Soxbadger

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 02:18 PM) Two thoughts here. #1 The odds of impeachment are about zero with a Republican Congress. #2, By doing something public, you make yourself, and your family a target for all of the idiots who go about attacking people for going after Donald Trump. You had better be sure this is worth it if you go public. 1) Agreed, but I do think its a funny website and will make a good # to get attention. 2) The price of freedom is blood. And if necessary I think I can make it so that finding that information would be difficult or impossible. That being said, I personally wont be silenced out of fear. It goes against everything I believe.

Arguing about what may happen 4 years from now is just a waste of time. 4 years ago I doubt even Republican's would have believed that Trump would be their nominee. Its entirely possibly that in 4 years Trump wins re-election Reagan style. Dismissing Trump is partially what led to him being elected President. (edit) y2hh, And not everyone thought it would be a landslide. On this very board I discussed its possibility. And after the Cubs won the World Series, I told my friends I had a strange feeling that Trump would win. Here is the exact post:

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 12:55 PM) I just purchased the domain letsimpeachthedonald.com. Who wants to help me get this up and running? Steve, You already know my position on this. lol

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 12:51 PM) Um, yes they do. Perhaps not directly, but their aides/communications people do it routinely, especially when it comes to the economy they inherit. Jenks, Seriously dont bother. In the last thread he wouldnt even concede that 65 > 62. Its that type of inanity that will eventually lead to even Republicans being annoyed by Trump supporters.

QUOTE (JenksIsMyHero @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 12:36 PM) That's not surprising. The Dept of Labor one was and appears to be fake/inaccurate. Are the other white house pages working? I suspect most of that information will change because, you know, new administration and all. Yeah it seems to be unclear what is going on. I can get to the page you linked but when I went to this link: Our Work Advancing LGBT Workplace Rights (PDF) https://www.dol.gov/asp/policy-development/lgbt-report.pdf It doesnt work. But I completely agree that people need to stop just parroting what the news says and do their own research.

QUOTE (KagakuOtoko @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 11:21 AM) Guys get ready for a crazy ride, we have entered the f***ing twilight zone! Seriously, what's the percentage you would say this guy is one in done. He looks way over is head but we'll see. Id say its pretty high. I am not even sure hell run again in 4 years. Once he realizes that he now has a "real" job and that its not "easy", he may just decide its not worth it. 4 years should be enough to get him the contacts, etc for money making purposes. 8 years may just be completely unnecessary.

NO YOU DIDNT DONALD. According to Brett05, you didnt COMPETE so you couldnt have won! (Sorry Im not fancy enough to know how to post the tweet better)

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 10:37 AM) And for folks like you, they won the rebound numbers so they deserve the W Actually no. Trump won based on the rules. But take solace in the fact that in your world 65 is not greater than 62. Throughout history there have been many who have denied science and fact, you are just another on that long list.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 10:27 AM) Man you believe every meme you've seen on Facebook, huh? Not even worth it Steve. If someone cant admit that 65 > 62, there really is just no point in discussing anything. The better example of his comparisons would have been: Team A and Team B compete in a game of basketball. Team A wins the game, but team B out rebounds team A 50 to 1. Someone writes an article saying that team A "lost" the rebound battle. And a team A supporter argues "team A didnt lose the rebound battle because they werent competing for rebounds."

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 10:13 AM) I hope you don't have to be right in your job. You cannot lose something you never competed for. I guess I should go around and say I lost the 2016 Presidential Election. And the 2016 World Series. Oh wait....smh Your comparisons are distinguishable. You are trying to semantically argue that eventhough Trump and Clinton went head to head, and even though Clinton had more votes, Trump didnt "technically" lose the popular vote because winning the popular vote wasnt a condition precedent to winning the election. The problem is that the definition of "lose" does not include "had to have competed for". Lose- be deprived of or cease to have or retain (something). Trump was deprived of having more votes in the popular election. Aka Trump "lost" the popular election. I can win on semantics, I can win on facts. But please find a definition of lost that includes "has to have competed."

QUOTE (brett05 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 10:03 AM) He did not lose by millions of votes if he never competed for the popular vote. But don't let that fact affect your partisan. And here we go folks, welcome to the world according to Trump. Whether or not he "competed" for the popular vote, does not change the fact that he did lose the popular vote. 65,844,954 > 62,979,879 The only partisan comment here is yours, my statement is 100% factually correct. Trump had less popular votes, if more people from IL voted for Clinton, it would have changed nothing. Is this really what weve become, we cant even now agree on things as simple as 65>62?

QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Jan 20, 2017 -> 06:36 AM) If every single person protesting today had actually gone out and voted, I bet there would be a woman president today. #greatestdemocracyintheworld #50percentvoterturnout Hard to tell, Trump did lose by millions in the popular vote. So it really would depend on where the people live. IE It doesnt matter how many didnt vote in Illinois, it would not have changed the election at all.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 19, 2017 -> 11:10 PM) If I get sent to a work camp for teaching science and opposing actual Nazis...I'll somehow be able to laugh at that being the end of it for me. I dont think it would ever get that bad. But if it does, I doubt I even make it to the train.

Balta, Calling people names really wont phase them. If you dare even "imply" that they are intolerant, they will merely play the victim card. I truly believe in that most Americans are not that way, and I think that eventually the truth will come out. I always had a strange feeling about this election, but I really believed that despite our many differences, despite policy, big govt small govt, guns, abortion, whatever, that Americans could come together on seeing why Trump's "movement" is anti-Republican, anti-Democratic and anti-American. It serves no one but his own agenda, even his own cabinet has no idea on how to get on the same page as him. But its where we are. There would be a certain Orwellian justice if Trump supporters suffer due to Trump's plan. But I hope despite all odds that things go great for America in the next 4 years. And I hope that in 4 years Trump is voted out. We are still on team America, and sometimes you just have to be a team player, even when you disagree with the philosophy of the team.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 19, 2017 -> 01:19 PM) Perry actually didn't sound half bad in his hearing. Well usually people dont "put themselves out of business", so I have feeling Perry may quickly become the champion of the department of energy. It may be an unintended consequence.

The more I think about it, the more I start to realize that maybe I should have been harsher about the statement: What are Jews who come from Europe then if not white? Caucasian has nothing to do with religion, it is defined as "white-skinned; of European origin." The entire idea that "Jews" are a different "race" than "white people" is exactly the type of hate speech you saw in Nazi Germany and you see from David Duke. Being Jewish has nothing to do with your "race", as you can be Jewish and black, or any other race. Which is why Jewish people from Europe are defined as "white", because its equivalent to calling a white person who is a Muslim "not white" or white person who practices Catholicism "not white", etc. So maybe I was too nice in my first response. When you try to draw a racial distinction (Jews are not white) along religious lines, I think you are walking down the path of antisemitism. Again, maybe Rabbit is just too naive to understand why what he said is offensive. Or its just a byproduct of the rise in alt-right pseudo-Nazi ideology. Either way, I should have come down on that statement much harder and I shouldnt have used kid gloves to dance around the terrible implications of his statement. For that I apologize, because ultimately we all have a responsibility to challenge abhorrent ideology.

QUOTE (G&T @ Jan 19, 2017 -> 09:11 AM) As far as I can tell, Chicago taxes are substantially less than you would pay in Madison, WI. The problem with taxes is not the amount you pay, it's whether you feel you get something for it. Here, we have quality public transportation (that people actually use for commutes), ample bike paths (which people actually use for commutes), clean parks, libraries, effective/progressive policing (regardless of specific incidents to the contrary), affordable housing initiatives, and a very accessible government. Schools here are good, but have problems like a lot of cities. People may complain about all the things I listed, but the City generally does a good job at working toward making it a livable City for everyone. So even though we have very high taxes, and high home values, people will pay with minimal complaint. Obviously Chicago has arts, culture and so many great things to offer, but i'm not sure most Chicagoans feel like those things are accessible. Parking, transportation, everything is expensive. If people can't access the things their taxes pay for, then they will complain. I havent lived in Madison for a long time, but in my experience Chicago public transportation is world class and no where comparable to Madison. As for usage, CTA is actually heavily used. ( http://www.transitchicago.com/assets/1/rid...2015_Annual.pdf ) Between rail and bus you were looking at over 1.5 mil riders per day in 2015. Chicago has a much more extensive park system as well. That being said, you could be right that access to the public transportation may be vastly different if you live in Lincoln Park as compared to the southside. The problem is stratification in Chicago. Rent rates are soaring. And its starting to become unaffordable unless you are in the upper middle to upper class. Otherwise you could live 5-10 miles out of the city and get something significantly cheaper. So to answer Greg's question, it is the exact opposite. Chicago is experiencing a rental boom and increased property values.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 11:03 PM) You've done a great job of putting him in his place after he did what you said he did. I enjoy your posts on this topic. I do the same thing when my longer posts get one line quoted out of context by certain people on the board. Some of us understand your point(s) and do not think you are racist. It's hard to 'win' in a discussion like this, however. Ive never once called him a racist. He just is very defensive about the idea. He ends his first post with: Second post: Third post: In three responses to me, Rabbit used the word racist in 8 different sentences. In all of my posts, I called Rabbit racist 0 times. I actually never even touched on the subject of whether Rabbit likes minorities, because its entirely irrelevant to my argument. I dont care if he is or is not a racist. It doesnt change my opinion on why I am not complaining about affirmative action. That is the real discussion, affirmative action, which does not apply to Jews, Asians or people from the Middle East. And just because you dont agree with affirmative action doesnt mean you are a racist. For whatever reason in this discussion, Rabbit is trying to become the martyr to my fictitious attacks. Because (and Ill say it again) I dont think Rabbit is racist, he may just be a little naive as to why what he says may appear racist to people other than myself.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 06:16 PM) Okay this is the second time you've falsely implied I was racist. This time you weren't even close. You took a quote that wasn't about black people and made it about black people. This is just awful and shameful rhetoric. You don't allow free thought when you constantly try to make victims and label people when they speak their mind. You may act like you're all for freedom of speech but all you do is twist people's words to paint them in a bad light. For instance, earlier I pointed out how much success the Jews have had financially and you twisted it to me "complaining about how successful Jews are". When I said you should provide a quote of me saying what you implied, you didn't provide a quote. You basically called me an anti-semite and then just ignored it when asked to back it up. Again in this most recent post. You respond to my post, in which I allude to the subjugation of "the Jews, the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs, etc." Your response to that: "I mean its hard to even take this seriously when you say things like "maybe ... these people were subjugated." Really? Maybe slavery was subjugation?" So now by your deduction, that lacks any basis due to a sheer lack of comprehension, I have marginalized the plight of all the black slaves in the past. You'll really do anything to twist and distort things to paint people as racist. I acknowledge the widely accepted financial prowess of Jewish people and praise certain minority cultures for their emphasis on family and you break it down to me "complaining about how successful Jews are" and me ignoring the struggles of slaves of our country's past. If you have to continually whiff at painting me as a racist to hoist up your house of cards argument then maybe you shouldn't be defending your argument in the first place. You're smart enough to debate on merit of the topic. I don't see what you gain by wildly mischaracterizing and misquoting words to paint me as racist. You just look bad after this second botched attempt. I know it's common procedure for you to call people you don't agree with racist to elevate your moral high ground, but the person has to at least give you an opening. You're just making s*** up at this point. I seriously have no idea what you are talking about anymore. I have never once called you a racist or implied you are a racist. An anti-semite? What the f*** are you talking about. If I thought you were anti-semitic Id have said it. Ive never called you a racist, and just to double check, I searched and noticed that you keep using the term. In fact multiple times you suggest that "other people" will think you are a racist for what you said. And maybe check your history, but Jews were in fact slaves in Egypt. And I guess technically you could say in World War II they were enslaved or worse by the Nazis. Is it my lack of comprehension, or is it your immediate knee jerk reaction to think that someone is calling you a racist? I dont know, but the facts seem to suggest you have some automatic defense of "Ill be seen as a racist", when never once have I called you a racist, nor implied it. How can I have a real discussion on this subject when you arent even willing to accept history. But honestly, I dont even know where this argument of yours is going. Jews dont get privilege they arent covered by affirmative action, so I really am not sure what Asians/Jews have to do with your experience. It seems that you are trying to argue that because Jews/Asians are successful despite their minority status, that no minority should get any privilege. I could spend plenty of time discussing why Asians/Jews are not equivalent to other minorities, but I dont think thats relevant. Just because Jews succeed despite historically unfair obstacles, doesnt mean that we should allow the unfair obstacles to exist. I know I could debate you on the merit of a topic, you just dont ever feel like discussing the merits of a topic. Instead you seem to immediately get defensive and make it about "you" and "whether "you" are racist. I am not trying to paint you as a racist, I dont care if you are or if you arent. If you want to be a racist, that is fine. I dont think you are a racist, I think you are naive. And if you dont understand why the comment: Could come off as "complaining about their success", you need to think about stereotypes and their implication. Maybe right or wrong, but putting together the ideas like "Jewish people arent white", "jewish people earn more than white people" and "white people are middle of the pack", brings up a lot of pretty horrific images of past events, so I think it was fair to conclude it seemed like you were complaining. Multiple times I tried to discuss your actual point, which seems to be that because certain minorities are (arguably) more successful than "regular white" people, that no other minority should be given any. I try to explain what may be a cultural difference (Jews), and you take it as a personal insult. You used an NBA example, I responded specifically as to why the example is not comparable, and you dont respond at all.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 04:07 PM) "The problem is you keep making it about your specific situation" *spends next three paragraphs speaking about personal experience.* Please provide support for your argument that minorities don't get jobs because of their race. If that were true they could get a lawsuit settlement that outweighs any potential earnings that job would offer in this litigious society. The media would be all over it with support drumming up more race tension too. Using your argument, I should be able to get a chance to be employed in the NBA because historically my culture has been underrepresented in that field right? My people are underrepresented and have been subjugated to stereotypes that they lack athleticism compared to the black majority for decades. This country 6% black men but the NBA is 75% black men. Where's the affirmative action? Where is the outcry? There is none. In sports, people accept the meritocratic process. Sports don't see any color but green. That's how capitalism is supposed to work. With no regard or preference for the beneficiaries or the faux-victims. The funniest part of your initial retort to me was the snide remark of maybe I should be taking personal accountability. Heed your own advice. Is it fair to write off entire group(s) of millions of people lack of financial success due to a theory called white privilege? You can question my personal accountability over a few posts on a message board but when a minority group(s) achieves less than other minority groups you can chalk it all up to the majority group (who is a middle-of-the-pack performer aggregately) having privilege? I'd like to see some accountability there. Maybe some judging too? But your line of thinking doesn't harbor independent thought like that. Your line of thinking says people like me can't voice their opinion because I'm too privileged to understand what it's like. I will say that I am privileged - not because I am white though. I am privileged because I was taught personal responsibility. My parents got married with the intention of having kids and planned on having me. They raised and supported me together. They raised me to be able to take care of myself and be a contributor to society one day. Nowadays, when we aren't using loose academic theory as the crux of our arguments, we have cold, plain numbers. They show us the socioeconomic factors and results that explain many outcomes sans any sensitivities or altruistic, self-validating premises rooted in fallacy. The numbers show us a few a things. If you are a new born baby, your financial future/potential is highly dependent on a few things: 1.) Is your mother single? Married? 2.) Does your mother/father have a high school degree? So if you're born to a single mother who is a 17 year old high school drop out you're probably not going to split the atom. If you get arrested 18 years later for selling pot and your mother is cashing welfare checks, you're probably not going to get bailed out, she's probably not going to get you a lawyer and you're probably going to get in trouble. However, if you're born to two parents who planned to have you and are educated in the bare minimum, they will probably bail you out and take care of you like you alluded yours did. Your parents took personal accountability for you when you got caught with weed (guessing with Cudi lyrics in the sig). Taking personal responsibility for children is not something white people do particularly well in America. White people are getting worse annually in regards to the destruction of the family. Though it's diametrically opposed to the theory of white privilege, the groups that are most likely to keep a family together are minority groups. I guess the evil whites chose not to levy their white privilege on the minorities like the Jews, the Chinese, the Indians, the Arabs, etc. Perhaps these groups were subjected to discrimination at one points. Maybe the evil whites did subjugate these people but these people persevered, bonded together and supported one another in a classical familial structure. There's no reason any other culture can't do the same. This is completely no responsive to anything I have said. First I never said that minorities dont get jobs because of race, I said "I do believe that there is some evidence that all things being equal a company is likely to hire a non-minority over a minority." Here is "some evidence" https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/eco...gap-in-america/ Now Im not saying its the best evidence or even provable, just that "some evidence" exists. I have no idea how the NBA has anything to do with this situation. Its a complete red herring. It would be like saying that the NHL is under representing black people. It is completely misconstruing the purpose, which is to level the playing field. IE Jackie Robinson is as good or better than other players, but he isnt being hired because of his race. The next paragraph isnt at all what I have said or ever said. In fact it goes against everything I stand for, as you say " Your line of thinking says people like me can't voice their opinion because I'm too privileged to understand what it's like." I consistently say that "I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight for your right to say it." Just because I dont agree, just because I am not sure you really can understand what life is like as a minority, is not the equivalent of saying "you cant voice your opinion." You can voice your opinion about anything, but others have the right to question your opinion. I thought about responding how can I take your post seriously when you cant even do a google search on my signature line, as the quote is Kanye not Kid Cudi. Youre assumptions arent really correct, my parents have never "bailed me out", and there is no way to factually prove my conclusion, but I believe that the reason I got out of a lot of trouble was due to being a white boy from the suburbs or a white man from the city. I mean its hard to even take this seriously when you say things like "maybe ... these people were subjugated." Really? Maybe slavery was subjugation? Jenks, I agree that in some instances the pendulum has swung to far the other way, although my favorite case is when "white male" owner gave his wife 51% of the company so that hed qualify for M/WBE Program. Then wife/husband gets in a fight and now wife wants the business and the husband is trying to argue that he really never gave her ownership. And I absolutely agree that there is some problems with the current system, and I am even willing to say that maybe we have gone to far. But in my opinion if we are to make a mistake, Id rather the mistake be we went too far to help minorities, than we didnt do enough. Now that is just my fundamental philosophy. But anytime I start reading arguments about how maybe minorities were subjugated in the past, it just makes me think that our society still is unwilling to recognize that the majority has done a lot of s***ty things.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 02:58 PM) Maybe saying "easier than a person who's black or gay or a women [etc.]" rather than saying straight-up "easy" would be more appropriate? I will concede that the more accurate statement should be "easier than a minority in a similar situation." The ultra wealthy female, likely has it easier then the super poor white guy. I just assumed that people were reading the "similar situation" part.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 12:33 PM) I have no self control and have to respond to all of your mischaracterizing and faulty conclusions here. 1.) That wasn't a matter of a qualification. It's a "LAUNCH" program. An acronym that starts with Latin American and African American. I was not allowed the same head start because of my skin color. Companies give opportunities to certain minority groups at an earlier juncture than age equivalent students of other races. That's discrimination and if the ethnicities were swapped in this scenario you would entirely be up in arms over it. I understand that certain minorities went through a lot of s*** at the behest of fair skin people. That being said, my family hasn't been here long and my family was poor as recent as my parents' generation. I don't believe in reparations being forced on upon people of similarly fair skin when my ancestors were in Italy, Ireland and Poland being poor. 2.) I don't blame the system for a minority getting a scholarship or "my" job I blame the system for not offering me the same opportunity as others. There's no white male scholarship. There's no early start in business for white guys. I blame the system for preferring to hire people other than white males because it's better for the organization's reputation. All I ask for is a meritocratic process but I guess I am racist loon for that. You would think that is in the best interest of all fair-minded individuals. That being said, I accomplished everything I set out to before I went to college. I just wish I didn't have as much debt as I do now and I wished scholarships were offered solely on merit/participation as opposed to being based on things that are outside of an individual's control. 3.) "If I hadn't been born with my privilege there is a chance Id be in jail." What does that even mean? While I wouldn't stoop to the level to misconstrue someone's words into making them seem racist to make my point, I could easily say, "Oh, so all non-whites are criminals?" This is such a silly statement. I am not criminal because my parents are good people. My parents planned to have children they could afford and had the personal attributes to foster and nurture myself and my siblings. If my parents were purple and had the same values and priorities I wouldn't just end up in prison because I am not white. You'll say, "You don't know what it's like, you've never dealt with police as a minority." That's true and I don't deal with them as a majority either. Ever since I graduated to legal drinking age and bought a decent radar detector I have had no relationship with police officers. The extent of our relationship is me nodding at them when I get on/off the train. 1) The problem is that you keep making it about your specific situation. I am not that fond of "affirmative action" etc, its not really my thing. I completely understand why certain people have pushed for it and I do believe that there is some evidence that all things being equal a company is likely to hire a non-minority over a minority. I am not sure if it actually accomplishes anything and maybe there are better ways to solve this problem but it is not a personal issue. I am third generation on both sides of my family. At the turn of the century my family was extremely poor living in Russia, Ireland, Italy and across Scandinavia. Those facts have nothing to do with why certain minorities are being given privileges. The reason those minorities are getting this privilege is because recently and even today, minorities are not being hired merely because they are a minority. And that I do not support. Now again, this is a very hard issue to get facts on, because its very hard to tell if candidate A wasnt hired because they are a minority or if candidate b was hired because they are white. So perhaps the pendulum swung a little bit in favor of the minorities this time. 2) This is somewhat answered by the first response, but the problem is that historically (and maybe even today) minorities did/do not have the same opportunities. So while you are correct in your specific/limited circumstance, the other person had a "better" opportunity, it is supposedly offset by the fact/opinion that in general minorities have "worse" opportunities. Again, I do not know if this is true or not today. Historically I feel pretty confident that it was the case. When it exactly ended (or if it has ended) is hard for me to say. As for college debt, I have a completely different solution that would entirely end the debate about this, but it would require people in the United States agreeing that education is important and that we shouldnt let colleges gauge students. That being said, many scholarships are merit based. Some scholarships are not. Without knowing the specific scholarship, I do not know if it was privately based. Because if its a private scholarship, then they should be able to do what they want with their money, and I believe (although I havent checked or researched) that I could set up a NFP scholarship for people of "European descent" and that there would be nothing that could be done to stop me. 3) It has nothing to do with minorities being criminals etc. It has everything to do with the fact that since I was a white kid from the suburbs I was given leniency when I got in trouble. Now its hard to tell if this was because I was "white" or "wealthy", but where I am from white kids are given much more leniency when they get in trouble. Professionally I can also say that in my experience white kids are generally given much more leniency then "minorities" when it comes to arrest, charges, etc. But in my opinion, those are the facts. If I was a minority it is my belief that I would have potentially gone to jail for things I did, as it was, I was a white kid from the suburbs, so I got out of everything. QUOTE (Y2HH @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 01:37 PM) I thought his comments about "easy mode" were beyond simplistic and just without thought. Being successful is never easy mode, even if a person happens to think it was. All those years of schooling, or working to get where you are isn't "easy". I hate when people paint with a broad brush like this because it undermines the thousands of decisions that landed us where we are today. Any one of those decisions could have been a life altering mistake...life isn't easy, and for him to dismiss his own success is telling. Maybe he's a trust fund kid that never had to care. I wasn't. I worked 2 jobs when I went to college full time. White or f***ing green...that s*** was not easy, and for any of you to try to tell me it was...well, up yours. You are entitled to your opinion. In my opinion it was easy. Again I cant be certain if this is the "white" or the "wealthy" part of the equation. And if someone were to say to me "You dont understand what it is like to be poor", I would absolutely agree with them. For a brief moment when I was born my parents had no jobs, but I never actually experienced what it would be like to be told "no" because we couldnt afford something. And of course I dismiss my own success, its because I tell it like I believe it is and because I know people who have actually had to work/try to get where they are. Now I am not saying that for you it was easy, maybe it was extremely hard. All I can say is that for ME, it was easy mode and due to that fact I am willing to try and find ways for other people to be able to enjoy that same "easy" life. I dont care if youre white, black, whatever, life should be easier. And so in my opinion, life is easier for someone in the "majority" as compared to someone in the exact same circumstances as a "minority", but I am very willing to concede that a super rich minority has an easier life than a super poor person in the "majority" /shrugs

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 10:40 AM) Assange lawyer: Manning commutation doesn't meet extradition offer's conditions This was the easiest news of the week to predict.

QUOTE (raBBit @ Jan 18, 2017 -> 10:20 AM) Strange shot for sure. She says if you remove the arts, all you have is football and mixed martial ARTS. It's all inclusive of all international disciplines of combat but to some out of touch actress it's just white guys apparently. Once you get to college and the real world that changes really quick. When you're a white male and you're never eligible for scholarships other than the ones that were built into the school's admission standards. If you're a woman, black, mexican, etc. you would have been able to save some student debt. White privilege basically made it so I couldn't get any financial aid (my parents were both college educated and employed) while I paid for the majority of my college on my own. The kid who grew up four houses down from me ended up at a great school and the same company as me and he had no debt upon graduation because he got a boatload of scholarship money because his dad is from Cuba. My mom's family is from Ireland and grew up in poverty in the city and I get nothing for it. The same kid ended up at our future employer as an intern after his sophomore year because of a program only available to individuals of African America and Latin American descent. This is a very competitive international brand that has reduced standards of hiring and a specific program for Latin and African Americans. They would make signs and pass out t shirts at colleges and get paid the same I would for working. You could imagine my frustration when they told me I couldn't get an internship until after my junior year at the earliest and then see my same-aged neighbor tells me over Thanksgiving break and that he got an internship from the same place during our sophomore year. At the end of the day, the idea of white privilege kind of falls apart when you look at who's achieving in this country. Jewish, Chinese and Arabic (if you extract them from "caucasian" designation) people all earn more than white people on average in America. The white people are really middle of the pack on average. I don't see why academia and F500 employers don't skew the competition for the Chinese or the Arabs? Why doesn't white privilege afford them the same preferential treatment as other minority groups? Is the idea that you should be enabled to aid or privilege based on the past performance of people who have similar ancestral background or similar pigmentation in their skin or is it that all groups other than whites should be subsidized due to whites having a strong financial history in a historically white country? It seems the application of this idea is inconsistent and there's less of a white privilege and more of a White-Pacific-Middle Eastern privilege. I am sure I'll just get called racist or whatever for sharing my experience but this will never make sense to me. With regard to Streep's comments, I have no idea what she meant. If had to guess she was making some sort of strange comment about foreigners in Hollywood as compared to football/MMA which in her opinion is mainly Americans. I dont really see it as a race comment, I see it as a foreigner versus American comment. That being said, the mixed martial arts part seems to show that she is likely clueless about the sport. First of all, I am glad that you said Jews and Asians were not white, and then complained about how successful they are. I mean it must be really easy to be a Jew, youre the smallest of all the minorities AND you dont get any benefits of being a minority. That must really be envious to regular "white" people who are the majority and dont get any benefits. So the conclusion of your argument is basically that "white" people should get some preferential treatment compared to Asians/Jews (who are minorities that receive no benefit from affirmative action) because Asians/Jews are doing better without any preferential treatment? This makes no sense. I read your anecdote and I sympathize that someone you believe is less qualified than yourself received benefits that you did not get. But at the end of the day, its still better to be a white male in this country. I know its probably impossible to understand, but not being eligible for a scholarship or someone else getting preferential treatment at a job, doesnt really compare to the things that many minorities have historically gone through and that some continue to go through on a daily basis. As someone who technically lives on both sides of the line of minority and majority, I understand why its hard for the majority to ever understand what it really feels like to be a minority. But what I can say is that if any minority gets a scholarship or takes my job, I dont blame the system. Maybe that is the part of the Asian/Jew culture that is seemingly lost, its holding yourself personally accountable. I never once worried about what other people were doing or going, because the only reason why I didnt get a scholarship or whatever, was because I didnt put the time effort into it. As a white male, I absolutely believe life is "easy mode". Now that doesnt mean everyone can succeed at easy mode. It just means that someone like myself has built in advantages that make it so I have honestly never had a real job in my life. And I also realize that if I hadnt been born with my privilege there is a chance Id be in jail.

QUOTE (Leonard Zelig @ Jan 14, 2017 -> 02:27 AM) This will be my first time seeing any members of Pink Floyd live, so I am pretty excited. There is semi-recent Marc Maron WTF podcast with Roger that is worth listening to. I've seen Sigur Ros once before and its hard for me to explain, but it was probably the most emotionally moving concert I have ever seen and I was completely sober and did not understand one word of what they were singing. Ive been fortunate enough to see David Gilmour and Roger Waters twice (although it was "The Wall" so you knew exactly what you were getting.) When Gilmour played the old Pink Floyd standards it was pretty crazy. A few times he really showed what kind of crazy s*** Pink Floyd could have done if they had access to today's technology. Pink Floyd is probably my favorite band of all time so in my opinion they were pretty amazing. I also bought tickets to Waters tour this year, so Im interested to see what he does when he isnt limited by it being purely Wall material.