General Current Events/Political Discussion

[Doctornick | 419]

11 minutes ago, Bearcat-Doug said:

I'd rather have two pairs of shoes than a copy of Stadium Events and I used to own one. 

Even if you are a Bearcat fan you're obviously very wise.  If you want to meet in Columbus we could just play World Class Track meet with our New Balance shoes!

[Bearcat-Doug | 5,105]

2 minutes ago, Doctornick said:

Even if you are a Bearcat fan you're obviously very wise.  If you want to meet in Columbus we could just play World Class Track meet with our New Balance shoes!

When Buckeye and Bearcats fans can agree on something being stupid, it's really stupid. 

[cartman | 195]

26 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

And the Simpsons creators didn't want to be associated with that.

And the comedy can still go on, just that that one type of offensive stereotypical "comedy" has been jettisoned. Apu is still there, he's still a funny character. He'll just have a less offensive voice.

The creators of the Simpsons are taking away a form of harassment. They're doing their part, through their own choice.

And if the Simpsons creators kept Apu's voice, that would mean they don't care.

They do care. So they did something about it.

Again, one little change that does not harm Apu's funny character, it just takes away one offensive aspect.

Crime is addressed by a set of laws. This isn't that.

It's more than a few people. As I said, those few people wouldn't have power if the majority of society didn't also back them.

The bad experiences added up for minorities, and now the majority of society says that these stereotypes are not part of comedy anymore. We don't do pickianny or blackface anymore.

It's not that you can't not be offended, it's that you're allowed to speak up when you are offended.

Again, you keep missing that no higher power came down on the Simpsons.

A few voiced a complaint.

The Simpsons creators looked at the cultural landscape and decided that Apu's voice had no place in it, so they changed the voice.

That is all that happened.

Nothing more.

You're acting like this small cabal decides everything.

There is no cabal.

But that's not a cultural identity. There is no racial group that identifies as "violent" or "profane."

You're again missing the difference. Those opposed to violence or profanity won't get anything from the Simpsons at all.

They want to shut the Simpsons down.

The Indians who watch the Simpsons get a lot out of it, but they just asked for the offensive stereotype to be changed.

They asked for one thing.

They're not asking for Apu to be killed off.

The people who object to violence or profanity have tons of options.

Indians who watch things just want to see their culture portrayed correctly.

If you can't see the difference in that, I don't know what to tell you.

You said they want everything to revolve around them.

They wanted one change.

No it wouldn't. Not everything is an offensive stereotype. Those are what have no place in 2020.

No, you're just applying the "slippery slope" fallacy. That's not what's happening.

Offensive stereotypes are no longer funny. That's an objective truth to the majority of society. They have no place in mainstream culture.

There's absolutely an objective truth. We've seen minorities be bashed for who they are, based on stereotypes.

We can easily see that some things should no longer be in culture, or that can be spoken out against, and the creators of that can then decide.

That's how it works.

Again, with all of those, there's a responsible way to depicting them, and a responsible way of depicting cultural aspects such as accents and aspects of race.

The way Apu was depicted was irresponsible.

And the creators took it upon themselves to change it.

Because again, those people won't get anything watching the Simpsons. They wanted the Simpsons completely shut down.

They have plenty of options to watch that will align with their values.

Apu was watched by people of Indian descent, and they simply said they don't like one aspect. Everything else they seemed fine with.

So the creators responded.

Everyone goes home happy.

Except you.

So you'd rather have the more damaging racism by continuing to depict offensive stereotypes? That's really your stance?

Whites have all the options. They have all the choices. Minorities have scraped by for centuries.

Minorities often don't have any choice. They don't get roles like this very often.

Again, all the white actors are still working on the show and are still voicing most of the characters.

Azaria is still doing Moe, and whoever else.

They're just letting more people in.

How are they getting mistreated. They're still working! They still have careers!

You're falling into the same old trap of "Well, if we let minorities have opportunities, then white people will be enslaved!"

You know that's not going to happen.

The playing field is leveling. It's not regressing as you're trying so desperately to make it seem like.

We're finally sorting things out in this world.

The only people who don't like it are the people who were in charge that have to play more fairly now.

We're not going to see white people become a minority.

They have far more opportunities than minority actors. You see it every day.

Credits list white person after white person, often playing roles that people of color have no chance at playing, even if the person of color is the same as the character.

It's not based on merit, as there are plenty of great actors of all races.

It's a systemic discrimination that is in place and has been for decades.

All that is happening is that systemic discrimination is being dismantled.

There'll still be roles for white people. Always.

We're just letting some people of color have a fair shot.

It's an irrational position to feel guilty for what others do and feel that they're reflecting upon yourself. There's nothing noble or good about that mindset, quite the opposite it's an unhealthy mentality. I wasn't talking about whether the comedy can go on i was talking about your argument that some Indians have been bullied with Apu being used as the reference. You champion that Simpsons have "taken responsibility" on something that they weren't even guilty of in the first place and really they fixed nothing. You'll notice that people talk and look different pretty much immediately if that's your bullying focus there's no need for any character for that. Simpsons keeping Apu's voice wouldn't mean they "don't care" it would just mean that they made a rational choice in regards to their situation.

Yes crime adressed by it's own laws. That's why it's not a crime to kill someone in a movie and why the Simpsons aren't responsible for someone getting harassed over Apu.

It's not more than a few people that complained about Apu. A guy with a documentary with a ton of dislikes, maybe some columnist here and there "enlightning" everyone with their critical article. Some regular folks on social media might've complained on top of that but really nothing spectacular. It's a woke agenda of a select few being allowed to enforce itself not something majority-driven or asked for by most of the fans.

It doesn't have to be a pointed out racial group for the issues at hand to still have a relevance. So what if no racial group identifies as violent or profane? The complainers can still say that such behavior being promoted is detrimental to society and how it shapes people, the culture. I'm not talking about Simpsons specifically i'm talking about the general picture of violent media. Ofcourse you can alter instead of shut down but what kind of argument is that? The more you alter the less of what it's supposed to be remains so maybe they would get something out of the Simpsons after they were done.

Yes those Indians did want everything to revolve around them but that doesn't mean that they wanted every single aspect to be changed. Even on a single aspect the point reamins that they wanted to be catered to. So what if it's 2020? The dominating stream of moralism today and that it's current automatically dictates how legitimate it is compared to others is that your argument? Those against violence and profanity have no social traction so therefor their cause can be comfortably ignored. Despite the fact that their sentiment is just as subjective and intrusive than the one you cheer for. There is no "slippery slope fallacy" it's just a reality of the nature of moralism, the fact that you can't defend it.

What is this "responsible" way of depicting violence, profanity, guns and who decides where the lines should be drawn? Since you've already cancelled something as benign as a fictional characters background and voice being used for comedic effect i really wonder how you'd set this bar and have it make sense without contradicting yourself. Here's a quick example

Quote

Grand Theft Auto III was the beginning of the series increasing popularity. The game also proved controversial, with many in the media citing the ability to carjack vehicles, having implied sex with prostitutes and the ability to kill them to steal their money.^[1] Whilst the player has the option to do these acts, there is no mandatory requirement to do so in the game.

Is it responsible to allow the player to steal cars, have sex with prostitutes and kill prostitutes? Is it responsible period to have a game where you're doing missions as a rising career criminal? How would you make video games responsible? So if those conservatives would be pleased with getting their changes in Simpsons would it then be fine? Or these changes in GTA 3 for example. As long as they enjoy the media they've altered it's all good?

Yes i would rather have any race do any character beause i think it's a bullshit issue to begin with. And as we've seen it hasn't really mattered how "offensive" the depiction has been the push has been towards scrapping ALL white-on-minority voice acting so you can't really bring up offensiveness as an argument. What i wouldn't do is segregate people where everyone else can do everything but whites who can only do white characters as is happening right now. So obviously whites don't have "all the options" it's the exact opposite, and you're trying to justify discrimination against whites through ancestral guilt dating back hundreds of years? Yeah totally not racism.

If minorities don't get voicejobs very often it means that white voice actors should be barred to make it possible? Competitiveness exists for everyone you can't just get a freecard out of it for being a minority. They're obviously not only letting more people in when it has happened on racist grounds and at the cost of those who already held those spots. I've never said that minorities will enslave whites and that they shouldn't have opportunities i've pointed out that whites are being discriminated against and that they shouldn't be, when you've been re-inforcing that it's fine and that they should. What you're calling "leveling the field". It would've already been regressive by enforcing that whites do white roles and blacks do black but when it's become that everyone except white can cross over that it's even more regressive. That's picking & choosing in the racism instead of segregation on equal terms.

[Link | 2,714]

31 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

There's a huge difference, do some research and then come back to me. Huuuuuuuge difference.

 

Uh huh.

”Indian Americans or Indo-Americans are Americans with ancestry from India.” Seems to me that would apply to both. Of course, not all Indian-Americans are immigrants. Some were born here. I apologize if I implied otherwise.

33 minutes ago, fcgamer said:

to say that people from the country and those that are born and raised in the country are the same is insulting at best,

But I never said any such thing as that. 

1 hour ago, fcgamer said:

Apu is modelled after an Indian immigrating to America, not an Indian-American.

So an immigrant can’t be a ____-American?

Yes, Apu is “an Indian [who immigrated] to America” no, that doesn’t mean he is “not an Indian-American.”

That’s what I meant when I asked what the difference is. I’m sorry you misconstrued that as ‘Indian-Americans are the same as Indians in India’, a statement I highly doubt anyone here would make, no matter how many pages you’ve spent trying to build that straw man. 

Sleep well. Maybe you’ll answer my other question. When you come back to us.

[Rhino | 105]

2 hours ago, Link said:

Nothing, but we have to do more than that. And it’s always halted by talk of “it’s too soon” “you’re being emotional” “don’t politicize this tragedy”

A doctor who is a minority, happens to be incompetent, yet gets hired at a hospital solely to fulfill diversity, and fails to save a life that a straight white christian male doctor who would have been hired instead if that policy were not in place would have done a better job? In the operating room with a team of medical staff attending. 

Would this doctor happen to be made of straw?

Here I agree with you again. And certainly, “the left” can at times also hit people over the head with ideology. That doesn’t discount the difference in approach or effects.

What do you think should be done after a shooting?

The doctor scenario was just an example and it doesn't have to be a minority. It could be a dumb white doctor who was hired because he knew someone. Point is a less qualified person got the job because of whatever reason and it resulted in a negative outcome. 

[Reed Rothchild | 9,548]

[captmorgandrinker | 1,649]

20 minutes ago, Reed Rothchild said:

 

I'm so glad IHOP gave up on that burger thing.

Also with the advent of cell phones, I don't think Dads wear Casio watches any more.

[Tabonga | 2,324]

OK everyone - time to pretend you are in freshman English 101 - a little compare and/or contrast exercise here:

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/502975-california-man-fired-over-alleged-white-power-sign-says-he-was

https://metro.co.uk/2020/07/02/harvard-graduate-sobs-fired-dream-job-threatening-stab-lives-matter-supporters-12934921/

Note - while most of the articles on Claira Janover say she was fired (which she claims herself) from her job - Deloitte says that she was only going to be employed as an intern in a position that would have ended in August in any event. 

Edited July 5, 2020 by Tabonga

[Estil | 1,265]

5 hours ago, Rhino said:

Let me ask you this, you've been in a car accident, your kid has been taken to the nearest hospital, and they're being operated on by a doctor who was last in his class and only hired to check a diversity box. Your kid dies. Should this type of hiring practice continue in the future because a diverse workforce is more important than hiring the best?

I got an even better, more realistic hypothetical for ya...

Suppose you going for a promotion at your workplace.  Your boss calls you in and tells you that you are indeed the best, most qualified for the job, BUT...   They have another candidate, who happens to be [insert name of fashionable affirmative action sort of group] who is reasonably qualified and would probably do a good job at the position...but is clearly not the best. 

Would those of you who support affirmative action honestly be willing to step aside and allow the other candidate the position?  Or to put it another way, how would it be if the other candidate did get the position and later found out they only got it because they needed to full some sort of quota?  

[Hammerfestus | 3,860]

[Doctornick | 419]

6 minutes ago, Hammerfestus said:

Might have been responsible for overpriced garbage but shoe game is on point (I think).  It's hard to tell if those are the shoes of gods.

[Link | 2,714]

2 hours ago, Rhino said:

What do you think should be done after a shooting?

More than only thoughts and prayers. Take steps to prevent future shootings.

We really need to address root causes, like community concerns, education quality, poverty, drug trafficking, lack of mental health resources, and systemic racism. You fix stuff like that, you stop most violence. All of this, of course, is held up by myopic budget bitching and we spiral ever farther. 

Short term? One “easy” thing would be legislation toward federalizing gun control. States decide now, so there is a patchwork of inconsistent laws that allow guns to be taken to places where they... get used inappropriately. And the burden of responding falls on local law enforcement. We are tuckpointing a wall without grinding out the old mortar.

2 hours ago, Rhino said:

Point is a less qualified person got the job because of whatever reason and it resulted in a negative outcome. 

Repeating your hypothetical scenario as proof that it happens?

[Link | 2,714]

56 minutes ago, Estil said:

Suppose you going for a promotion at your workplace.  Your boss calls you in and tells you that you are indeed the best, most qualified for the job, BUT...   They have another candidate, who happens to be [insert name of fashionable affirmative action sort of group] who is reasonably qualified and would probably do a good job at the position...but is clearly not the best. 

Did this happen to you? Did you hear about it happening to somebody? Or is it just another cutesy made up story that proves little other than you don’t like something?

Again. The idea is to make sure all candidates are vetted fairly regardless of background, and this came about because it wasn’t happening. People who were not the best were  getting positions because they looked like the boss (or the interviewer, whatever). 

I’m not saying you’re wrong to question things, but right now you’re questioning a remedy to unfairness. Why?

Edited July 5, 2020 by Link

[Link | 2,714]

42 minutes ago, Doctornick said:

It's hard to tell if those are the shoes of gods.

Not sure, but they accompany the Jeans of Mom.

[Tabonga | 2,324]

Quote

Did this happen to you? Did you hear about it happening to somebody? Or is it just another cutesy made up story that proves little other than you don’t like something?

Not exactly the same - but when i was up for a low level promotion/transfer at work in 1990 the protocol was that all open postions  could be applied for by anyone in the state system that met the eligibility requirements.  The procedure was that a written test (usually 100 points*) was to be administered and the top three scorers would be interviewed and the choice made from those three.

In our test I scored 99, the second 96 and the third 92.  The state modified the previously established protocol so that if none of the three was a protected class the third highest scorer would be removed from consideration and the highest scoring protected class person would be pushed above everyone else in between - in this case it was a woman who scored a low 80s. 

If they had to jigger the system why not just put in four people to be interviewed - that would have been far more fair to the third person.  (We all knew each other and the woman herself thought it was very unfair. Didn't really effect me but I did feel sorry for the guy removed from the list (who I didn't even like all that well - but that was irrelevant from my thoughts on it). 

*There was a provision that veterans would get a five point bonus added to their scores - but no one qualified for that in this test.

[fcgamer | 4,729]

4 hours ago, Link said:

Uh huh.

”Indian Americans or Indo-Americans are Americans with ancestry from India.” Seems to me that would apply to both. Of course, not all Indian-Americans are immigrants. Some were born here. I apologize if I implied otherwise.

But I never said any such thing as that. 

So an immigrant can’t be a ____-American?

Yes, Apu is “an Indian [who immigrated] to America” no, that doesn’t mean he is “not an Indian-American.”

That’s what I meant when I asked what the difference is. I’m sorry you misconstrued that as ‘Indian-Americans are the same as Indians in India’, a statement I highly doubt anyone here would make, no matter how many pages you’ve spent trying to build that straw man. 

Sleep well. Maybe you’ll answer my other question. When you come back to us.

Hahaha trying to get me on semantics ol' boy, good job!

Of course an Indian (or someone from any other ethnicity) can become a natural citizen and therefore be an American. But that's not what we are talking about, and you know it .

We are talking about I didn't versus American-Born Indians. As I mentioned earlier, in the Chinese / Taiwanense communities, there is a huge difference between these groups, I'm not going to highlight them here but you can do some research if you desire. I'd reckon with the two aforementioned groups of Indians there would be such a similar situation.

 

[captmorgandrinker | 1,649]

1 hour ago, Link said:

Did this happen to you? Did you hear about it happening to somebody? Or is it just another cutesy made up story that proves little other than you don’t like something?

Again. The idea is to make sure all candidates are vetted fairly regardless of background, and this came about because it wasn’t happening. People who were not the best were  getting positions because they looked like the boss (or the interviewer, whatever). 

I’m not saying you’re wrong to question things, but right now you’re questioning a remedy to unfairness. Why?

What's your opinion on the Rooney Rule in pro football? 

[arch_8ngel | 1,597]

 

6 hours ago, Doctornick said:

I feel bad for you man, so much hate (Nike) in your life.  We will all send you some new balance shoes so you can live life to the fullest.  You will literally walk on clouds and fight crime with just your presence once you put on a pair of them. 

People with narrow feet are probably fine in Nike.

It's just that (at least last time I bought Nike in the 90's), their standard width is a C, and New Balance has a D-width as standard along with offering a full range of sizing options (like my college buddy that wore quad-E width shoes).

 

Personally, I switched back to Chuck Taylor's a few years ago, because I like the zero-rise, the simplicity, the durability, and the relatively low price point

[Californication | 1,477]

1 hour ago, Tabonga said:

Not exactly the same - but when i was up for a low level promotion/transfer at work in 1990 the protocol was that all open postions  could be applied for by anyone in the state system that met the eligibility requirements.  The procedure was that a written test (usually 100 points*) was to be administered and the top three scorers would be interviewed and the choice made from those three.

In our test I scored 99, the second 96 and the third 92.  The state modified the previously established protocol so that if none of the three was a protected class the third highest scorer would be removed from consideration and the highest scoring protected class person would be pushed above everyone else in between - in this case it was a woman who scored a low 80s. 

If they had to jigger the system why not just put in four people to be interviewed - that would have been far more fair to the third person.  (We all knew each other and the woman herself thought it was very unfair. Didn't really effect me but I did feel sorry for the guy removed from the list (who I didn't even like all that well - but that was irrelevant from my thoughts on it). 

*There was a provision that veterans would get a five point bonus added to their scores - but no one qualified for that in this test.

I know people first hand that were turmed away from factory jobs as current as the 80's because they were  hispanic. (It was pretty much to the point were Mexican and other hispanics knew not to apply to many types of work because they were considered ineligible strictly based on their race. Turning away black and brown skin people away from jobs was/is still sometimes such a common practice that the government stepped in. It's unfortunate when in your situation a less qualified person was given a job because of their identity, but in the  majority of historical cases white people are given priority in job opportuntites.

Edited July 6, 2020 by Californication

[Rhino | 105]

2 hours ago, Estil said:

I got an even better, more realistic hypothetical for ya...

Suppose you going for a promotion at your workplace.  Your boss calls you in and tells you that you are indeed the best, most qualified for the job, BUT...   They have another candidate, who happens to be [insert name of fashionable affirmative action sort of group] who is reasonably qualified and would probably do a good job at the position...but is clearly not the best. 

Would those of you who support affirmative action honestly be willing to step aside and allow the other candidate the position?  Or to put it another way, how would it be if the other candidate did get the position and later found out they only got it because they needed to full some sort of quota?  

That happened to one of my friends for college. She and her best friend are both white, both did all the same stuff in high school, and both had almost identical SAT scores and GPAs. Girl A had better scores than girl B. Both applied to the same college at the same time. Girl A applied to a nursing program. Girl B applied to an engineering program. 

Girl A got accepted but for a semester later, the spring semester. Girl B got accepted for the fall semester. This is when I learned quotas in colleges are 100% real. They accepted girl B immediately because they wanted to check a diversity box for having women in engineering. 

 

1 hour ago, Link said:

More than only thoughts and prayers. Take steps to prevent future shootings.

We really need to address root causes, like community concerns, education quality, poverty, drug trafficking, lack of mental health resources, and systemic racism. You fix stuff like that, you stop most violence. All of this, of course, is held up by myopic budget bitching and we spiral ever farther. 

Short term? One “easy” thing would be legislation toward federalizing gun control. States decide now, so there is a patchwork of inconsistent laws that allow guns to be taken to places where they... get used inappropriately. And the burden of responding falls on local law enforcement. We are tuckpointing a wall without grinding out the old mortar.

Repeating your hypothetical scenario as proof that it happens?

Don't they take steps every time? And why do you have to only take steps after a shooting? It should be a thing 24/7. I agree we need a multi faceted approach. A huge culture shift is also needed. One where we actually as a community look out for one another, make sure each other are okay, and listen. People always say more mental health resources but never say what that means. Not everyone will go and seek out professional help either, so how can people help? By simply talking. Just talk to people and listen to them. Getting rid of assault rifles AND other kinds of aid like you mentioned are what's needed. It can't just be one. That'll never fully solve the problem. Banning all guns will never happen either because of the Constitution, but there's no reason any American civilian should have an assault rifle military grade weapon. Don't give me that crap about "oh it's for hunting". Plenty of other guns can kill game. 

See my post above of a real world quota system. As others have pointed out already, it does happen and is a real thing. Not just some made up crap. Just because it didn't happen to you doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Affirmative action is complete bullsh!t. There have to be other ways to determine who is the better candidate if two candidates are truly equal than having it all come down to race. Why not look at merit, someone's character, references, a person's social skills, anything other than gender, race, religion, age, or whatever other category you can think of. Pick some other thing to be the deciding factor, something that actually shows someone is the better candidate for whatever the job is. Waitress, well people skills are pretty important. Banking? Maybe attention to detail is more important. 

[Rhino | 105]

16 minutes ago, Californication said:

I know people first hand that were turmed away from factory jobs as current as the 80's because they were  hispanic. (It was pretty much to the point were Mexican and other hispanics knew not to apply to many types of work because they were considered ineligible strictly based on their race. Turning away black and brown skin people away from jobs was/is still sometimes such a common practice that the government stepped in. It's unfortunate when in your situation a less qualified person was given a job because of their identity, but in the  majority of historical cases white people are given priority in job opportuntites.

That's f*cked up plain and simple. This is exactly what I'm getting at. Turning away someone OR hiring someone just because of their skin color is messed up and should not be tolerated.

[Tabonga | 2,324]

16 minutes ago, Californication said:

I know people first hand that were turmed away from factory jobs as current as the 80's because they were  hispanic. (It was pretty much to the point were Mexican and other hispanics knew not to apply to many types of work because they were considered ineligible strictly based on their race. Turning away black and brown skin people away from jobs was/is still sometimes such a common practice that the government stepped in. It's unfortunate when in your situation a less qualified person was given a job because of their identity, but in the  majority of historical cases white people are given priority in job opportuntites.

She didn't get the job (I did).  But the dumb thing about it that this was in a library - and our library (as is often the case in libraries) was heavily staffed by women - and that applied all across the spectrum of the levels of the positions there.  They were trying to address an imbalance that didn't exist by trying to increase an imbalance that did. (Not that anyone really viewed it as such.) 

[Rhino | 105]

13 minutes ago, Tabonga said:

She didn't get the job (I did).  But the dumb thing about it that this was in a library - and our library (as is often the case in libraries) was heavily staffed by women - and that applied all across the spectrum of the levels of the positions there.  They were trying to address an imbalance that didn't exist by trying to increase an imbalance that did. (Not that anyone really viewed it as such.) 

These types of stories always amuse me. They assumed there must be some systemic imbalance thus hiring a male to make themselves more diverse and check a box. Maybe the real reason libraries have far more women working at them is simply because more women apply and have that as their career path. Maybe it's not a sexist thing at all. A lot of things can really be as simple as this, not many people of X applying for whatever position. Society likes to make a big deal about everything though. Everything is racist, sexist, agist, bigotry, genderist, etc. 

[Tabonga | 2,324]

8 minutes ago, Rhino said:

 They assumed there must be some systemic imbalance thus hiring a male to make themselves more diverse and check a box. Maybe the real reason libraries have far more women working at them is simply because more women apply and have that as their career path. Maybe it's not a sexist thing at all. A lot of things can really be as simple as this, not many people of X applying for whatever position. 

The biggest problem was that they were trying to balance the whole state system by applying these rules to every job/department in the state - in terms of classified staff most of the departments in the university were already well balanced - likely overbalanced in terms of what they wanted.  But that was never taken into consideration.   

Edited July 6, 2020 by Tabonga

[Reed Rothchild | 9,548]