every way. They will also work and pay taxes, and participate in the economy.

It was found that 83% of Iraqi and Afghan refugees who came here during the wars have ended up living on welfare payments, with 61% never getting a job during their time here. I think you're being optimistic if you expect their economic participation to consist of anything greater than their Hartz IV payments.

Also what are you up to in the USA? Does it involve that printer thingy?

They may not be cavemen, but most of them(not all) sure as hell aren't going to contribute to anything in the countries they went to. My stepdad works in Saudi Arabia and he says that no wonder their economy is shit. In stores there are no set prices to products, they have to haggle and come to a good price for both the seller and the buyer. Not to mention some products are fakes.
He told me that there also some strict rules in their religion, like not being allowed to go alone on the streets. If you wanna go outside you have to bring at least 2 people with you. He told me some other stupid rules too.

So yeah, I guess they aren't really used to how things work in Europe, but they don't really seem to care either

There are strict rules in a lot of religions. Not all of them are followed. There's a pretty strict rule in christianity that if a woman cheated on her husband, even if she was raped, she has to be stoned to death. That's not really followed anymore. There's also a law about stoning a woman to death that has something to due with their periods. Actually, there's quite a bit of stoning women to death. Or uh, if two men are fighting and the wife of one goes to help him, you're supposed to cut off her hand. Oh, there's also a thing about stoning your son if he doesn't listen to you. Stoning is a pretty big thing in the bible. Stupid religious rules are not new.

Also, the economy of Saudi Arabia is almost entirely oil-based. Thus, they have a lot of private sector jobs. The issue with this however, is that the private section bring people from other countries with them. Of all the employed people in Saudi Arabia, only about 1/3rd of them are citizens of that country. Their economy is shit because other countries took all their jobs.

Well what can you do? All things have their downs

all things have their downs.

but...the bible is full of so many. it's totally barbaric.

Of course I'm not saying that ALL refugees are terrorists. I was talking about the terrorists who disguised themselves as simple refugees.

While that is not impossible, it is more likely that they will come in as normal travelers. Refugees don't have much money, but terrorists do; they don't need to send their people on a life-threatening journey hoping to get into a country. They can just pay their way in.

What's even more likely is that they recruit someone who was already in the country. That's why the terrorist attacks in Paris were done by EU citizens, for example. I'm sure it is the same for most others. In fact, I have not heard of a single attack by refugees. I may have missed one, but it certainly isn't their main method of getting people into countries.

But more importantly: you are more likely to die in a car crash, or from a heart attack, or in a fight with someone you know, or many other things, than you are to die in a terrorist attack. Terrorism gets a lot of media attention, but objectively speaking it's nothing to worry about. Of course law enforcement should go after them, and they do. But it's not something to worry about. When people use it as an excuse for not helping the powerless, they are either misled (which I assume is the case for you) or they are trying to mislead others; they just don't want to help the needy, and that is a horrible attitude.

BUT There is something sneaky about the Syrians. As you know, I am from Romania, and when this whole refugee thing appeared, many of them avoided Romania and any other small countries. Like literally, they walked outside Romania to get to Hungary.
Why?

Fleeing your home is not something that you do lightly. You leave behind everything you have, and everyone you know. However, once you have done that, it is not hard to keep moving. They want to find the best place, where they are most likely to be happy. Romania is a very poor country compared to the rest of Europe; they don't expect to get much help there, so they are less likely to build a good life for themselves.

They're certainly not avoiding small countries. Lebanon has 5.8 million citizens, and they accepted more than 1.2 million refugees from Syria.

It was found that 83% of Iraqi and Afghan refugees who came here during the wars have ended up living on welfare payments

That is a horribly misleading article. Given the style of writing, I do not trust it. And even what it does say is not what it seems to say: 69% are "not employed"; of those, 83% have some form of welfare. That's 57% of the entire group. And "not employed", can mean:

unemployed, retired, studying full time, engaged in caring duties, doing voluntary work or trying to start a business from which they had yet to receive income.

All except the first of those are not problematic. I have no idea if the numbers are good or bad, but this article certainly tries to make it sound as bad as it can, and it bends the facts to do that.

Anyway, I'm not saying countries should take in refugees to stimulate their economy. It may have that effect, but I'm not at all sure about that. You take in refugees because they need help. That is a burden, and as a country you should accept a limited amount of it because it's the right thing to do.

Yes, that takes effort, and possibly money. Rich countries (like mine, the Netherlands) have a responsibility to help. Especially the ones who have caused a large part of the problem, such as the US and the UK.

My point is not that it is not a burden. My point is that it is more than that; many refugees do contribute to society. It may or may not cancel out the entire burden, but it certainly cancels out some of it.

They may not be cavemen, but most of them(not all) sure as hell aren't going to contribute to anything in the countries they went to.
[Story about how Saudi Arabia is a horrible place]

You mention a few things here. None of them seem to be related to refugees. Do you mean that you don't want Arabs in your country? On the one hand, I think this is a valid point: a country shouldn't be required to take in so many refugees that its own culture changes significantly. They shouldn't "take over". But that doesn't mean you can't help them at all; it just means you should have reasonable limits on how many you accept. This is why there are international agreements about who is accepting how many of them.

I guess they aren't really used to how things work in Europe, but they don't really seem to care either

Every person is different, of course. And I don't know any recent refugees personally, so I just have to guess based on stories from refugees who have lived in the Netherlands for some time.

When they just arrive, they are not always treated nicely. They also have just had a long journey with a lot of fear; they don't suddenly trust people after that. Their first care is their safety, and I don't blame them. Also, at first they usually hope to go back home relatively soon. So then they don't try to fit in. But after some time, they realize they're not going back any time soon (or at all), and want to join the society they have entered.

There's a pretty strict rule in christianity that if a woman cheated on her husband, even if she was raped, she has to be stoned to death.

I think ya mistook christianity with judaism.

Majority of the real refugees who actually need help are still in their neighbour countries, living in crappy camps etc. Recent Finnish studies show that most "Syrian refugees" who come to Finland are actually immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan. Many of them are actually doing far better in life than your average Finn. And I'm sorry, but judging from my own experience with these people, they're usually up to no good in one way or another, and cause nothing but trouble. I've yet to ever meet a single one of these people without them trying to pull something on me or someone I know. It's estimated that around ten terrorists travelled to Finland in these immigrant groups last year. Though, personally I believe the actual number is way higher.

>In fact, I have not heard of a single attack by refugees.

The Paris attackers had an accomplice from Syria who was registered as a refugee on the Greek isle of Leros.

Also there was a terrorist attack on a Lindt cafe in Sydney a little while ago that was committed by an Iranian refugee who came here in 1996. There's currently an inquest underway.

Can you mention which positive contribution refugees have on their destination countries? Most arguments seem to either revolve around foreign cuisine or around some variation on the reasoning that sharing $10 with 5 people is much better than sharing $9 with 4.

I'm not saying countries shouldn't help refugees, I'm just saying that the reasoning that refugees could have a net positive effect on the country housing them seems to be mostly wishful thinking originating from ideological grounds rather than observational ones.

Also, this should get a poll...

I think ya mistook christianity with judaism.

No, they both have that. There's a lot of crossover in the Abrahamic religions.

Like literally, they walked outside Romania to get to Hungary.
Why?

They were probably fleeing from all the vampires

they were escaping the romanian lettuce

Maybe they mistook it for ancient Italian Rome

I took a bad time to return, but the conversation is getting pretty riveting, so I'll wait for more details before joining in again.

Also what ever happened to Punisher? He'd love this conversation.

I actually thought about him while writing this post )

refugee porn should be banned(I'M NOT TRYING TO BE RACIST).

EDIT: MAGICMAN STOP DELETING MY POSTS U F##K

refugee porn should be banned

OH MY GOD THAT EXISTS?!!?

What dafuq is that? I thought they were running from the war or some shit. What the hell are they doing ducking?

Didn't you hear about what happened in Cologne on New Year's?

How did this discusssion go from terrorism to pornographic profiling this quickly?

hey, they're fleeing their country. might as well ease the stress by having loads of sex. then they can film it, sell it, and become famous porn stars in the new country.

pretty good plan.

I get it some people think they will steal jobs, but pornstars' jobs too?
THEIR PLAN IS MUCH MORE ELABORATE THAN WE THOUGHT!!

Lots of replies, so I'll reply to some of it. I'm sure it'll be a long post again.

The Paris attackers had an accomplice from Syria
Yes, I heard that. However, this is about helping people and stopping terrorism. Both are good goals. The message that some are sending is that they are incompatible. This is not true. Sure, some refugees may be involved in attacks, just like there are people from many other groups. But to see if they are incompatible, the question is "would the attacks still have happened if the refugees were refused entry into the country?" For Paris (and any other deadly attacks I know of), the answer is "absolutely". Which means our refusal to help them does not prevent the attacks.

Didn't you hear about what happened in Cologne on New Year's?
That is an entirely different story, however. From what I understood, those were all refugees (although not all recently entered). The main problem seemed to be that they were not integrated well into the German society, so their ideas of what was normal (both for the women that were attacked, and for how they should response to it) did not align with the German norms. This is what I talked about before, how it is reasonable to have limits on the amount of refugees you take in as a country. Because there needs to be integration, and if there are too many of them, that doesn't work well. I don't know if the amount was the problem in Germany; it can also have been that their attempts at integration weren't effective. In any case, this is a real and serious issue that must be resolved.

Can you mention which positive contribution refugees have on their destination countries?
The same as for native citizens. People in a country generally have a positive contribution to society (at least on average, otherwise society wouldn't exist). I don't see why this would be any different for refugees.

Note that this is about those who have been admitted. Those who are in the procedure are often not allowed to work, and if the procedure takes long, that can cause problems in itself.

Refugees are people. Why would they (on average) be less productive for society than other people? I would expect them to be more productive if anything; they have shown to take initiative when they want to get something done.

[Religion tangent]
I think ya mistook christianity with judaism.
Jesus said that all the Jewish laws remained valid and that he had not come to abolish them. So anything from Judaism is also from Christianity. (The popular interpretation is what Paul wrote, that in fact Jesus did mean to abolish the Jewish laws. Jesus however, only said the opposite.) And for completeness: Muslims also have the Christian (and therefore the Jewish) holy books as their own; they just added one.
[/Religion tangent]

most "Syrian refugees" who come to Finland are actually immigrants from Iraq and Afghanistan.
I have no reason to doubt that. Are you suggesting that Iraq and Afganistan are totally safe, and those people don't deserve our help? I think (but I have done no research on it) that people who have made a dangerous journey where they needed to bribe people, trust nobody and lie about all sorts of things just to get to a safer place, aren't suddenly going to trust us. So of course they will tell lies. If they think they have a bigger chance that they may stay if they say they're from Syria, that's what they'll say.

The real solution here would be to somehow make sure they can have a good life in their country of origin. But that's very hard, and it's questionable whether we should even try it. One thing we absolutely should do is to stop making it worse. The US in particular floods the middle east with weapons, overthrows governments they don't like, etc. While it is debatable whether we should be involved in fixing things, I think it is obvious that doing those sorts of things is not the way to go. (Note that the same people who say that's good, are the ones who say we shouldn't help refugees.)

Many of them are actually doing far better in life than your average Finn.
I don't think I know many who are doing very well. The type of people you describe are usually quite poor. But if they are doing very well, given that taxes are reasonable in Europe (as opposed to the US, where they are far too low), that means they also pay a lot in taxes, so they are good for the economy.

Your suspicions about them sound like there is a problem with integration. I've had the same feeling when I was in Egypt; there culture doesn't feel right to me. That's not because it's wrong, but because it's different. Refugees need to adapt to fit in to our country; we need to help them with that.

What dafuq is that? I thought they were running from the war or some shit. What the hell are they doing ducking?
You realize that when they make a movie about criminals, they are hiring actors instead of real criminals? I'm sure they can do the same thing with any other group of people. Or non-people, for that matter.

But do they have sex? Of course they do. Why wouldn't they?

My fear is that integrating refugees could be a hopeless task. People learn most of their behaviours, moral values and beliefs in childhood, some social worker lady lecturing grown men that they shouldn't this and this isn't going to be effective. I doubt many of the refugees involved in the happenings on New Year were ignorant enough to not know that kind of thing isn't acceptable in Europe, they just lacked respect for the local customs and law. Do refugees only act relatively well most of the time because the local population vastly outnumbers the amount of refugees, but the moment you get a larger concentration of refugees than locals in one place, a complete shitstorm breaks out?

My fear is that integrating refugees could be a hopeless task.
Many refugees are never going back home. If integrating them doesn't work, integrating their children will. For that, it is important that those children live in the local culture, not in a community of refugees.

Do refugees only act relatively well most of the time because the local population vastly outnumbers the amount of refugees,
Yes, that is exactly my point. That's why I'm saying there should be a limit on how many of them are accepted. Not because they are evil, but because we don't want our culture to radically change into their culture. And the ones that are accepted should be spread out over the country, so there are no enclaves of them.

but the moment you get a larger concentration of refugees than locals in one place, a complete shitstorm breaks out?
I don't think they are intrinsically bad people, but if they feel like they are back home, they don't expect sexy women walking around. So if they do see that, they have a reaction; in this case a very bad one.

Note that I'm all for convincing them to change their culture to improve women's rights in their countries, but that's not what this thread is about.

I have no reason to doubt that. Are you suggesting that Iraq and Afganistan are totally safe, and those people don't deserve our help?

No, what I'm saying is we have no idea who we are actually allowing in the country, which puts us in major risk. Helping others I am fine with, but not to the point where it becomes so blind we are destroying our own country (or in this case, continent). Especially since they would never help us if we were in the same situation.

I don't think I know many who are doing very well. The type of people you describe are usually quite poor. But if they are doing very well, given that taxes are reasonable in Europe (as opposed to the US, where they are far too low), that means they also pay a lot in taxes, so they are good for the economy.

Most of them are doing just fine. A terribly lot even have money to travel between countries whenever they wish. Do you really think these people went through a "dangerous journey" to get here? No. Most paid their way to come here in taxis, first-class flights etc. They often even outright admit to it, despite our media trying to hide it. Your average Finn makes about enough money, that if they save it, they can travel abroad around once a year. These "refugees", however, are travelling abroad left and right. And usually many of them leave during winter back to their home country, then come back during summer. They do it because "it's too cold here". Now tell me, if you were really in THAT much trouble and danger in your home country, would you go back there just because of a little cold? Most Finns wouldn't have the money to do that kinda travelling. Oh, and I'm pretty sure they don't pay any taxes. They do get paid by our government, though. They also get jobs a lot easier than most Finns, which is very bad, since we're already struggling with unemployment. I've seen some of these "refugees" admit they have +20,000€, which is an insane amount of money. Someone who has that much money shouldn't be paid by the government, shouldn't be allowed to avoid taxes, and shouldn't be allowed to take jobs from Finns, especially in questionable methods.

what I'm saying is we have no idea who we are actually allowing in the country, which puts us in major risk.
Why is it a risk to take in refugees from a different country than you thought they were?

Again, terrorists have money. They can just arrange a visa and come in without the hassle of going through the refugee system (which will likely reject them).

we are destroying our own country
How does taking in refugees destroy the country?

they would never help us if we were in the same situation.
There are people who don't want to help others in every group, including refugees. But there are also people who do in every group. Your suggestion that all refugees are the same is too simplistic.

But even if it would be true: so what? Do you only help people as an investment, so they can help you later? I think we should help people because they need it (and we can afford it, as I wrote before; we shouldn't help more of them than we can handle). What they would do in a hypothetical situation isn't relevant.

About how they are so rich and going home (to Syria? Really?), do you have sources? I've never heard this before and I would like to know if it's more than rich people confusing you into blaming the poor. Because that's what I suspect is happening. Refugees are not the ones with the power. If influential people are trying to blame them for bad things in your life, check if they aren't to blame themselves.

For example, here in the US, the republicans give huge amounts of tax money to the rich, and they also shout the loudest that minorities are ruining the country: the blacks, the muslims, the g a y s, transgender people, you name it. None of these groups have any power, and none of them is ruining the economy. But those politicians are, so they need a diversion.

>the blacks, the muslims, the fabulous, transgender people, you name it. None of these groups have any power,

Those various groups and their representatives have immense power in the USA and elsewhere. The fact that you even mention them at all means that you've legitimised them as having power and are giving them power by apparently sympathising with them. If they didn't have any power you wouldn't know about them and their goals at all and you wouldn't have mentioned them at all since they'd have no power.

In the case of the trans, quite recently we've seen the House Bill 2 passed in North Carolina with the negative response from the fabulous and the transfolk being unparalleled. Bruce Springsteen has even cancelled a tour there because he doesn't like the laws. In total, over 100 major companies have refused to do business in North Carolina because of this new law.

Another good example is how Brendan Eich was forced to step down as Mozilla CEO because he was personally opposed to same-sex marriage. It had absolutely no bearing on the position at hand yet he was forced to step down anyway. In fact OKCupid even told its users to stop using Firefox while all of this was going on. The Chick-Fil-A backlash is also a relevant example.

Now onto Muslims. First and foremost, people are scared of Muslims and therefore simply do not criticise Islam on television ever. Even in the USA, Penn from Penn and Teller has stated that he won't do an episode of Bullshit about Islam (or Scientology) because he has family members that he loves. At a "draw Mohammed" competition, two guys turned up to kill everyone but were thankfully shot dead before they could do any harm. Muslims don't screw around. They react like petulant children every time someone insults Mohammed or themselves (remember The Innocence of Muslims?), and nobody will ever call them out on it because they're simply too frightened.

Every time one of these attacks occurs, nobody ever dares blame Islam or the contents of the Koran, and instead you've got morons lighting candles and disingenuously reciting "It's t-t-the religion of peace!" and effectively excusing their actions with Twitter hashtags. This power through public sympathy alone is huge.

I believe the black lobby has a fair bit of power as well through Al Sharpton and the NAACP and college affirmative action but I don't know enough about it.

Otherwise, in short, all of those groups you mention have large amounts of power in the public sphere. One is not allowed to criticise blacks or the fabulous (and Muslims to a lesser extent) in public without receiving huge amounts of negative publicity and potentially public condemnation. For a group to be actually powerless it has to be completely unacknowledged and unrecognised such as in the case of Zoroastrian folk singers or Estonian donkey wranglers. Although, how much power these groups you've listed wield is debatable, it is simply absurd to assert that they are powerless.

In total, over 100 major companies have refused to do business in North Carolina because of this new law.

BURN, NORTH CAROLINA. FADE TO OBLIVION.

Those various groups and their representatives have immense power in the USA and elsewhere.
So if they have all this power, how come they are the poorest people in the country? Why wouldn't they use all this power for getting some money so they can get a better life?

House Bill 2 passed in North Carolina
So their massive power is shown by the fact that laws are passed which make it illegal for them to even exist? Or in this case, to go to a bathroom, and that forces public organizations to discriminate against them? And that there is some push back to those laws? You call that power? Really?

Brendan Eich was forced to step down
I haven't heard that story, but yes, things like that happen sometimes. It shows that their power is growing. But it's not growing into a super-power, it's growing from zero to still very much below the power of "normal" people (the norm being white male cis (non-trans) straight christian).

Would a CEO who is outspoken against straight people be forced to resign? Someone who openly hates white people? Are you kidding me? Such a person wouldn't become CEO in the first place. How many large American companies have a black CEO? How many have a female CEO? Trans? Muslim? The sum of all of the above is near zero. How is that possible, if those groups have so much power?

people are scared of Muslims and therefore simply do not criticise Islam on television ever.
Ha Ha Ha

The TV is practically a non-stop stream of Muslim bashing. But I guess you're saying that they are so powerful, because some people complain about it as well?

At a "draw Mohammed" competition
Why does that even happen, if the Muslims have so much power?

two guys turned up to kill everyone
At a black church in South Carolina, a white christian racist turned up and shot and killed nine people. In Newtown, two non-Muslim insane kids killed a lot of elementary school kids. And I can go on.

This country has a gun problem. There are mass shootings everywhere, all the time. All of them are done by crazy people. Some of those crazy people are Muslim. Why do you blame all of Islam for that subgroup of crazy people, but you don't blame all white people, or all christians, or all men, or all gun owners, for the majority of the shootings?

were thankfully shot dead
I think police here is too eager to kill. They should have tried to arrest them without killing them. In this specific case I think killing them was justified, but in general I am not thankful when people are shot dead.

nobody will ever call them out on it
So what are you doing right now? Aren't you calling them out on it?

All the power that you attribute to the minorities comes from regular people on the internet. But when you do the same thing, it doesn't count?

Every time one of these attacks occurs, nobody ever dares blame Islam or the contents of the Koran
Yes, lots of people actually do just that, and it makes things worse. Because sure, there is violent text in the Koran. There's also violent text in the bible. There is also lots of peaceful language in the bible. And in the Koran. All those books are very self contradicting. If you believe in them, you have to pick and choose which parts you believe. The crusaders chose the wrong parts of the bible. ISIS chose the wrong parts of the Koran. That doesn't mean all other Christians, or all other Muslims, are violent and dangerous.

I would love it if all religions would be treated by everyone as stories without any truth behind them. But that's not going to happen anytime soon. When the great majority of a group chooses to believe the peaceful parts of a religion, and that is true for both Christianity and Islam, it is not only wrong to blame all of them for a few radicals; it is counterproductive.

If you aren't sure about the numbers: the KKK (which was doing its terrorism on a Christian basis) was a larger percentage of all Christianity than ISIS is now of all Muslims. You're not claiming that the KKK was a good reason for extra surveillance on European Christians, I hope? Then why is ISIS a reason for doing the same thing to all Muslims?

"It's t-t-the religion of peace!"
I haven't heard that a lot. Sure, some say it, but they are idiots. The truth is that any major religion can be the religion of peace, and it can be the religion of violence. It just depends which part of the text you believe. I like Muslims who choose the peaceful texts better than the ones who choose the violent texts, but that doesn't mean either of them is right.

This power through public sympathy alone is huge.
Yet the only result of this huge power is that they are slightly less aggressively discriminated against. If they had real power, they would have money. They would have politicians on their side and laws that would help them would be passed. Or at the very least, laws that discriminate them would not be passed. But the fact is those laws are passed, including HB2 in North Carolina (which mostly targets transgenders, but also hurts other minorities). Because of this power you speak of, in South Carolina they won't pass a similar law. Isn't that great power, the ability to make people discriminate slightly less than they otherwise would?

I believe the black lobby has a fair bit of power as well through Al Sharpton and the NAACP and college affirmative action but I don't know enough about it.
Sure they do. They are organizing in an effort to achieve equality. And they have some succes, meaning they have more power than 0. But it doesn't mean they have as much power as other people. Because they are massively discriminated against. In St. Louis and other places, the police department deals out random fines to black people because they want more money. Blacks do marijuana at the same rates as whites, but get arrested four times as much. Unarmed black people get mistreated, sometimes shot and killed, by police all over the country.

If the result of "huge power" is that your people don't get killed for no reason just as often as before, you deserve a lot more power.

What is actual huge power? The power that we should fight against? Political donors. The pharmaceutical industry, the banks, the oil companies, the military industrial complex. They bribe politicians and get massive tax breaks or subsidies in return. They break the law and crash the economy, hurting everyone in the country except the super-rich, and they don't get prosecuted. You want to know why salaries don't go up? They say it's because all those minorities are... I'm not even sure what they are supposed to do, but you should be angry at them. That's a lie. The minorities don't even have enough power to make sure they are treated fairly in life. The reason is that while productivity has continued to rise, incomes of workers have not risen. Almost all new wealth goes to the richest people in the country.

Although, how much power these groups you've listed wield is debatable, it is simply absurd to assert that they are powerless.
They are at a massive disadvantage in society. They use all their power in an effort to survive (and in many cases, that is quite literal; the suicide rate among transgenders is huge, that's not because they have such great lives). I agree that strictly speaking they aren't "powerless". But "the world" is so much against them, that even with all the power they can get, they are still in a much worse position than people who aren't part of that group.

Estonian donkey wranglers may seem powerless, but they have the superpower of being able to walk down the street without being stopped (or killed) by the police. They have the power of being taken seriously when talking to a public official. They have the power to be able to live a normal life, and they don't even have to do anything for it. That's called privilege. Some people complain about being called privileged without having done anything to deserve it. That's exactly what privilege means. You're not to blame for it (neither do you deserve credit). But it is a great power, even if it feels completely normal. A much greater power than being able to fight back against massive discrimination so it becomes slightly less bad.

So their massive power is shown by the fact that laws are passed which make it illegal for them to even exist? Or in this case, to go to a bathroom, and that forces public organizations to discriminate against them? And that there is some push back to those laws? You call that power? Really?

i do. the lgbt community has come really far and lately, more and more people are aware that fabulouss and trans people exist. that's good. then, more and more people are becoming accepting. just because some old dinks in political chairs in a few states are still trying to duck with them doesn't mean they have no power. it means they have opposition and that said opposition is losing. did you seriously forget the time every state in the us legalized fabulous marriage?

Estonian donkey wranglers may seem powerless, but they have the superpower of being able to walk down the street without being stopped (or killed) by the police.

estonian donkey wranglers haven't been described by religious crap or whatever as evil or an abomination or anything like that. and i'm pretty sure there wasn't a time where if you were a estonian donkey wrangler, you were a sub-human slave to the great and powerful whites. it's just an obscure thing that you may have actually just made up.

if the pope or some ministers started preaching that estonian donkey wranglers are an affront to god, you'd probably start seeing them hated. that's the power of religion. and the power against it still exists.

the lgbt community has come really far and lately
Oh, absolutely! Though lgb a lot more than t. But yes, I agree that the fight for equality is working. My point is that while they are fighting this battle, they still have much less power than other people, and everyone has much less power than the billionaires. This discussion started by saying that the minorities were the cause of all the problems in the world. By saying they are powerless, I don't mean they cannot do anything; I mean they have less power than most other people, and they certainly don't have the power to topple the economy.

it's just an obscure thing that you may have actually just made up.
Yes, I also took it as an example of a group of people who aren't part of any minority; neither one that is discriminated against, nor a powerful elite. My point here was that the minorities that are discriminated against have less power than those "random" people. They use all their power to fight for equality. Sure, it gets them some results, but they still aren't treated equally by society. So if you call the Estonian donkey wranglers "powerless" (which is reasonable, I think), then those minorities have negative power.

By saying they are powerless, I don't mean they cannot do anything

well, ok. but powerless means, well. powerless.

It means you're not connected to the electrical grid.

I like being powerless.

> So if they have all this power, how come they are the poorest people in the country?

Irrelevant strawman. We're discussing power and who ultimately has power and the forms in which it takes. Even so, a lot of Fabulous Lobby members are very rich since they have no children, as are a lot of Fabulous-specific charities that receive funding.

>You call that power? Really?

Yes. I take it that hundreds of companies (including absolutely gigantic ones such as Google and PayPal) rallying around the trans flag simply isn't enough for you. It's a pretty obvious example of how much power the trans agenda has behind it.

> But it's not growing into a super-power, it's growing from zero to still very much below the power of "normal" people

Getting The Boss to completely cancel a concert can't be an easy feat. Very few groups would be able to manage such a thing. They have far more power than what you term "normal" people in terms of an organised group and ideology.

How many have a female CEO? Trans? Muslim? The sum of all of the above is near zero. How is that possible, if those groups have so much power?

That's divisive irrelevant identity politics. Someone who is imbued with power doesn't necessarily have the ability to do whatever they want with it without consequences. Most CEOs for example are accountable to their shareholders, with politicians similarly accountable to their electorates. This is a process known as representation. Through representation, these groups have the ability to exert power through a representative. Therefore simply because a group doesn't have a Fabulous Black Jew, for example, as their CEO doesn't mean they are incapable of representing the Fabulous Black Jews and enacting their demands. Even though a CEO or politician may be a white male with substantial amounts of executive power, he still doesn't necessarily have the chance to forward the ideals of the white male agenda without consequences.

For example the CEO of EA isn't fabulous (he's Australian apparently), however EA has in the past sponsored fabulous charities and have therefore done what the fabulous lobby want them to through the process of representation. The companies that pulled out of NC after that new law are also acting on behalf of trans people by enacting their wishes. Intel also paid $300 million to the diversity racket which they pulled from other areas to finance. That's a very substantial amount, once again showing how much power these groups have. GitHub has implemented a new controversial code of conduct as well which overwhelmingly supports transexuals and bans those who commit wrongthink, once again showing how powerful these groups are ideologically.

>The TV is practically a non-stop stream of Muslim bashing

Most of those people were pretty restrained in what they had to say in that debate, with lots of praise for Muslims being included as well. It wasn't nearly as critical as I thought it would be. Unfortunately Muslims tend to defend their beliefs by blowing themselves up rather than talking about it nicely like we're doing right now. This in no way proves that they lack power, as the act of them talking about it legitimises them as having power and being a potentially subversive group with some degree of power. According to Pew Research, the overwhelming majority of Muslims believe that a wife should submit totally to her husband and that executing homosexuals is a good idea to implement so I find it strange that you'd defend them at all. Don't forget that the current US president is a Muslim.

>Why does that even happen, if the Muslims have so much power?

It would never happen in Australia or Canada or Great Britain, and I doubt it would happen in France after the whole Charlie Hebdo thing. The event was criticised even before it occurred for being provocative. I do admit that Muslims have much more power outside of the USA, and I think you're exaggerating my claim as to how much power they have.

> At a black church in South Carolina, a white christian racist turned up and shot and killed nine people. In Newtown, two non-Muslim insane kids killed a lot of elementary school kids. And I can go on.

That's a strawman. I don't dispute that the Christian lobby and its fundies in the USA have a lot of power. Far more power than in Australia anyway. It was also only one guy in Newtown, CT apparently for the record.

> Why do you blame all of Islam for that subgroup of crazy people, but you don't blame all white people, or all christians, or all men, or all gun owners, for the majority of the shootings?

That's a strawman as well. I don't dispute that the NRA is powerful. Incidentally I had a look, and quite a lot of the significant shootings have been committed by people who aren't white. For example V-Tech was done by a Korean, with several other mass shootings performed by Native Americans. Isla Vista was done by a half-Asian, and Chris Harper-Mercer was half-black. Dylann Roof is almost an outlier in terms of his profile compared to the rest of the major shooters.

Also note that I could flip that question around and ask you why you refuse to have Muslims take responsibility for their actions. Violence is a major facet of Islam and you'd know that if you knew the personal history of the Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) and of course the Abbasids and the Umayyads and Al-Andalus etc.

> You're not claiming that the KKK was a good reason for extra surveillance on European Christians, I hope? Then why is ISIS a reason for doing the same thing to all Muslims?

Another strawman. I never advocated for any sort of surveillance anywhere and never mentioned the KKK.

> All the power that you attribute to the minorities comes from regular people on the internet. But when you do the same thing, it doesn't count?

Most of it comes from major corporations, governments, and people in academia. Particularly in the USA, this college indoctrination is incredibly prevalent and is just about compulsory. I'm simply trying to prove that the groups you claim to be powerless are actually quite influential in many cases.

> So what are you doing right now? Aren't you calling them out on it?

I heavily doubt that you're a Muslim.

>If you believe in them, you have to pick and choose which parts you believe.

That's not an option in Islam. The Koran is literally considered by them to be the word of G-d as given to his Prophet Mohammed. It's not like protestant Christianity.

>If they had real power, they would have money.

That's a No True Scotsman. Power takes a variety of forms and doesn't necessarily present itself as dollars and cents. My point was in regards to Muslims as well so I don't see the relevance.

>Sure they do
> I agree that strictly speaking they aren't "powerless".

Yay! We've reached an agreement.

>you deserve a lot more power

Power to do what exactly? Who determines who deserves power and who doesn't?

>But "the world" is so much against them

This is currently the best time in history to be part of one of the aforementioned groups if you live in the Western world. Elsewhere is a different matter, however.

> By saying they are powerless, I don't mean they cannot do anything

By saying he was blind, I didn't mean that he couldn't see.
by saying i am using blue crayons to colour this dolphin, i don't mean it will have blue in it

Redefining words? Come on dude, you're better than that.

Yes. I take it that hundreds of companies (including absolutely gigantic ones such as Google and PayPal) rallying around the trans flag simply isn't enough for you. It's a pretty obvious example of how much power the trans agenda has behind it.

rallying it? in what way? did google and paypal do some big awareness parades or something?

Redefining words? Come on dude, you're better than that.
Let's be more clear about the definitions:

Power is the ability to change the world around you to be what you want it to be. Privilege is that world around you is in your favor. Privilege does not imply power; the Estonian donkey wranglers we were talking about have little power, but a lot of privilege. Which means they don't need power to be happy.

For those who don't have privilege, the ability to make the world slightly less horrible is not power. Being able to make your life as good as that of someone without power is not power. Power is that you can make changes that make your life better than that of the average person.

Those are my definitions, I hope you agree to use them as well. If not, please explain what definitions you would use instead.

Irrelevant strawman. We're discussing power and who ultimately has power and the forms in which it takes.
If a group of people is underrepresented in almost every group of leaders (politicians, media figures, CEOs), they do not have much power. They can beg the people in power for changes, and hope that they listen. That is not power.

Note that I'm not saying that every non-minority person has power. But the minorities are systematically kept out of positions of power. And not only that, some people in power are actively fighting against them. Politicians make laws against them. The media regularly say that all of them are criminals. CEOs don't hire them or don't give them a promotion. The only leaders that sometimes speak up (and also the only group that has those minorities among its leaders, coincidence?) are artists. And note that when the leaders in art, such as Beyoncé and Springsteen, use their power to help the minorities, they are heavily criticized by leaders from other fields.

as are a lot of G ay-specific charities that receive funding.
Indeed, as was mentioned before, the LGB community is winning this battle. But most rich g ays didn't tell anyone about their sexual orientation until they already were in power, so that doesn't count (who knows if they would have become powerful if everyone had known about it). And some probably made it despite the discrimination. In some cases a progressive group may actually have helped them because of it, but that's rare AFAIK.

Transgenders are similar, but worse; there are zero people in the world, who got in positions of power while openly trans, AFAIK. And they don't seem to be winning their battle either. Hopefully it helps them that LGBT is considered one category and the LGB situation is getting better.

Someone who is imbued with power doesn't necessarily have the ability to do whatever they want with it without consequences.
Sure. But someone who isn't imbued with power definitely doesn't have the ability to do what they want. So if you see that almost no leader in society comes from a certain group (and that group is a significant part of society), the conclusion must be that that group is mistreated.

Therefore simply because a group doesn't have a G ay Black Jew, for example, as their CEO doesn't mean they are incapable of representing the G ay Black Jews and enacting their demands.
In one individual case, that is correct. But if you can find almost no CEO who is either g ay or black (I think Jews aren't treated so badly in the US at least, but I may be wrong about that), that is a different story.

Unfortunately Muslims tend to defend their beliefs by blowing themselves up rather than talking about it nicely like we're doing right now.
Some of them do. There are more than 2 billion Muslims though, and almost all of them do not. Your suggestion that they are all the same and violent is offensive and unfair to most of them. As I wrote before, some Christians do the same thing. But I don't hear you accuse all Christians of being violent. Why are they different?

I think you're exaggerating my claim as to how much power they have.
You suggest that they have power at all (according to my definition above). I say they don't. They are very much disadvantaged. All the "power" you talk about is not enough to compensate that. It would have been worse without the support, but that doesn't mean it's good now.

Incidentally I had a look, and quite a lot of the significant shootings have been committed by people who aren't white.
Sure, don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that you should blame any of the groups I named (perhaps excluding gun owners, they are dangerous). I'm saying that you also shouldn't blame all Muslims for the radicals that also call themselves Muslims. They are not comparable. They are not the same group. On the other hand, if many people in the rest of the world keep insisting that all Muslims are the enemy and keep them away from power, the ones that weren't radical originally are pushed to "join the group" and become radicals as well. That's what I mean when I say that blaming all of them is counterproductive. It creates terrorists.

Also note that I could flip that question around and ask you why you refuse to have Muslims take responsibility for their actions.
Thank you for asking. I am entirely consistent. I thought that was clear, but apparently it isn't, so I'm happy to explain.

Yes, I do think radical Muslims (members and sympathizers of Isis specifically) are terrorists and should be punished (I don't have any confidence in them "taking responsibility"). But I do not think Muslims who want nothing to do with them should be apologizing for them all the time.

In the same way, I do not think that all white people, or all Christians, or you name which group that a shooter happens to belong to (and in some cases, including some of the ones from those groups, explicitly claim that that was the reason they did it), should apologize for a terrorist who identifies as part of the same community they are in. It may seem like I'm saying that that would be a good thing. That's not what I mean. I'm asking for consistency from you: if you blame all Muslims for actions from people from and like Isis (which I don't think is right), you should also blame all Christians for the Planned Parenthood shooter, and all white people for Dylann Roof (which I also don't think is right). I'm not saying that you should be blaming the other groups; I'm saying that it is inconsistent to do it to Muslims but not to the other groups. I would disagree with you if you did it to both, but that would be consistent. I would agree with you if you do it to neither, and that would also be consistent.

Violence is a major facet of Islam
Just like it is a major facet of Christianity. There are numerous passages in the bible that advocate killing people, torturing people, causing abortions, you name it. I prefer to focus on the more peaceful parts of the book, but that doesn't mean the other parts don't exist. The Koran also contains very peaceful parts and many Muslims take their inspiration from those parts to live lives that I agree with.

I never advocated for any sort of surveillance anywhere and never mentioned the KKK.
So you're saying that all Muslims are violent, but we shouldn't do some surveillance on them? I don't agree that they are, but if they would be, it would be irresponsible not to do surveillance.

I mentioned the KKK to compare how Muslims are treated to how Christians are/were treated. The KKK was in some ways similar to Isis. They were terrorists with a religious motive, and they were fairly localized (in the US; Isis in the middle east). Punishing Muslims in the US for what Isis is doing is very similar to punishing Christians in Europe (at the time) for what the KKK was doing. The latter is ridiculous; of course peaceful Christians in Europe don't have to answer for terrorism by a small group of people in the name of their God in a different continent. Then why isn't it equally ridiculous when it's about peaceful Muslims? The percentage that Isis is to all Muslims is smaller than what the KKK was to all Christians.

That's not an option in Islam.
And you blame me for using a "no true Scottsman" argument?

Power takes a variety of forms and doesn't necessarily present itself as dollars and cents.
Name one poor person who have power. The only ones I can come up with are very exceptional, such as the Dalai Lama. Almost everyone who gets in power uses that at least to get a comfortable amount of money. A group of people with an average wealth of 10% that of the rest of the population (that's the blacks in the US, if I'm not mistaken) does not have significant power.

Power to do what exactly? Who determines who deserves power and who doesn't?
Power to make your life pleasant. Or to use the words of the founding fathers, to pursue happiness. Everyone deserves that power. As much of it as possible without interfering with other people's power to do the same (on the interface, we need rules). Nobody should have (or more accurately, be allowed to use) the power to make the life of a person or group of persons miserable just because they feel like it.

Transgenders are similar, but worse; there are zero people in the world, who got in positions of power while openly trans, AFAIK. And they don't seem to be winning their battle either.

really? because when north carolina introduced their anti-lgbt horseshit, a big pile of companies decided that they don't want to deal with them anymore. so, who's not winning again? north carolina sure as hell doesn't have nearly as many allies (or even really big rich ones). just the ancient relics in chairs who don't understand the world and the equally idiotic religious drones who spread hate.

now that people are coming out and educating people, people are realizing that cis and straight is not the only way a person can be. and through all the misinformation being spread and all the close minded idiots that don't deserve to be on the same planet as people who are trying to move the world forward, the community isn't losing. hell, i've been seeing more ally support. i heard about some bathroom shit which was stupid. then sometime later, heard that north carolina lost a ton of support. so it looks to be tilting out of bigots' favour now. even a place mostly cut off from the world like Japan is learning and accepting. there are shitheads there too, obviously, but the awareness and even acceptance is there.

so how long before north carolina and florida or whatever roll back on their decisions? corporations and politicians are all about money and they must be losing a lot if there are really companies, and even big ones, avoiding them.

but then, how many will trade with them again if they do roll back?

and they certainly don't have the power to topple the economy.

not toppling, but you know. enough to show them that they're assholes.

I'll reply in paragraph form since it's a little easier to follow. This has been pretty interesting so far, however don't forget that I am simply nitpicking on your claim that these ideologies you've mentioned have no power when they actually do.

Where does this "privilege" you talk about come from then and how does the world come to be in your favour? You state that having the ability to change things is an example of power, but then you state this other thing about those without "privilege" which contradicts it. Power is power regardless as to how supposedly shitty one's life is. The divorced politician who drinks a lot is still very powerful. Are you saying that the fabulous and Muslims cannot enjoy their lives for whatever reason? I don't understand that point.

If a politician or other individual with executive power acts on the wishes of a group who holds an ideology and they implement what those supposedly "underrepresented" groups want, then that is an exertion of power. If they do something else then obviously that ideology won't have power in that circumstance. Power is the ability to change the world around you. We defined this in the beginning. I can't fathom why you'd say that's not power, as you haven't given any particular reason as to why it wouldn't be. You've simply stated that it isn't without giving a reason.

Power isn't inherently black and white in the sense that you either have it or you don't, or that below a certain threshold you suddenly lack power completely. Similar to UNIX permissions, one may have the ability to read and write but not execute whereas another may have the full 777. Simply because one user doesn't have the ability to execute a file doesn't mean they don't have any power in that circumstance to do other things.

Furthermore you seem to continually conflate ideologies with entities and groups by insisting that a person cannot have executive power without being a CEO or similar. For example a CEO works for a corporation which is an entity which is ultimately what contains his power. Now, there is no real physical representation of a corporation like Google. Instead it has people working in it and its own buildings and assets which underpin what Google is. You charge me later on with attacking all Muslims when I am instead criticising their ideology (not that I care particularly since most things are offensive to them). Are you capable of separating one's views from the person who holds those views?

Also in most companies it's not CEOs who do hiring, it's mostly HR departments, but you agree with me that famous musicians and the like give power to ideologies and groups so we agree in that instance.

Then you go on to say a fabulous person's power doesn't count. Who are you to say that a fabulous person's power doesn't count? You seem to be making up rules as you go along that contradict the initial definition we've agreed on. If a fabulous person is exerting power for fabulous causes then it doesn't not count simply because you don't think it does, as power is power. Lots of musicians like The Scissor Sisters and Bronski Beat became popular purely because of their outward homosexuality which they never hid from anyone, and you admit that the fabulous are winning the "battle" (against whom exactly?) which means you acknowledge they have power so we're in agreement.

Also you should learn about Cate McGregor who almost became Australian of the Year this year a long while after transitioning. I wouldn't expect you to keep up with Australian affairs though.

I didn't want to go down this path in regards to Islam since it's not immediately relevant to my point which is that Islam in the USA has a degree of power (which you appear to agree with) but nevertheless, I shall indulge you. Islam contains a lot of things like this which encourage violent behaviour. Prophet Mohammed engaged in a ton of war whereas I cannot say the same about Jesus. The Jihadist attacks that Muslims commit are justified theologically by the Koran entirely whereas one may not say the same about Christianity and Dylann Roof. There's no Christian-equivalent word for Jihad in The Bible, and these comparably minor attacks by Christians are obviously not theologically justified as a result.

Now, the difference between Muslims and Christians (or secular people even) and the violence they commit is pretty obvious by the way you're writing about them yourself. You are perpetuating and blaming these external factors for Muslims becoming Jihadists by suggesting they are "pushed" (by whom?) towards extremism rather than accepting their responsibility for their own choice to shout Allah Akbar and pull the detonator cord. On the other hand, Christians who commit shootings seem to opt for it as a uniquely personal choice without being "pushed". This theological justification is therefore the major difference between Islam and Christianity in how this violence is committed, and shows how different these ideologies are. Therefore one is not being inconsistent if they hold these two groups to a different standard since they're obviously different groups with different holy books.

Furthermore, Pew Research has found that around 35% of Muslims in France support suicide bombings in the name of defending Islam. Do you have any similar statistics showing a similar level of support among Christians for the attacks they commit? Overall, what you're doing is attempting to deflect the inherent problems that exist in Islam that are wholly theologically encouraged and justified by strawmanning with the KKK who are entirely irrelevant to the matter at hand. The acts of Islamic State are global in reach thanks to the magic of Telegram and theologically underpinned by prophecies in the Koran. If you haven't read Striker's link above I suggest you do so as it explains it all very well.

There are tons of rich black people in the music industry as well as in the sporting world, and of course there's Oprah. The Dalai Lama is also quite wealthy since he sells a lot of books and stays in expensive hotels. My point about power is that it may be transitory. If a poor homeless guy threatens The Queen with a gun, then obviously the power dynamic is vastly skewed in the direction of the homeless guy for that brief moment. Just because one does not have significant power doesn't mean they have no power at all (as per UNIX permissions).

Overall we're pretty much in agreement that all of these groups have some degree of power. However you seem to have introduced a few arbitrary exceptions that make certain circumstances "not count" without giving a clear reason why which you may want to clear up. Further up you mentioned that you felt uneasy in Egypt? I'd be very interested if you could tell us all about it as it sounds very pertinent to what we've been talking about.

I'm amused that the bulk of this long-winded debate is about semantics.

I split my reply in two posts, because I had to cut some parts last time to make the site accept it and I'll try to avoid that this time. Also, it makes sense in terms of content.

Also, I put a space in g ay to get around the swear filter. Who made g ay a swear word?!

Where does this "privilege" you talk about come from then and how does the world come to be in your favour?
History. A black person in the US faces much more obstacles in life than a white person. Neither any particular black, not any particular white person alive today is to blame (or praise) for that; that's simply how society is set up. But when talking about power, this is relevant: the black people (like the other minorities mentioned) start at a disadvantage. When they have enough power to lead a life that is comparable to that of other people, I define that as zero power. I understand that this may be confusing, but it seems fair to me. It means that a white man is born with zero power, while a black man is born with negative power. If the black man gains a little power, his total power is still below zero. The reason this matters (and that I define it this way) is that when asking who is to blame for the problems in society, we should always look at the people in power. Because they have likely caused the problems, and at the very least they have the ability to fix them. The minorities are not the people in power. The definition I use aims to fit that reality.

really? because when north carolina introduced their anti-lgbt horseshit, a big pile of companies decided that they don't want to deal with them anymore. so, who's not winning again?
This is an example where those people are upset about this anti-LGBT law, which happened to be mostly anti-transgender. You may be right, and I hope you are, that the push back was in solidarity with the trans community. But there are many anti-trans laws considered or recently passed all over the country, and none of the others got anywhere near this reaction. It seems to me that in NC, the trans people were lucky that this was perceived as "anti-LGBT", which is usually the same as "anti-g ay", even though this law is mostly anti-trans. But I'm happy to be wrong about this.

Are you saying that the g ays and Muslims cannot enjoy their lives for whatever reason?
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it's harder. Because society has obstacles for them that it doesn't have for others. For example, it's harder to enjoy life if you cannot get a job. (And that too is not impossible, but it is harder for them.)

If a politician or other individual with executive power acts ... then that is an exertion of power.
...
I can't fathom why you'd say that's not power
Yes, it is. But in many cases, this sort of thing only makes their total power less negative. So what I'm saying is that they are still powerless (perhaps I should say: less powerful) compared to average people. Every single president has been male, Christian, straight, cis, and with the exception of Obama, white. If those groups would be treated equally, there would have been some minorities in that position. The fact that Obama isn't a woman doesn't prove anything. The fact that 44 presidents in a row have not been women, literally 100% of them, does prove that women do not hold equal power. Similarly for all the minorities.

Then you go on to say a g ay person's power doesn't count.
You misunderstood me. I defended my claim that they are discriminated against, and in particular that they do not (easily) get to positions of power. If someone does get to a position of power while secretly being g ay, that doesn't prove the opposite, but it does result in a g ay in a position of power, so just counting those is not a good way to measure the magnitude of this problem.

Skin color is much harder to hide (Michael Jackson tried), so counting black CEOs or presidents is more reasonable. There are 13% blacks in the country. I think there are less than 1% black CEOs and including Obama there have been about 2% black presidents. If we accept that black people are not genetically unfit for leadership, they are obviously being stopped from getting into positions of power. This is in some ways not entirely fair either (especially if you want to make the argument that it used to be bad, but it's better now, counting history isn't right), but the difference is so overwhelming that I think the conclusion is justified.

winning the "battle" (against whom exactly?)
Racists, bigots, homophobes, transphobes, sexists. I could summarize them as "haters".

you acknowledge they have power so we're in agreement.
I'd like to be in agreement, but I don't think so. I agree there is some power on their side, but the sum total of their power is still below zero.

My point about power is that it may be transitory.
My attempt to make power a number is of course a simplification. But I think it helps to understand who is to blame for problems. People with negative power are never to blame for anyone else's problems. They are trying the best they can to make their own life pleasant. And they're not even succeeding at that.

Further up you mentioned that you felt uneasy in Egypt? I'd be very interested if you could tell us all about it as it sounds very pertinent to what we've been talking about.
I don't think it is, but I'm happy to explain. Egyptian culture is different from Dutch culture. What I noticed most, is that they take much less personal space; they are closer to each other and touch each other more than I am used to. When I am there, they do that to me as well. That makes me uncomfortable, and that is my problem. When they come to the Netherlands, it becomes their problem; they must adapt to our culture. When we are taking in large numbers of refugees from countries with different cultures than our own, we should make solving that problem a part of the operation.

So here's the religious part.

attacking all Muslims when I am instead criticising their ideology
You implicitly assume that all Muslims treat their faith the same way, namely the way Isis says is the only True Way. You don't do this to Christians; you understand that the Planned Parenthood shooter was crazy and the fact that he believed the bible says he should kill people doesn't mean all other Christians must believe the same thing.
(not that I care particularly since most things are offensive to them)
You should meet some Muslims. I don't think I've ever met one who was offended easily. I wouldn't meet the likes of Isis, but I assure you there are many others.

Are you capable of separating one's views from the person who holds those views
No, I don't think I am. What do you mean by that? That people are not responsible for their beliefs? That, for example, if I would believe the Danish are evil and must die, that doesn't make me a bad person, I just have the wrong belief?

No, I don't agree with that. If I think a belief is wrong, the person believing it is also wrong. And in the example above, dangerous and in need of education. And if that doesn't work, imprisonment (if the belief would lead me to try and kill people).

I think our disagreement here is mostly based on our difference in how we view beliefs. To me they are personal; every Muslim has their own belief and should be judged (if at all) based on the details of that belief. You seem to think something like Islam is an objective thing and every Muslim must believe it in exactly the same way. Isis agrees with that; I don't.

Islam contains a lot of things like this which encourage violent behaviour.
This is debatable. I'm not saying it doesn't, but from what I heard (and I'm by no means an expert on this), "jihad" means "religious struggle" and can vary from "listening to your conscience" to "committing acts of terror".

Christianity includes the old testament (as does Islam, by the way; it also includes the new testament), which is full of violence as well. I grant you that Christianity may be easier to interpret as a peaceful religion, but it certainly isn't the only option.

The Jihadist attacks that Muslims commit are justified theologically by the Koran entirely whereas one may not say the same about Christianity and Dylann Roof.
They most certainly are. But while his motives were religious, they were even more racist, so the case is a bit blurry. The Planned Parenthood shooter is a more "clean" example for this. He has cited bible verses explaining his actions. Just because we agree that the bible doesn't call for killing, doesn't mean he does. Similarly, if a Muslim believes that Islam calls for peace, I'm not going to say it doesn't. All the religious books are contradictory. Nobody believes everything in there. Some think they do, but they obviously haven't read (or understood) them.

You are ... blaming these external factors for Muslims becoming Jihadists by suggesting they are "pushed" (by whom?)
By the media, by their church, by the community they live in. Let me explain with a hypothetical example: suppose you are religious, and most people around you have a different religion. You're allowed to go to school, but you always get bullied. You're not banned from bars and restaurants, but people look at you like you're scary and avoid you when you go there. The police pulls you over several times a month for no apparent reason. They seem to make up new rules to give you fines. In short: everyone seems to be against you. And then someone on the internet says that the others are all evil, and that you are better than them. That you are worthy. That in their group, you are not a second class person.

Do you think that sounds appealing? Of course it does. If that person then goes on to say that you should go and kill people because that makes you a better person, you may very well believe them (if they attempt this with many people, some percentage will).

Does that mean the terrorists are not responsible for their actions? Of course not. But instead of talking about blame, I prefer to talk about solutions. How can we make it less likely that a person will listen to that person on the internet?

My preference would be to convert them away from their religion. And I'm in favor of people trying that, but in many cases it won't work. The next option is to make them feel good. Because a large part of the reason that someone saying "you are worthy" is so appealing, is that they don't hear that a lot. People who are happy with their situation in life are less likely to follow radicals.

So to summarize that: I dislike religion in general. I don't know, but believe you when you say the koran can more easily be used to encourage violence than the bible. However, in both cases it is possible, and it's also possible to use either of them to encourage peace. I want society to make it less likely for people to choose the radical path. The radical path is encouraged by discriminating them. That, plus the fact that loving your fellow humans is the moral thing to do, is the reason I am against discriminating them.

35% of Muslims in France support suicide bombings in the name of defending Islam.
That is worrying. But think about it: they identify as part of Islam and feel that their religion is under attack. What they say is they think fighting back (even by killing people) is justified. Regardless of whether you agree, isn't it obvious that more attacks against Islam only make that situation worse? To be clear: I'm not saying we must welcome terrorists, or that their actions are justified. I'm saying we should welcome non-terrorist Muslims. Which is the overwhelming majority of them. We should welcome them and show them that there is no war against their religion. Because when they realize that, they will not want to fight back either. (I'm sure there are some crazy people who do, and those should be arrested just like any other terrorist.)

The acts of Islamic State are global
Yes, I agree that they are not identical to the KKK. But they are very similar in some respects. And in both cases blaming every member of the religion they use as justification is nonsense.

it's your fault that you were uncomfortable with egyptians being way too close and touchy?

wat

it's your fault that you were uncomfortable with egyptians being way too close and touchy?
It's not my fault. But it is my problem. I'm in their country. That's how they treat each other. When I'm there, it's up to me to live with that. If I don't like it, I shouldn't go there.

ew, they just shouldn't be invading personal space to random people. that's like when someone decides to park their ass next to your face or just generally invade you like just about every "teacher" in existence who always smell like garbage. because they are.

how close are we talking? like, during conversation, they breath into your face? or do they climb into your pants and take a ride?

Also, I put a space in g ay to get around the swear filter. Who made g ay a swear word?!

That hearkens back to the day when fabulous was frequently used as an insult. I agree it doesn't make much sense now... it's, like, totally fabulous.

Shevek: You seem to be saying that because women/other races hold fewer positions of power than white men, all those groups are being discriminated against. But that conclusion would only make sense if we assume they all start from the same position. That an equal amount of women to men want to get into politics, but are shot down by the evil patriarchy somewhere down the line. That black people have as well-educated parents as white people and are therefore just as likely to rise to high positions, if only the white slavers didn't whip them into submission. (IIRC, the educational level of the parents is the single biggest indicator of what level of education the child will achieve. Also, the idea of 'white guilt' seriously needs to stop.)

But that's not the case. Women and men are NOT identical: 50% of women will never be garbage truck drivers, and 50% of men will never be nurses, unless we force it to be that way, which is an injustice in itself. (Like female quotas in universities, or race quotas in workplaces.) The women that do choose to go into politics seem to have as much of a chance as men do (aside: that psychopath Hillary Clinton is doing scarily well in the US elections), and as far as I can see, there's no one brushing them off based on their gender. Maybe still in the 60s, but not today; being so much as accused of sexism can be a political death sentence to a man.

Same with races. What obstacles does a black person face in university that a white person doesn't...? If anything, I think women and racial minorities have advantages over regular white guys, because we want more of them in positions of power, and incentivize them to go down that path.

Discrimination in the past certainly still has some effects on the world today, though. The fact that blacks average much poorer jobs than whites is probably one of those things. (Either that, or blacks really are genetically less suited for education. I'm not counting this possibility out, since there doesn't appear to be any credible research on the subject.) It's a shame that this is the case, but I think it will even out in the decades to come. Discriminating against whites by establishing quotas or showing preferential treatment to minorities out of fear of appearing racist isn't the way to go, IMO. Race and gender should be null factors, not factors for or against anybody.

You seem to be saying that because women/other races hold fewer positions of power than white men, all those groups are being discriminated against.
Compared to their number in society, yes. Without more information, I expect 50% women in every job, and 13% blacks, for example. Because I have no reason to believe that there is a structural bias in ability or preference to do certain things.

But that doesn't mean it isn't there. I agree that especially something like nursing may well be a thing that more women want to do (but that may not be true either; it may just be a cultural thing and not a genetic thing). But in many other fields, including science and politics (and leadership in general), I don't believe this to be the case.

And I have proof. Neil Degrasse Tyson, a famous black scientist explained that he faced an enormous amount of obstacles that white people did not. As he puts it at the end: Before we start talking about genetic differences, you've got to come up with a system where there's equal opportunity; then we can have that conversation.

the educational level of the parents is the single biggest indicator of what level of education the child will achieve
My guess is that one of the biggest reasons for this correlation is that their education is correlated to their income, and their income determines if they can afford to pay for the education of their kids. Before you say "they can get a loan", remember that poor families know what it means to be in debt, either from personal experience or from people around them, and many of them will want to avoid that even at high cost. The investment in education seems wise to rich people, but they won't take the risk. In other words, the way education is financed mostly benefits the rich, and that means that the great majority of blacks are at a disadvantage, because they're poor.

I think the best way to fix this is not positive discrimination (although that may also be useful at times), but by removing the obstacles for poor people. Bernie's plan to make public colleges tuition free would hugely benefit the poor, and would therefore help to lessen the race gap in society. Because while there is a lot of real racism in this country, there are also a lot of ways in which blacks (and other minorities) are disadvantaged just because they (or their parents) are poor.

50% of women will never be garbage truck drivers
For nursing, I can believe that women may be genetically more likely to want that job. But garbage truck drivers? Why would men want that job, but not women? I don't see any reason for that.

The women that do choose to go into politics seem to have as much of a chance as men do
They don't. There are numerous reports of sexism and sexual harassment for those who do become politicians; I'm sure that deters others from trying. Trump, being the bully that he is, has just been explicitly insulting women in general, but specifically Fiorina (another republican candidate at the time), because as a woman all her value supposedly comes from her looks, and they weren't good enough for him. I'm sure women in politics face a similar path as Tyson, and are discouraged every step of the way.

Hillary is not being attacked for her gender, only because explicitly doing that would be the end of a (democratic) campaign, indeed. And also because Bernie Sanders would have to be the one doing it, and he seems to be the most liberal politician in the country, so I'm sure he's not "holding back", he really doesn't feel that is a valid attack. But I also note that much of the Clinton's (both of them) endorsements come from extortion. What it really means is that Hillary has a lot of power, much more than most women. From her position, it is possible to be a successful politician. Most others cannot, because the system gives them much less power.

I think women and racial minorities have advantages over regular white guys, because we want more of them in positions of power, and incentivize them to go down that path.
That happens, but it is similar to the "negative power" I talked about before. The system is rigged against them. Those incentives are an attempt to give them equal opportunity. They help, but it's nowhere near enough. Until the numbers start to be balanced (or there is compelling science showing that there are good reasons blacks don't want to go to college, for example), the sum of the system plus the incentives is still to their disadvantage. It would have been worse without the incentives, but that doesn't mean it's good now. And nobody proposes to keep the incentives in place once the system is balanced. The goal is not supremacy of the minority, it's equal opportunities.

[perhaps] blacks really are genetically less suited for education. I'm not counting this possibility out, since there doesn't appear to be any credible research on the subject
It is certainly possible, but I go back to Tyson on this: fix the system first. Until then, there is no place in the discussion for genetic differences.

Discriminating against whites by establishing quotas or showing preferential treatment to minorities out of fear of appearing racist isn't the way to go
Not out of fear of appearing racist, no. But in an attempt to change the balance, yes. If more blacks are educated, their kids will have educated parents, which means they have more opportunities.

Does it hurt whites that blacks "take their places"? Yes, it does. Is it fair? Yes, totally. The system is rigged in favor of whites. Of course it hurts them when it is fixed. That doesn't mean it's unfair.

[perhaps] blacks really are genetically less suited for education. I'm not counting this possibility out, since there doesn't appear to be any credible research on the subject
It is certainly possible, but I go back to Tyson on this: fix the system first. Until then, there is no place in the discussion for genetic differences.


Exactly dude. I mean, look at Ben Carson. He was the dumbest kid in his class in middle school. And now he's a freakin' surgeon who is the first one to have ever split 2 kids apart.

dumbest as in, he got low scores and therefore must be stupid according to the great and powerful generalizing A-F scoring system?

dumbest as in, he got low scores and therefore must be stupid according to the great and powerful generalizing A-F scoring system?

Well not rea.............I mean you se...............I.........

Compared to their number in society, yes. Without more information, I expect 50% women in every job, and 13% blacks, for example. Because I have no reason to believe that there is a structural bias in ability or preference to do certain things.

But women are clearly different from men. They've got boobs, they're usually smaller, with less muscle mass. If there are large physical differences, why would you assume there probably aren't any mental differences? That's illogical.

Same applies to races. For instance, white and black people not only have different skin colours, their facial structure is different as well, and we've lived in very different kinds of habitats for a hundred thousand years. The question in my mind isn't IF genetics affect the abilities of different races, it's what/how significant the differences are, compared to the effects of nurture.

But that doesn't mean it isn't there. I agree that especially something like nursing may well be a thing that more women want to do (but that may not be true either; it may just be a cultural thing and not a genetic thing). But in many other fields, including science and politics (and leadership in general), I don't believe this to be the case.

Why not? If you agree there are (genetic) differences between how men and women think, it seems weird to dismiss the idea that those differences extend to the desire/ability to attain leadership positions as well. In my experience, women are generally much less ambitious than men when it comes to work.

For nursing, I can believe that women may be genetically more likely to want that job. But garbage truck drivers? Why would men want that job, but not women? I don't see any reason for that.

I don't know why, but I'm sure that 95% of garbage truck drivers are men (no, I haven't looked that statistic up ). There's just something about heavy machinery that women seem to find unappealing; I think it's the same reason why boys usually like to play with toy cars and girls like to play with dolls, which, I'm personally convinced through anecdotal evidence, is a natural rather than learned inclination. (I've got a daughter and a half-brother who are the same age, and they've clearly gravitated towards very boyish/girlish activities since they were a few months old, despite receiving as gender-neutral parenting as it could be.)

And I have proof. Neil Degrasse Tyson, a famous black scientist explained that he faced an enormous amount of obstacles that white people did not. As he puts it at the end: Before we start talking about genetic differences, you've got to come up with a system where there's equal opportunity; then we can have that conversation.

He doesn't really cite any specific examples of what kind of obstacles he's faced. Everyone has hardships and meets people who try to deter them from the path they want to take; I'm not at all convinced he's actually had a much harder time than someone else. Instead, since he IS black, he might be unduly attributing the bad experiences he's had to his race.

DISCLAIMER: I'm docking this reply here (at least for the time being). It's already too damn long, and I'm getting too damn drunk. Ducking quotefests long quotefests aggggh

But women are clearly different from men. They've got boobs, they're usually smaller, with less muscle mass. If there are large physical differences, why would you assume there probably aren't any mental differences? That's illogical.

It's only illogical if you look at in just those stark terms. First of all, let's do away with the term *any* and replace it with something like is "enough of a difference to make a difference"? While, yes, there are statistical differences between male and female brains, the difference is both minute and varied enough that if you looked at any one brain you would very likely not be able to tell if it was from someone who was male or female.

This falls in line with the fact that in the grand biological scheme of sexual dimorphism, we aren't actually that differentiated. Our brains are wired to categorize and associate things with meanings and feelings. That doesn't always mean how we categorize is always right.

Speaking of which...

Same applies to races. For instance, white and black people not only have different skin colours, their facial structure is different as well, and we've lived in very different kinds of habitats for a hundred thousand years. The question in my mind isn't IF genetics affect the abilities of different races, it's what/how significant the differences are, compared to the effects of nurture.

Ah, race. The process of which we assign people to different categories based on how they look. Of course, how someone looks and how someone is genetically predisposed to thinking are two extremely different things. Add to the fact that the members of various "races" have actually traveled and interbred with each during those thousands of years and you get that DNA proliferating through the generations, influencing its decedents even if they may now look more like members of that race. Anyway, long story short: Race is an extremely poor way to look at genetic differences; it is primarily a social construct assigned by humans to differentiate.

Why not? If you agree there are (genetic) differences between how men and women think, it seems weird to dismiss the idea that those differences extend to the desire/ability to attain leadership positions as well. In my experience, women are generally much less ambitious than men when it comes to work.

Again, is this more due to social pressures or biology? I personally believe an enormous amount of who were are and how we act is determined by environment.

I think it's the same reason why boys usually like to play with toy cars and girls like to play with dolls, which, I'm personally convinced through anecdotal evidence, is a natural rather than learned inclination

Unless we had an experiment where we raised a child from birth, completely isolated from our greater culture at large and the parents' biases, this is, at best, a poor test to determine if preferences are genetic or social. Based on my own anecdotal evidence, I believe it is a mixture of both with some kids always choosing heavily with one gender or another and others who would be less differentiated, but go along with what they were assigned because it gives them a place in culture.

He doesn't really cite any specific examples of what kind of obstacles he's faced. Everyone has hardships and meets people who try to deter them from the path they want to take; I'm not at all convinced he's actually had a much harder time than someone else. Instead, since he IS black, he might be unduly attributing the bad experiences he's had to his race.

As someone who has lived their entire life in North America and tries to listen to the various people here, I definitely believe him. Here's a better interview and has an excellent example of the social pressures faced by him specifically because he was black.

People don't realize they could be in the place of those people they keep complaining about. It isn't that hard, any one of us could have been born in those places you mention with contempt.

I wish that even if people don't make favours, they won't add more to those people's suffering.
"Let the person among you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her."
As long as we don't put ourselves in the shoes of the refugees, we cannot claim to have any humanity left inside us.

"But so many of them are criminals," people say. Many people don't realise these refugees come to our countries because they did not want to join ISIS? And since when we started distinguishing criminals based on their races or religions while religions ban people from committing those horrendous crimes? But obviously, many people keep doing the very thing those terrorist organisations want them to do. "Spreading the hate."

Terrorists will point at you, and say, "Look my brothers and sisters, these people don't want you here. They don't even see you as equal to themselves though people are created equal by God. They want to see you drown in the sea rather than allowing you into their lands. They insult you just because of who you are. Isn't this the time to give these kuffars what they deserve?"

It's only illogical if you look at in just those stark terms. First of all, let's do away with the term *any* and replace it with something like is "enough of a difference to make a difference"? While, yes, there are statistical differences between male and female brains, the difference is both minute and varied enough that if you looked at any one brain you would very likely not be able to tell if it was from someone who was male or female.

While I agree individual variation is much more significant than variation based on sex, I don't think it's that insignificant. I believe gender influences a person's thoughts in a million subtle ways, like weighted dice. If I could look into one thought, such as whether the person liked red or blue, I couldn't tell much. But if I could look at a hundred thoughts, I'm sure I could guess their sex with a great degree of accuracy. Unless you mean literally their brain, in which case it's just a rather disgusting mass and... well, probably not.

Ah, race. The process of which we assign people to different categories based on how they look. Of course, how someone looks and how someone is genetically predisposed to thinking are two extremely different things. Add to the fact that the members of various "races" have actually traveled and interbred with each during those thousands of years and you get that DNA proliferating through the generations, influencing its decedents even if they may now look more like members of that race. Anyway, long story short: Race is an extremely poor way to look at genetic differences; it is primarily a social construct assigned by humans to differentiate.

You do still get those different groups - geneticists can tell if your heritage is geographically Asian, African or European just by analyzing DNA. Granted, it's more of a muddy gradient than the sort of clear division races appear to be on the outside.

Again, is this more due to social pressures or biology? I personally believe an enormous amount of who were are and how we act is determined by environment.

I think the environment largely stems from biology. That is, an evironment where little girls play with dolls wouldn't have come to be if girls didn't have a natural predilection towards that kind of activity. It's by no means a perfect system, and in the past, women have been discouraged from seeking important roles in society - just not anymore. No one is teaching little girls their duty is to marry and leave the education to menfolk.

As I said in my last post, discrimination in the past still has an effect on the world today. I think that's the case when it comes to blacks being poorer, and maybe, possibly even with women in leadership positions... But because of natural tendencies, a fair system is never going to be 50% women and 50% men.

Unless we had an experiment where we raised a child from birth, completely isolated from our greater culture at large and the parents' biases, this is, at best, a poor test to determine if preferences are genetic or social. Based on my own anecdotal evidence, I believe it is a mixture of both with some kids always choosing heavily with one gender or another and others who would be less differentiated, but go along with what they were assigned because it gives them a place in culture.

This kind of homogenization is always sad to see. I don't think very young children care too much if they happen to prefer otherwise, but it gets forced on them when they enter a social environment, like kindergarten or school.

As someone who has lived their entire life in North America and tries to listen to the various people here, I definitely believe him. Here's a better interview and has an excellent example of the social pressures faced by him specifically because he was black.

That was an interesting look into his beliefs, but it was, like, the most un-racist thing imaginable. =) I also realize it's been a pretty long time since Neil went to school... It sounds like he already didn't face much hard racism in the 80s, and everything's gotten a lot better since. (Except movies)

------------

They don't. There are numerous reports of sexism and sexual harassment for those who do become politicians; I'm sure that deters others from trying.

I've tried looking into this, but most of what I came across seemed very... nebulous. Like lewd remarks, which isn't cool, but you deal with that like any insult - tell the person to go duck themselves. Serious harassment, like playing grab-ass, should be reported and dealt with through legal, or public channels if necessary.

Trump, being the bully that he is, has just been explicitly insulting women in general, but specifically Fiorina (another republican candidate at the time), because as a woman all her value supposedly comes from her looks, and they weren't good enough for him.

On the other hand, the size of Trump's penis and his stupid hair get insulted all the time. I imagine this is something everyone has to deal with... your enemies attack whatever they can, and while the body parts may change, it's all the same crap.

That happens, but it is similar to the "negative power" I talked about before. The system is rigged against them. Those incentives are an attempt to give them equal opportunity. They help, but it's nowhere near enough. Until the numbers start to be balanced (or there is compelling science showing that there are good reasons blacks don't want to go to college, for example), the sum of the system plus the incentives is still to their disadvantage. It would have been worse without the incentives, but that doesn't mean it's good now. And nobody proposes to keep the incentives in place once the system is balanced. The goal is not supremacy of the minority, it's equal opportunities.

I disagree that the system is rigged. Some people have poorer starting positions, but there isn't any white cabal that's actively pushing these people down the stairs. Ultimately, every person is responsible for themselves. It's unfortunate that your parents didn't support you as well as someone else was supported, but it's up to you to rise above your origins, not up to society to lower the bar for you.

Not out of fear of appearing racist, no. But in an attempt to change the balance, yes. If more blacks are educated, their kids will have educated parents, which means they have more opportunities.

Does it hurt whites that blacks "take their places"? Yes, it does. Is it fair? Yes, totally. The system is rigged in favor of whites. Of course it hurts them when it is fixed. That doesn't mean it's unfair.

My problem with this is that it's very unfair towards individuals, and unequivocally racist. If there's a job opening, and I'm the most qualified applicant, I want them to hire ME, not some black person because supposedly I'm so much more privileged than they are (even if in this particular case, that weren't the case at all).

I took too long to reply and now everyone has taken my spot. I originally started writing stuff simply to keep the thread going. It seems to have worked which is nice, but everyone is free to jump in and reply to me if they'd like.

As a physicist, you'd know of the law of conservation of energy and what it consists of. Similarly, power as we've described it, that is as a way of changing the world around you, is the same. Therefore one cannot claim to have negative power, as power must always be quantifiable or zero. Either you can change the world around you in a little way or maybe a much larger way, but ultimately in order to have power, you must either take it from somewhere else, such as becoming the company's new CEO (thereby taking it away from the old CEO), sharing it with another (such as in a business partnership), or by inhabiting a power vacuum (a teacher leaves a classroom and the children take over things) or something else like that where the total power is either split or redistributed. Therefore if power is the ability to change the world around us, then in order to do that one must have power (or not have it) which means that negative power is invalid.

Power doesn't care if your life sucks or if it's truly wonderful so this cannot be some sort of claim that one "deserves" more simply because their circumstances are worse than another. If a black person gains a little power, he has a little more power. Much like in a tug of war, one person's step forward is a step backwards for another, and the power is shifted from one side to another. Your claim for a "negative power" seems to be your own moral valuation of how people have and use power which is entirely your own moral judgement based upon intentions rather than the overall consequences. As an aside, it's interesting that you seem to think that the problems of these "minorities" is entirely extrinsic, as that effectively removes power from those individuals by making it so that their problems are first of all not their fault, and secondly only solvable by someone who isn't them. I think this is where your faulty belief in a form of negative power comes from, as power is always an amoral force which you don't seem to be able to look objectively at.

If one looks at Jews during and after World War II who came to the USA with absolutely nothing in many cases, you'll notice that they're now one of the wealthiest and influential groups in the country with a disproportionately high amount of Nobel Prize winners and overall political influence despite the discrimination they received. The Irish are similar in that they were heavily discriminated against in terms of hiring for positions (Catholics need not apply lasted up until the 1980s in Australia) yet they've similarly managed to do very well in the face of adversity. If these two groups can solve their own problems on their own without external help, then ideally no group should have special external help regardless as to what "discrimination" they may experience. Propping someone up is unfair to all of those who aren't helped in the same way.

The reason I brought up Egypt is because you seemed to have not found the conditions there particularly amicable which you have accepted. Now assuming you're not a US citizen, or at very least you're a native Dutchman, why is it that you go to the USA and openly criticise things there instead of accepting that these things are "your problem" in a similar fashion to Egypt? Would you not tell me to shut up if I went to The Netherlands and criticised Zwarte Piet or bicycles?

Again you seem to be attributing blame for radical Muslims to external factors rather than the individual's choice. People's beliefs are ultimately their own choice, and a pissed-off Muslim such as the one in your hypothetical example who chooses to believe propaganda on web sites and then go off and shoot people is guilty of doing that. If you are to accuse me of criticising all Muslims then I may as well wear it and say that yes, they are all to blame for this by being incapable of criticising their own theological underpinnings in their holy book as well as the actions of Prophet Mohammed as being a major inspiration for the horrible actions they commit.

I am tempted to strawman with how Christians are treated in the Middle East currently or how Greeks were treated under the Ottoman Empire but I will save that for another day. However I didn't really want to talk about Islam much in the first place. I have talked to several Muslims over the years and have found that in many cases that male Muslims are easy enough to talk to, however female Muslims tend to run and hide because it's haram to talk to or look directly at someone of the opposite sex without a male relative.

My rather scathing and sceptical view of Islam was heavily contributed to by what a school friend of mine eventually ended up doing. I used to see him regularly after university every Monday during my second year, and we would catch the train home together. He never seemed hugely happy about his personal circumstances and had had a few minor incidences with the law. After a while, he disappeared and I stupidly forgot to get his phone number. After about a year I saw him on the TV having been charged with destroying a police car after converting to Islam. I don't know why the heck he did any of it, but I was in utter shock for a while and it stayed with me. This guy was a typical Australian as well rather than a Bosnian migrant or similar. I know anecdotes don't trump facts and figures but they do definitely alter how you see things.

Now, I know Scratcher has picked you up on this point, but you've stated that no particular person is to blame for how the world is, but then you go on to say that it's fair to deliberately disadvantage a blameless "white" person to forward the interests of a black person entirely along racial lines. There are entire countries built around this principle such as Zimbabwe and South Africa which you should definitely research to see how well it works out (hint: not very well). How can you say that it is fair to disadvantage a blameless individual without strawmanning with your own personal moral judgement of "negative power"?

let's make this the new bomb iraq

First of all, thanks Striker and Phoenix; I was starting to think everybody here disagreed with me.

I believe gender influences a person's thoughts in a million subtle ways, like weighted dice.
I agree. However, they are weighted in a million different ways, and for any particular task or occupation, the weights are canceling each other out. It's random noise, and there is no reason any gender is better at the job. In fact, an argument can be made that if you have a team, having input from different genders is valuable in itself.

And that's not just a genetic (cultural) thing: even if the differences would be entirely cultural (genetic), it is valuable to have knowledge in your team about how women (or blacks, or whichever group you talk about) are treated in society.

No one is teaching little girls their duty is to marry and leave the education to menfolk.
Yes, lots of people still teach that. After living in the US for a few years, I can say that everything we discuss here is much worse on this side of the ocean: there is more discrimination towards all groups we talked about than what I'm used to in Europe.

But even in the Netherlands, there are groups of Christians who teach exactly what you say. Their political party even wants to take away women's right to vote. Here in the US, there seem to be more people like that. It's so bad, that one of the four remaining contenders for the presidency, Ted Cruz, is one of those people. This is not something of the past; it may have improved, but it's certainly not solved.

because of natural tendencies, a fair system is never going to be 50% women and 50% men.
What percentage do you expect? Below which limit do you agree that there must be unfair discrimination at play? If you look at the world parliaments, the US is #95 at 19.4%. Every country from western Europe except Ireland(#111, 16.3%) scores higher. And aside from Greece (#93, 19.7%) not a little higher: it ranges from Sweden (#5, 43.6%) to France (#58, 26.2%).

Do you think that US women are genetically very different from western European women? I think it's pretty clear that there is a lot of discrimination happening. Because I've never heard a reasonable argument that women wouldn't be suited for leadership. And yet, there are only two countries in the world that have more than 50% women in their parliament. If everything is just small differences and there is a lot of natural variation, what other explanation can there be for this distribution?

Just to be clear: I don't think a country should force its parliament to be exactly 50/50. Sweden looks pretty good with almost 44%. But what about other places? How many female CEOs are there? How many female scientists? It good to be doing well in politics, and it's a reason to be proud, but it doesn't mean the problem is fixed entirely.

You say women are not discriminated? Then why do they earn less money for doing the same job as men? As a programmer, I encountered this: Women Can Code – as Long as No One Knows They're Women
And here's a list of articles about gender discrimination, almost all in favor of men. That's not selected that way; it's simply all news about gender discrimination (from a US news organization).

it was, like, the most un-racist thing imaginable.
I wouldn't go that far, but I agree that it wasn't the best demonstration of racism. It was however an explanation of how culture discourages some people from doing certain things. It also shows that it doesn't even have to be white people's fault: he didn't want to let his black peers down, and they said he shouldn't have a career in science. Now there is a lot of discrimination from white people as well (which he didn't talk about there), but it isn't the only thing.

It sounds like he already didn't face much hard racism in the 80s, and everything's gotten a lot better since.
Perhaps it has gotten better, but realize that last year, Missouri decided to take the confederate flag down from the state parliament. Just in case you don't know what that means: the confederate flag is the symbol of the losing side of the civil war, the side that wanted to break away from the United States, for exactly one reason: because they wanted to keep slaves. The symbol of that group was flown on the most important political building in the state until last year. This is not ancient history. Mississippi still has the confederate flag as part of their state flag, there has been discussion about changing that, but it didn't happen. Not (only) because of tradition, but specifically because they want to have the symbol of the confederacy in their state flag.

Have you heard about "Black Lives Matter"? It's a protest movement, which does peaceful protests to try to stop the police from killing (mostly unarmed) black people. Because they do that all the time, everywhere. Look it up, this is not history, it's happening right now.

Another example, which is very well corrected for bias: whites and blacks smoke marijuana at approximately the same rate. That is illegal here, so you can get arrested for it. Black people get arrested for it four times as much as white people. They commit the same crime. Blacks get arrested more. Discrimination is the only possible explanation here.

Black people get in trouble with the police for having their hands in their pockets, for wearing a hoodie, for looking nervous (that happened to Freddy Gray, they seemed to have broken his legs, put him in a police van without a seat belt, and gave him a rough ride. He later died from his injuries), for driving in a cheap car, for driving in an expensive car. In other words, just for being black. This is much worse here than what I've seen in Europe. But I'm pretty sure that there is a lot of discrimination in Europe as well. For example, I would be surprised if a person named Mohammed has as much chance of getting a job as a person named John.

Like lewd remarks, which isn't cool, but you deal with that like any insult - tell the person to go duck themselves.
If you know that you will be insulted on a daily basis when you go work somewhere, that may be a reason to not go work there. This means that if the best person for the job is a woman, you have an increased risk of never seeing her at a job interview, because she decided that she didn't want to be there. Don't forget: this isn't "one colleague is annoying sometimes". This is "almost every colleague implies every day that I don't deserve to be there".
It makes me think of the famous statement from Alexander Hamilton: No character, however upright, is a match for incessantly repeated attacks, however false.

I disagree that the system is rigged. Some people have poorer starting positions, but there isn't any white cabal that's actively pushing these people down the stairs.
Here in the US, I'm pretty sure there is such a cabal. Their PR department is called "Fox News" and they do a lot of pushing. But even if there isn't a cabal, the system can still be rigged. If one group has more opportunities for whatever reason, that's unfair. Fixing that is a good thing.

Ultimately, every person is responsible for themselves.
Every person is responsible for taking the opportunities that they get in life. A person is not responsible for getting the opportunities; that's out of their control by definition (if you don't get an opportunity, you can't take it; if you have the ability to create an opportunity for yourself, that is an opportunity itself).

it's up to you to rise above your origins, not up to society to lower the bar for you.
The bar is lower for the privileged people. They have more opportunities. My point is that in a civil society, that is considered unjust and in need of fixing. That means lowering the bar a little for all others, and raising it for the privileged people.

My problem with this is that it's very unfair towards individuals, and unequivocally racist.
Of course it's racist. There's nothing wrong with that. It's also not unfair. Let me explain.

Blacks are underrepresented in some well paying sector. Whites tend to stick together, so when they hire new people, they most likely hire more white people. That means that the fraction of blacks isn't going to increase by itself. (In fact, it's likely to decrease.)

That is unjust. It is because of the race, and so to fix it, we must differentiate people based on race. That is racist. But discrimination is only bad if it hurts people unjustly. And taking away privilege in order to achieve equality may hurt, but it certainly isn't unjust. Quite the contrary.

If there's a job opening, and I'm the most qualified applicant, I want them to hire ME, not some black person because supposedly I'm so much more privileged than they are (even if in this particular case, that weren't the case at all).
Yet it happens all the time that when the black person, or the woman, is the most qualified, they don't get hired. The point is that there are many biases involved, all of which are in favor of straight cis white males. If there is no intervention, almost all well paying jobs will be filled by people from that group. Do you believe that they are better at everything? I don't think you do. So then you must agree with me that this privilege in fact selects people who aren't the most qualified, right? Don't you then also agree that it is good to provide extra incentives to hire outside that group?

As a physicist, you'd know of the law of conservation of energy
I am not talking about power as defined by physics. I thought that was obvious from my definition. Also, in physics negative energy happens all the time. But as I said, that's not important.

We're talking about who is to blame for the problems we have in our lives. I say that people who have bigger problems themselves (such as laws making it illegal for them to exist) use all power that they have or can command to fight those problems. That means that they do not have any power left to make your life hard, and therefore they are not the cause of any of your problems. Do you disagree with this?

why is it that you go to the USA and openly criticise things there instead of accepting that these things are "your problem" in a similar fashion to Egypt?
Didn't you notice I complain about Egypt as well? But yes, it is my problem. That I don't like what they do here is also my problem. That doesn't mean I can't complain about it.

Besides, I'm using the US as an example, because the situation here is worse than in the Netherlands, but as far as I can see this is a world wide phenomenon. I'm just complaining about the US.

Would you not tell me to shut up if I went to The Netherlands and criticised Zwarte Piet or bicycles?
No, I wouldn't. I'm happy to have such discussions with foreigners. But in the end, you don't have a vote in the resolution, just like I have no vote in matters in the US (or Egypt). And that's fine.

Again you seem to be attributing blame for radical Muslims to external factors rather than the individual's choice.
Not "rather than", but "in addition to". This is a matter of statistics. If you make conditions such that people are more likely to become terrorists, then statistically more people will become terrorists and I blame you for that. Of course I also blame every individual person who actually makes that choice. But the person or government who pushes them in that direction is also partly responsible for the outcome.

If you are to accuse me of criticising all Muslims then I may as well wear it and say that yes, they are all to blame for this by being incapable of criticising their own theological underpinnings in their holy book as well as the actions of Prophet Mohammed as being a major inspiration for the horrible actions they commit.
But what you describe there, the inability to critically look at their holy book etc, is not true for all Muslims. That's my whole point. Many of them are just as religious as many Christians: they say they are, they go to their church/mosque, and most of the time they don't care about it. And they don't commit horrible actions.

it's haram to talk to or look directly at someone of the opposite sex without a male relative.
You imply here that you are male. I have nothing against that, but I note that your icon says female, so you may want to fix that.

My rather scathing and sceptical view of Islam was heavily contributed to by what a school friend of mine eventually ended up doing.
Converted people are usually the strictest. But you understand that one person misbehaving doesn't imply that two billion people are all like him, right?

it's fair to deliberately disadvantage a blameless "white" person to forward the interests of a black person entirely along racial lines.
I'm not proposing to disadvantage him, I want to take away his unfair advantage. I can understand that it feels the same, but it is very different.

Why is it a risk to take in refugees from a different country than you thought they were?

It's dangerous because these people obviously lied and we have no idea who they really are. If you can't trust them to be honest about what country they're from, you can't trust them to be honest about anything. Especially since they're turning out to be from countries where most of the trouble stirs from. I'd have no problem if they were native British people. Or native Japanese people. Because these people have proven themselves to be mostly trustworthy. I see Japanese people in Finland all the time, and they never cause trouble, so I'm fine with them. If the refugees were Estonian or Russian, I would be more sceptical, because they've proven to not be the most trustworthy of people always. If they're from Afghanistan or Iraq, I am most definitely going to be skeptical, cause I've never had a good meeting with one. Does this make me racist? I don't think so; I am aware there are exceptions. You might call it racist, but I call it "judging from experience". This is how I judge Finnish people too. There are exceptions, but for the most part you can tell what people are like based on where they live, how they look etc. Stereotypes exist for a reason, even if not true 100% of the time.

How does taking in refugees destroy the country?

Taking our money, taking our jobs, causing trouble and doing illegal things in general. They're abusing our country to the fullest, and our own culture is slowly being destroyed in order to support theirs. Even older refugees themselves have complained about this. There was a refugee on radio one day, who's been here for +30 years. He said this new generation of immigrants is destroying the country, and that it's no longer the place he moved to, but is now turning into what he got away from in the first place. Basically, he said "If you move to Finland, you should live by Finland's customs, not by your own country's", which is exactly what they're not doing.

About how they are so rich and going home (to Syria? Really?), do you have sources? I've never heard this before and I would like to know if it's more than rich people confusing you into blaming the poor. Because that's what I suspect is happening. Refugees are not the ones with the power. If influential people are trying to blame them for bad things in your life, check if they aren't to blame themselves.

You've already made the decision that this is the case even though you have no idea, haven't you? What you said is not the case. In fact, influential people are doing everything they can to paint the refugees in a good light, cause they don't have to suffer because of them (yet). Only your average people and the poor do (the ones our government is trying to kill off anyway). It's hard to miss it here, when these "refugees" are practically constantly on TV, bragging about how much money they have, and how they're travelling left and right. And yes, in many cases saying they're going back home until the winter is over.

I actually personally know this one woman, who went and started dating a refugee a few years back. During this time, the guy (who supposedly "is really poor and can't afford anything") has been travelling to England and back around every two months. To nobody's surprise, during this time he managed to sneak his way into marriage with the woman, get her pregnant and then leave the country permanently just before the baby was born. Nobody's heard of him for months. Just one more immigrant to add to the list of troublemakers. This is literally happening all the time here, to many people.

Especially since they're turning out to be from countries where most of the trouble stirs from. I'd have no problem if they were native British people. Or native Japanese people.
So what you're saying is that you're willing to accept refugees, as long as they don't come from dangerous places? Why exactly would people from Britain or Japan flee their country?

I call it "judging from experience"
Of course I don't know if what you describe is normal in Finland, but if it is, it certainly sounds like there needs to be more focus on integrating them into the society. As I wrote before, they need to adapt, and it should be part of the effort to help them (which is why they are accepted into the country) to make them fit in as well.

"If you move to Finland, you should live by Finland's customs, not by your own country's"
Yes, I think we all agree on that. You're saying that if something is wrong there, they should be kicked out of the country; I say that there should be more effort put into making that part work. These people are traumatized. Of course they will have mental issues. Instead of kicking them out at the first sign of that, they need help with it. But don't get me wrong: such help may not always be welcomed by them, and I think they should be forced to accept it. If they refuse to adapt, they are not welcome. But my experience is that this is not the case for most of them, and suggesting that all refugees are refusing to integrate just encourages hate and violence against them.

Taking our money
By being on welfare, I suppose?

taking our jobs
How do they do that while they are on welfare?

Also, people with jobs help the economy. If they do jobs in Finland, it helps Finland. There isn't a fixed number of jobs that if one person does something, someone else loses their job. If the economy grows, more jobs will be available in total and everyone benefits (if there is a good social system that ensures wages are high enough).

influential people are doing everything they can to paint the refugees in a good light
So how is it possible that they aren't succeeding? I've seen here what influential people can do: in this country most people aren't sure if climate change is real (let alone man made), even though they can see it happen every day. That's because the fossil fuel industry wants to make some money and don't mind destroying the planet for it. If all influential people in Finland were making this up, they would succeed and everyone would believe them.

Instead, it is obvious that some people, who you believe, are saying that every refugee is a problem. That they are on welfare while taking away jobs (that should set off some alarm bells).

What you're saying is that anyone from the middle east is automatically a criminal and there's nothing that can be done about it? So the only defense that you have as a country is to keep them out? If that means sending people back into a war zone, that's what you say should be done? Sending people into a war zone is a crime as far as I'm concerned. You need very strong evidence of your claim before doing that. And generalizing that everyone (or even a majority) from a certain region must be evil is literally unbelievable. That cannot be true. Don't you agree with that? And if you do, what am I misunderstanding about your position?

these "refugees" are practically constantly on TV, bragging about how much money they have, and how they're travelling left and right.
The people who decide what is shown on TV are very influential, don't you agree? How does this fit with your claim that they try to put the refugees in a positive light?

Also, why do you put refugees in quotes? Are the people you talk about not refugees, but just immigrants who have a similar skin color to the current refugees? Because for those people, why wouldn't they be rich? Also, if refugees have been in the country for a while, why wouldn't they be rich? You seem to say that if someone is a refugee, they must always remain poor. Why would that be true?

While I agree individual variation is much more significant than variation based on sex, I don't think it's that insignificant. I believe gender influences a person's thoughts in a million subtle ways, like weighted dice. If I could look into one thought, such as whether the person liked red or blue, I couldn't tell much. But if I could look at a hundred thoughts, I'm sure I could guess their sex with a great degree of accuracy. Unless you mean literally their brain, in which case it's just a rather disgusting mass and... well, probably not.

I was talking about the physical brain, actually because the physical brain is where everything is stored. It's greatly complex and we still don't fully understand it, but it's certainly not a "rather disgusting mass". As to your point about being able to read people's thoughts and be able to tell their gender, it does nothing to refute the assertion that environmental factors and socialization heavily influence gender and thought. You would still reading the thoughts of people who grew up in a gendered environment.

You do still get those different groups - geneticists can tell if your heritage is geographically Asian, African or European just by analyzing DNA. Granted, it's more of a muddy gradient than the sort of clear division races appear to be on the outside.

Well, it can only tell you if you're related to people, not what race your ancestors were. These tests don't account for migration, which, as I said, happened frequently throughout history. Just because you share DNA with people from a region, doesn't necessarily mean that your ancestors are from that region because of migration and interbreeding. Race is just flat out a terrible way of sorting people by genes.

I think the environment largely stems from biology. That is, an evironment where little girls play with dolls wouldn't have come to be if girls didn't have a natural predilection towards that kind of activity. It's by no means a perfect system, and in the past, women have been discouraged from seeking important roles in society - just not anymore. No one is teaching little girls their duty is to marry and leave the education to menfolk.

Again, you're asserting your belief as fact something that we haven't been able to scientifically study as I posted about earlier. Because of that, I also have an counter-anecdote: In modern times, girls frequently gravitate towards the color pink. This is not a natural thing, but a product of environment, as over 100 years ago, it really was no set associated color with gender.

As I said in my last post, discrimination in the past still has an effect on the world today. I think that's the case when it comes to blacks being poorer, and maybe, possibly even with women in leadership positions... But because of natural tendencies, a fair system is never going to be 50% women and 50% men.

You cannot assert that it is natural when it has not been scientifically established as natural. We have established that discrimination *has* and *does still* take place.

That was an interesting look into his beliefs, but it was, like, the most un-racist thing imaginable. =) I also realize it's been a pretty long time since Neil went to school... It sounds like he already didn't face much hard racism in the 80s, and everything's gotten a lot better since. (Except movies)

As pointed out by Shevek, that's just one of the many pressures faced by black people, one that a white person would certainly never face. It's just one of many small things that add up to a great deal of obstacles that most white people in the US don't have to deal with. If you're black and going to make to the metaphorical top of your field, you have to work just as hard or harder than your white peers, in addition to dealing with all that junk that they don't have to deal with.

I agree. However, they are weighted in a million different ways, and for any particular task or occupation, the weights are canceling each other out. It's random noise, and there is no reason any gender is better at the job.

It's not random noise if the effects differ based on gender. For some occupations, they would cancel each other out. For others, there would be a net positive or negative bias.

Yes, lots of people still teach that. After living in the US for a few years, I can say that everything we discuss here is much worse on this side of the ocean: there is more discrimination towards all groups we talked about than what I'm used to in Europe.

I didn't mean *literally* no one - I was talking about the general majority of people like you and me. There's so much wrong with what deeply religious people teach to their children that focusing just on women's rights with them seems like it would be missing the point.

In Europe, these groups are pretty marginal. (Although still more significant than I'd like; such as the fact they have political parties and elected representatives in the goverment.) Religion is a big problem, in part due to the sexism practised in them. Yet I don't see women's rights activists bashing Muslims, fundamentalist catholics, and Jehovah's witnesses. If they did, that would be very refreshing. Then I could at least agree they're tackling real problems. 8-)

What percentage do you expect? Below which limit do you agree that there must be unfair discrimination at play? If you look at the world parliaments, the US is #95 at 19.4%. Every country from western Europe except Ireland(#111, 16.3%) scores higher. And aside from Greece (#93, 19.7%) not a little higher: it ranges from Sweden (#5, 43.6%) to France (#58, 26.2%).

That's an interesting question. I'd say it depends on how competitive the position is; the more competition, the less women I'd expect to see. (Because men are more competitive than women.) Ranging between 20% and 50% doesn't seem unreasonable.

You say women are not discriminated? Then why do they earn less money for doing the same job as men?

For doing the same job, women don't earn a lot less. It's something like 5%. That brings me again to the problem of competitiveness - your pay is to some extent up to yourself. How much you ask for when you apply for the job, and how often you demand a raise.

As a programmer, I encountered this: Women Can Code – as Long as No One Knows They're Women

Less than 10% difference, and only when the requests were made to outsiders. When the requests were made to insiders, MEN were discriminated against. Funny how the text completely neglected to mention that. (Figure 5)

Also, BREAKING NEWS: Horrible discrimination towards men in the field of programming! Because supposedly women are better at it. =]

And here's a list of articles about gender discrimination, almost all in favor of men. That's not selected that way; it's simply all news about gender discrimination (from a US news organization).

For this to be important, we'd need to assume that problems faced by men receive as much attention as problems faced by women. I don't think that's the case, since feminism is a hugely powerful and vocal movement that's been bringing attention to women's problems for many decades, while there's nothing similar for men. (Men's rights activism is starting to become a real thing, I guess, but it's still very young in its shoes.)

And before anyone claims that Feminism is about equality, no you're wrong: It's a movement that advocates women's rights.

Perhaps it has gotten better, but realize that last year, Missouri decided to take the confederate flag down from the state parliament.

Eh, the civil war is a pretty big part of American history. A state can ackowledge the fact the confederation existed without the implicit suggestion that they support slavery, I think?

Have you heard about "Black Lives Matter"? It's a protest movement, which does peaceful protests to try to stop the police from killing (mostly unarmed) black people. Because they do that all the time, everywhere. Look it up, this is not history, it's happening right now.

Yes, I don't think anyone thinks very highly of the American police these days. Not just for racism, but they generally seem to be all too shooty and happy to ignore basic rights.

This is much worse here than what I've seen in Europe. But I'm pretty sure that there is a lot of discrimination in Europe as well. For example, I would be surprised if a person named Mohammed has as much chance of getting a job as a person named John.

Sure, but only because that name is associated with terrorism, which is a very hot potato right now.

Don't forget: this isn't "one colleague is annoying sometimes". This is "almost every colleague implies every day that I don't deserve to be there".

Oh? In what universe does this happen? Everyone at a workplace treating women like they're the scum of the earth would be starkly in contrast with societal values at large. From my understanding, most instances of harrassment are singular incidents.

Not to say it can never happen (just like workplace bullying happens, where everyone may turn to treat one person poorly due to their low social standing in that particular group (because pack animals are spineless conforming cowards sometimes)), but I highly doubt that's the usual case.

Here in the US, I'm pretty sure there is such a cabal. Their PR department is called "Fox News" and they do a lot of pushing. But even if there isn't a cabal, the system can still be rigged. If one group has more opportunities for whatever reason, that's unfair. Fixing that is a good thing.

"Rigged" implies it's engineered to be that way. The system can be unfair, I agree with that. A football match where every kid on one team comes from a family that plays football every day, while every kid on the other team comes from a family that never plays football, can be unfair. But the game is only rigged if the referee gives red cards to one team for minor offences, and doesn't give them to the other team for the same offences.

But I think that's our main disagreement, i.e. how much favouritism is going on based on race. I don't think it's hugely significant, and most differences in socio-economic status are due to the socio-economic status of the parents. Culture also affects it. For instance, black culture might glorify a gangsta-lifestyle and shun academics. Genetics might affect it, but probably not very much.

"Of course it's racist. There's nothing wrong with that." - Shevek, 2016.

J/k. If you were a politician, that's how I would choose to see it as your running opponent.

Blacks are underrepresented in some well paying sector. Whites tend to stick together, so when they hire new people, they most likely hire more white people. That means that the fraction of blacks isn't going to increase by itself. (In fact, it's likely to decrease.)

Why would whites hire only whites, unless they were racists to begin with? The younger generations have specifically been taught not to think like that. I think what "positive" discrimination does is reinforce that kind of us vs them mentality. Giving the majority good reasons to resent minorities can't possibly be a good thing.

That is unjust. It is because of the race, and so to fix it, we must differentiate people based on race. That is racist. But discrimination is only bad if it hurts people unjustly. And taking away privilege in order to achieve equality may hurt, but it certainly isn't unjust. Quite the contrary.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

I was talking about the physical brain, actually because the physical brain is where everything is stored. It's greatly complex and we still don't fully understand it, but it's certainly not a "rather disgusting mass".

Only a zombie could find a brain aesthetically pleasing. It's an important disgusting mass, though, to be sure. Men's brains are bigger, for one thing, and this study clearly highlights structural biases between the sexes. You're right in that one couldn't reliably tell an individual's sex based on those scans, however.

That's just structural, which isn't the whole story. Chemicals such as testosterone also have well-documented effects on behaviour, and men produce a lot more of that than women.

Again, you're asserting your belief as fact something that we haven't been able to scientifically study as I posted about earlier.

You cannot assert that it is natural when it has not been scientifically established as natural. We have established that discrimination *has* and *does still* take place.

I'm not trying to assert these as scientific facts - just what I personally believe/think is likely to be true. The science isn't there yet to pick our brains in detail, or reliably tell which behaviours stem from nature and which are purely environmental. But we know full well that biology affects our brains, the assumption that the differences must be 99% environmental has no base.

But anyway, environmental differences while growing up (which I think we all agree can be significant) aren't comparable to the kind of bad discrimination like an employer refusing to hire a woman. Women do better than men in many areas of life. It's just differences, and regardless of what percentage is natural or environmental, affect the occupations men & women go to in their lives. That's why stats such as the amount of women in parliament are poor evidence of women being treated unfairly.

There's so much wrong with what deeply religious people teach to their children that focusing just on women's rights with them seems like it would be missing the point.
There is, but I wasn't talking about everything that was wrong with religious people. I was giving an example of a rather large group of people who teach exactly what you said. Them doing more things wrong doesn't mean that this should be ignored.

I don't see women's rights activists bashing Muslims, fundamentalist catholics, and Jehovah's witnesses.
I thought I just did that. Also, I think it is a very normal thing to do among feminists. But not by saying that religion is bad, because that is bad politics. Because saying that will make people claim you're radical, because you're against freedom of religion, and then they don't listen to the (other) valid points you're making. But laws in a country like Saudi Arabia are heavily criticized by feminists.

On the other hand, there is also a valid reason not to criticize the religion itself for this: as I said before, religious people need to pick and choose which parts they believe. There are people (including Muslims) who choose the non-discriminatory parts, and as a feminist I have no problem with someone like that. (As an atheist I still want to convert them, but that's a different matter.)

So yes, religious groups who discriminate against women for religious reasons are criticized; religions themselves not as much.

it depends on how competitive the position is; the more competition, the less women I'd expect to see.
Think of the implications: any position in society that has high status will be desired by many people. So it is automatically competitive. So what you're saying is that you expect less women in positions of high status. How is that not putting them at a disadvantage?

women don't earn a lot less.
"Not a lot" means yes, they earn less. And that's a problem, especially when there is a cumulative effect (being paid less implies being valued less, which means lower chance of getting a promotion, etc).

John Oliver explains it very well (and he's funny).

It's something like 5%.
Find out what 5% unfair treatment means for the top of the organization. Yes, that means over 70% of CEOs will be men. And that's only taking this into account. There are other reasons women don't get those jobs, which explains why the number in the real world is even worse.

How much you ask for when you apply for the job, and how often you demand a raise.
When men do that, they are seen as strong and are rewarded. When women do, they are whining and punished. Given that situation, you can't expect them to try as much.

This is one reason that men are paid more for the same job. Knowing the reason doesn't mean it doesn't need to be fixed.

Less than 10% difference
The "it's almost nothing" argument doesn't get better when the number gets bigger, you know? 10% is huge.

only when the requests were made to outsiders. When the requests were made to insiders, MEN were discriminated against. Funny how the text completely neglected to mention that.
I agree it deserved to be mentioned, but I disagree that it means much. If the leaders discriminate, they will keep most women out. So the only women that are insiders are so good that they overcame the disadvantage. Once they are in, their work is treated as coming from a pro (which they are) and is thus more often accepted.

I also note that I disagree with the suggestion that women would be better than men at coding. I have no reason to believe that. However, there is a lot of harassment in this community, which means only the ones who really want to will persevere. So the women that are part of the community are better than the men, not because women are better, but because only the best make it there.

feminism is a hugely powerful and vocal movement that's been bringing attention to women's problems for many decades
And still they are hugely disadvantaged in society. Perhaps that hugely powerful movement is still less powerful than the forces they are up against?

there's nothing similar for men
What should men's rights activists fight for? What's the biggest injustice that needs to be addressed?

And before anyone claims that Feminism is about equality, no you're wrong: It's a movement that advocates women's rights.
It's like a religion; it's something different for everyone. For some (including me), it's about equality. For others, it's about women's rights. But it doesn't really matter, because in the current society, fighting for women's rights and fighting for equality are the same thing. We can have the discussion about the difference when we reach equality.

Eh, the civil war is a pretty big part of American history. A state can ackowledge the fact the confederation existed without the implicit suggestion that they support slavery, I think?
The civil war was over exactly one issue, and that issue was slavery. I'm sure there were other minor things, but slavery was the only thing that actually made people go to war. So supporting the confederacy means supporting slavery. That was true back then, and it is true now. Or can you name one other thing that is well known about the confederacy's ideals?

And acknowledging your history is not the same as flying their flag on your parliamentary building. This is like the Germans flying a swastika over the Bundestag, because the Nazis are a part of their history. Yes, they are, and it's good to remember that. But you do that with monuments and museums, not by proudly showing their symbols on your most important buildings.

only because that name is associated with terrorism
Oh, I suppose then it's ok. Someone tell all the Arabs that they shouldn't complain about unfair treatment, it's just because we think they're all terrorists. Why would Arabs not be angry about this? It doesn't make it any less unfair, does it?

In what universe does this happen?
This one we are living in.

most instances of harrassment are singular incidents.
While it is true that not everyone is doing it, many workplaces have people doing it and they are allowed to keep doing it. That means the harassment happens every day. If you see people watching and not acting, I expect that it feels like they agree that that is how you deserve to be treated. It's the job of management to prevent that culture, and as far as I know it is quite rare (but not unheard of) that they do.

"Rigged" implies it's engineered to be that way.
I did not mean that (although I'm not saying that it isn't, I don't know for sure that it is), so let's use a different word.

Why would whites hire only whites, unless they were racists to begin with?
Because they live in a community of white people. They know and trust them. They prefer to hire their friends, or people who are like their friends. If all (or most) of their friends are white, that means they hire (almost) only white people.

Sure, an outstanding black person could surprise them and be hired anyway. But that's the point: only the outstanding blacks are hired, while mediocre white people also get those jobs.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?
I don't understand what you mean by this; can you elaborate?

What should men's rights activists fight for? What's the biggest injustice that needs to be addressed?

dad's friend is a massage therapist or some shit, so as you'd expect, some feminazi trash filed a rape report. and won. he went to jail for like 6 months or something. the feminazi bitch didn't have to prove that anything happened and you can just flat out refuse to have tests done to prove it. it's basically an instant-win 100% guarantee of money.

that needs fixing. i know that the way rape is handled in this shithole country is, well, not really at all and that most rapists don't get a sentence. but it works the other way around where no rape happened but someone is thrown behind bars to rot anyways. plus, lawyers are scum and if there's money to be had, it doesn't matter what the law is or who or what your client is. it could be blazingly obvious you're defending ultra hitler. but ultra hitler's probably loaded. you've gotta sink your hands into ultra hitler's pockets.

let's add lawsuits to this thread too now. one time, we were in a restaurant and while we were in there, some old dink and his old dink wife were outside. the first old dink purposely walked into the thingy on the front of our car to get some free money. and won. said that the incident caused him to lose his sex drive. but you know, that was probably just the age and you don't duck with your legs.

What should men's rights activists fight for? What's the biggest injustice that needs to be addressed?

Well I'm not really an activist of any kind, so I'm not keeping tabs on this, but the biggest one is without a doubt children and custody. In most cases, custody goes to the mother (with unwed couples it's virtually impossible for the father to receive custody, unless the mother is very clerly unfit for parenthood, like some kind of a homeless drug addict), and in the cases where men do have custody, they receive less child support. I also find it highly disturbing that according to this site, ~80% of women want sole custody, while only ~40% of men demand joint custody - that's some really archaic gender role horse shit going on there.

Those stats are pretty old (from the 90s), but I couldn't find a more recent decent source. (Many articles by women's rights kooks, a couple by mens rights kooks.) This one seems pretty impartial in how he presents the data.

An obvious one is military service, which in many countries is compulsory for men, but not for women.

False rape accusations and public shaming, like the whole mattress girl fiasco.

I don't understand what you mean by this; can you elaborate?

I mean, is it okay to push 1 person in front of a bus if it means 10 other people will live? (Otherwise the 10 people die, and the 1 lives.) It's also a quote from Star Trek.

That's how incentives work, by disadvantaging perfectly innocent white people for the sake of the "greater good". Racism for the sake of dispelling racism. I'm also starting to sound like a philosophy major because it's very late here.

I disagree with that kind of thinking - choices usually aren't binary, and you shoudn't wrong people for any reason. There are other ways to increase black representation in the workforce than discriminating against whites.

custody and drafting's good too, though drafting hasn't been used for what? decades? it still could be used which is pretty awful for the people smart enough to realize that each of our wars since probably world war 2 have been unrighteous and evil.

or, since so many people in this country are brainwashed into believing they'll be a hero, then it won't suck for them in that way, but it still might suck for some. then there's the people who'll just sit in fear waiting for some asshole to come try and force them to join just because they've got bad design hanging from between their legs.

the biggest one is without a doubt children and custody
Which is a luxury problem. I'm not disagreeing that it is worth fixing inequalities there. I'm just saying that it is not at the same level as the problems women face, which include (in some parts of the world) being murdered, or having their lives ruined to a point where they commit suicide.

That would be the reason men's rights groups don't gain any traction: activists stand up to fight injustice. There's not so much injustice going on, especially compared to what's happening to women. "The rich and powerful are mistreated and it's all the fault of the poor" just isn't very convincing.

I also find it highly disturbing that according to this site, ~80% of women want sole custody, while only ~40% of men demand joint custody
Why is this disturbing? There may be several reasons for this. The main one that I can think of (other than the gender roles you mention, which are also a part of it) is the power distribution. I expect men to be more dominant on average. Women don't want to share custody, because the dominant man will likely make their life difficult; they want as little to do with him as possible. Men on the other hand often don't have much to fear, so they find it acceptable. (Obviously this is only about averages, individual cases can be very different.)

Also note that there's no "demanding" in those numbers; it's just what their preference is.

mattress girl fiasco
I had heard about this story, so I had to look up the details. But holy shit, that is a biased article. And then they claim:
due partly to biased journalism, partly to activist zealotry amplified by irresponsible politicians such as Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand
Talk about blaming the victim! Gillibrand's story is a good example of the hostile work environment for women in the US senate. I haven't heard any credible news source even suggesting that it wasn't true, but nonetheless she is "irresponsible" anyway? For what?

Here's a more balanced discussion about a followup to the mattress story. They are balanced, not neutral, and their opinions differ and it gets heated (which is fun to watch).

That's how incentives work, by disadvantaging perfectly innocent white people for the sake of the "greater good".
I already said that is not what is happening:
I'm not proposing to disadvantage him, I want to take away his unfair advantage. I can understand that it feels the same, but it is very different.
If white men have more opportunities, that doesn't mean they are to blame for the inequality. But they should also not complain when their unfair advantage is taken away. That's not a punishment. Of course it means they will have to get used to not having as much power as they used to, but the fact that they had the power doesn't mean they deserved it. And it is fair to take away undeserved power from people who are "perfectly innocent".

I mean, is it okay to push 1 person in front of a bus if it means 10 other people will live?
For an individual, that is a hard choice. For a government, it isn't. The purpose of the government is to help the people. Of course they have to do whatever helps most people. If that means killing a person (which is extremely rare, for the record), then that's what they must do. How is that even a discussion? If the government refuses to help its people, why does it exist?

There are other ways to increase black representation in the workforce than discriminating against whites.
Can you name a way to increase their representation without decreasing the representation of all others?

luxury problem? kids are a luxury now? aren't they pretty common and sometimes unavoidable?

kids are a luxury now?
I didn't say that (although yes, I do think so, but that's a different matter). I said getting custody over your kids when you are divorcing is a luxury.

aren't they pretty common and sometimes unavoidable?
They are more common than they should be, which is why we have overpopulation. They are not unavoidable in civilized parts of the world, where kids are taught about sex and are given access to contraceptives and abortion. The US is not a civilized place by that definition.

there should be parenting licenses. shit out a kid and don't have a license? bam, large fine. and you don't get the kid. straight to the orphanage that little freak goes.

i like how so many posts in here are walls of text.

ur mom is a wall of text lmao