Post 10-24-2014, 06:15 PM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: Civil unrest in Ferguson Missouri

With all of the misinformation concerning Michael Brown's autopsy, I figured now would be a good time to contemplate what it does and doesn't say.

The St. Louis Post Dispatch's blatantly pro Darren Wilson piece nearly drove me up a wall. It misquoted the doctor who did the autopsy and made her report seem like it was an open and shut case justifying Wilson's murder of an unarmed teenager. Their shoddy reporting ruled the news airwaves, basically declaring this case open and shut. Michael Brown attacked Wilson. Nothing more to see here folks.

Not so fast...

For starters, the reporters only based their report based off of Wilson's version of events. The autopsy stated nothing about Brown reaching for Wilson's gun. In fact, the coroner explicitly stated that the gunshot wound was also consistent with someone trying to defend themselves from a gunshot, but that wasn't even pontificated in the Dispatch's 'report.'

The Dispatch also stated that the autopsy report didn't back up eyewitness claims that he was shot with his hands up, but the coroner said nothing of the sort and said Brown could have easily had his hands up with the universal sign of surrender.

The only thing they got right was that the autopsy showed that Darren Wilson's version of events could have happened, but the Dispatch reported it as fact.

This is quite possibly some of the worst reporting I've seen. It just goes to show how a biased reporter can drive the news, even if it isn't truthful at all.

I'm sure that Wilson's supporters will use this opinion piece as 'proof' that he was justified in murdering an unarmed teenager who was walking home, but I sure hope that the Grand Jury thinks otherwise. Unfortunately, I have gotten way too used to watching young black men get killed by cops without anything ever happening, so I will not be surprised in the least if Wilson is exonerated. The sad thing for him is that he will have to live the rest of his life in fear because he decided to take someone's life for committing the heinous crime of walking while black.
Post 10-24-2014, 05:52 PM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: School Shooting in Seattle Suburb

I honestly don't know what it will take for people to wake up anymore. Eighty-seven school shootings in just a few years. It should make people sick, but so many millions of people in this country are brainwashed by the NRA that I just don't see anything happening for quite some time. If Sandy Hook didn't wake us up, I just don't know what will.

Then Senator Obama was right when he committed the 'gaffe' of saying that so many people in this country cling to their guns and religion. Our response to tragedies like Sandy Hook and the 87 other school shootings since has been to pass 'guns everywhere' laws and arm ourselves to the teeth. He's unfortunately been proven correct that we have an almost cult like fascination with guns compared to pretty much every other civilized country.

You have to be 18 to smoke in this country. Twenty-one to drink. But an infant can own a gun in thirty states. How in the world have we come to this as a country? I honestly don't get it.
Post 10-24-2014, 12:30 AM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: John Stewart Debate's Bill O'Reilly on White Privilege

johnnycee Wrote: I had asked for examples not your own private opinion on the matter
Do you understand the definition of example or proof?

johnnycee Wrote: Drug enforcement unfortunately is concentrated in poor areas , so there is a matter of more crimes being done by minority people hence more arrests,
The above is an example of white privilege. White privilege means that the DEA is placed in poor and minority areas, even though statistics show that more rich, white people do drugs. This is the literal definition of one of your required 'examples' you were asking for. I encourage you to get back to studying your dictionary again...

johnnycee Wrote: perhaps less capable Atty's for representation might account for the numerous plea deals as opposed to trials which means a higher incarceration rate, nothing to do with white privilege btw,
You are wrong...once again. This has everything to do with white privilege. White people are able to afford better lawyers, which are able to then get better plea deals. These better attorneys are friends with the judges who hand down the sentences. White people get community service. Black people get 20 years in prison. And if you actually took the time to read up on the facts, which I understand you are loathe to do, you would realize that blacks are sentenced longer even if they were convicted of the same crime. Once again though...facts just seem to be something you genuinely struggle with.

johnnycee Wrote: the lending issue is another matter, how you can get white privilege out the Fannie Mae and Fannie Mac debacle is beyond me, which did have a trickle down effort on other lending institutions, again ,nothing to do with white privilege, keep trying though.
If you actually read what I wrote then you would notice that I said private banks. Let me explain this in the most layman terms possible... Blacks are denied loans at a far higher rate than whites. Blacks pay more interest if they actually get a loan. Blacks pay more for everything.

I encourage you to read up on Bank of America's half billion dollar settlement for these practices. Or maybe you can study Wells Fargo's nearly $200 million dollar settlement for the same thing. Or if you still want to try to act like we are in some post racial utopia then maybe you can look over JP Morgan Chase, Barney's, and countless other banks settlements for treating blacks differently. My goodness. Your white privilege blinders are somewhat laughable if you weren't like millions of other white guys in this country. In that case, it's actually really, really depressing.

Thanks for making me prove you wrong once again though. It's important for me to fact check people like you. That's the only way we will change our ways in this country.
Post 10-23-2014, 07:40 PM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: John Stewart Debate's Bill O'Reilly on White Privilege

johnnycee Wrote: Just give me some examples where a whites only policy within the government has benefited the white population as a whole over other ethnic groups.
Law enforcement--study after study shows that whites commit far more crime, but blacks are disproportionately stopped, searched, arrested, and convicted of crimes compared to the white population.

Prison sentences--once convicted of a crime blacks are sentenced to far longer prison sentences compared to their white counterparts for the same exact crimes

Education--perhaps the worst of all...the way public schools are funded wholly benefits the white population. Funding schools based off of a persons address perpetuates the education crisis we have had for the past few decades. Rich, white suburbs receive far more federal and state funding for public schools compared to their poor, inner-city, and minority dominated counterparts.

Lending practices of private banks--a whole host of studies shows how blacks are denied small business loans at an exponentially higher rate compared to whites who apply for small business loans. If they are lucky enough to get a loan, blacks consistently pay far higher interest rates compared to their white counterparts. The same goes for mortgages and every other type of lending banks do.

Drug enforcement--I guess this can be a subset of law enforcement, but I feel it deserves its own category. Blacks use FEWER drugs than whites, but are arrested and convicted of drug crimes at a much higher rate. If a white is charged and convicted, they are far less likely to spend prison time and if they do it is far lower than that of black sentences.

Shall I go on?? I can do this all day long...

This is what we mean when we say there is a pervasive 'white privilege' in this country.
Post 10-23-2014, 10:51 AM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: John Stewart Debate's Bill O'Reilly on White Privilege

Oh come on now. This is just getting a bit ridiculous. Shrugging your shoulders and suggesting its perfectly normal to enact racist laws because you're in the majority is a rather elementary way of thinking.

Your use of logical fallacies to contort a debate to your parameters is a tried and true method you use to muddy whatever debate you engage in. To justify white privilege in America by saying that people do it in other countries is a tactic used by freshmen in their high school debate class (and our national politicians)--muddy up the debate, make it about anything other than the specific topic at hand, and confuse the hell out of everyone participating.

I'm quite certain there is animus towards 'that certain race' in large parts of America right now. The way we have treated black and brown people in this country may come back to bite us squarely in the ass when we are no longer the majority in 2043. Will it then be acceptable for whites to be subjugated and turned into second class citizens like America has done to non-whites for centuries? It seems as if that's what must be done if we follow your line of majority rule group think.
Post 10-23-2014, 10:15 AM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: John Stewart Debate's Bill O'Reilly on White Privilege

johnnycee Wrote: so what I am saying is that privilege is not just for the "White Race".
I second PGR here. What in the world are you talking about? You are prone to constantly shift and expand discussions well beyond their original meanings, but this one is out there even for you.

This discussion is about white privilege in America. In modern times. It is not about African warlords in the 17th and 18th centuries or the pre-colonial Dutch.
Post 10-22-2014, 05:00 PM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: John Stewart Debate's Bill O'Reilly on White Privilege

johnnycee Wrote: What exactly am I not being realistic about, other than that I differ from your point of view concerning so-called "white privilege", a term being bandied about by the media, which I believe that is now non-existent in this date and time.
It's non-existent to you because you continue to benefit from white privilege.

It is amazing to me how anyone can actually believe what you do, but unfortunately millions of other old white people think that racism is dead because we passed the 24th Amendment. You say we should just move on because we have a black President and a few black CEO's. Do you know what happened the last time we passed Constitutional Amendments which were meant to address racism? Poll taxes, Jim Crow, and rampant, government sanctioned racism became the norm for over one hundred years. Laws and Constitutional Amendments mean nothing if you don't have a change of conscience. The racism in this country is embedded much deeper than a few politicians being elected, no matter how high of an office they achieve.

White privilege is the criminal justice system treating the races differently. White privilege is your zip code determining how much funding your school will get. Don't believe me? Read up on how schools are funded in this country. Rich, white suburbs receive far more funding from both the state and federal government as opposed to the poor, inner city schools. White privilege is being able to use your European name when you apply for a job. There are countless studies about white employers casting aside 'black names' when they are going through resumes. Do you agree that this is acceptable, or do your blinders refuse to make you believe this even happens, even though it is extensively documented in studies dating back to the early 2000's? I can go on and on and on when it comes to examples of white privilege, but I won't bother because it simply doesn't matter to individuals like you who like to think we are in some post racial utopia.

You believe white privilege is non-existent because you have benefited from white privilege. Ask a black or brown person what they think about white privilege. I bet you'll get a much different answer.

I'm very excited about my generation though. We actually seem to have finally broken away from this nonsense that our elders have become so accustomed to. I look forward to the day that we won't be debating white privilege and believe it will be in my lifetime. I just think it will be a few more years or decades before it becomes a reality.


Post 10-22-2014, 01:17 PM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: John Stewart Debate's Bill O'Reilly on White Privilege

johnnycee Wrote: I still don't understand your interpretation of "White Privilege", is it strictly that black America is not being helped by a white bureaucracy headed by a black man? or that the descendants of those long dead slave owners and oppressors should now pay for what was considered not only sociable acceptable but legal, and should it be for those descendants only? Now if the Ethnic driven organizations can't achieve what you want as some sort of parity with the rest of white America, and it's not from lack of effort, but you seem to be ok with selected discrimination to achieve that goal.
You do realize there was government sanctioned discrimination and racism long after the abolition of slavery, right? Have you ever heard of Jim Crow? My goodness. You and O'Reilly are exhibit A of this nonsense that racism is done with because we have a black President. You selectively pick 'evidence' to back up your claim while disregarding any evidence to the contrary. I wrote multiple instances of racism that is still alive and well today and your only retort is asking who we would pay slavery reparations to. What about the racist laws we have on the books now? Why didn't you bother commenting on any of those?

There are many people alive today who are directly responsible for enforcing the racist laws we used to have. They enforced the Jim Crow laws and taught their children to be racist. Our criminal justice system is a joke when it comes to our black citizens. And your only response is 'blame Obama!' 'It's all his fault now!' It truly shows the very narrow minded and juvenile thinking millions of whites in this country continue to put forth.

I have no problem with affirmative action to achieve greater equality for minorities. None whatsoever. And I will continue to have no problem with affirmation action until the day that blacks are treated as equals; until the day our criminal justice system treats blacks the same as they do whites; until police stop shooting unarmed black kids because they felt 'threatened'; and until all the people who were responsible for Jim Crow have met their maker.
Post 10-22-2014, 11:26 AM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: John Stewart Debate's Bill O'Reilly on White Privilege

johnnycee Wrote: Some people like to hold onto past injustices caused by many who are not even alive in todays world so as to justify their current bias, so when a 68 year old man looks across his desk and sees a black man, he then should him hire over other candidates, even those who may be more qualified because of what, past injustices done to this mans race that he had nothing to do with, am I correct, or am I not understanding the concept of white privilege? Is not this white man exercising his white privilege when he denies the white man's employment but instead opts to hire the black man .
Some people like to hold onto past injustices because those injustices continue nearly unabated to this day. Our country, through its centuries old policies, has waged war against blacks. It used to be through slavery. Then Jim Crow. Then through our criminal justice system. Don't believe me? Why in the world would crack cocaine land you in prison for ten times longer than white powder cocaine if our laws weren't racist? Hell, we even have vigilantes who bravely patrol their streets and shoot down unarmed kids for committing the terrible crime of walking while black in their own neighborhoods. What do so many whites in this country do when something like that happens? Give a collective shrug and ask what the kid must have been doing wrong that made the brave and heroic vigilante murder him.

It is quite interesting to see an older man insist there is no such thing as white privilege. It's just like Bill O'Reilly, who grew up in a whites only town, but balks at the idea of him being a recipient of white privilege. I guess it's easy to not notice your privilege when you've had it for your entire life.

Just because we had a civil rights movement in the 1960's doesn't mean that racism is over. Fifty years is one generation. People that fought tooth and nail against the civil rights movement raised their kids to make them think they are better than blacks. Those kids are now having children. That is why the deep south is still struggling to rid itself of the rampant racism it has been accustomed to for centuries.

Racism permeates throughout our entire society. White people get scared when they see a black person walking down the street. Why? Well, because the media has portrayed the "scary black man" as a villain for hundreds of years. Those kinds of things are ingrained in our brains and don't just go away with legislation. They have to go away with a change of consciousness in this country and we are far from that day. We may have a black President, but we're also witnessing the biggest rise of hate groups in America since the Jim Crow era.

Keep telling yourself that there's no white privilege though. Whatever helps you sleep better at night...
Post 10-21-2014, 03:14 PM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: John Stewart Debate's Bill O'Reilly on White Privilege

johnnycee Wrote: So I feel that "white privilege " is not a privilege at all but merely some group who helped a certain class of people to succeed.
This 'group' you are talking about is the American government at the federal, state, and local levels. This 'group' was the American military, Supreme Court, and every other governmental and non-governmental agency you can think of that systemically and methodically 'helped a certain class of people to succeed' for over two centuries.

It doesn't surprise me for one moment that there are many white people who just can't accept that they have an inherent advantage in this country. However, anyone who understands American history and is honest with themselves would readily admit that white people have certain privileges that people of color still struggle to achieve to this day. So many whites, especially of the older generation, want to gloss over the rampant racism that permeated throughout this country for centuries. They point to the fact that we elected a half black person as our President as proof positive that racism is dead. They question how in the world America could be racist if we have a black President. It's a red herring argument that works well for those who are susceptible to that nonsense, but a red herring is all it is.
Post 10-20-2014, 09:26 PM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: John Stewart Debate's Bill O'Reilly on White Privilege

johnnycee Wrote: What exactly is "White Privilege? Seriously.
White privilege is being raised in an all whites town built by the American military, as was the case with Bill O'Reilly. Black veterans didn't have any towns built for them by the American military. O'Reilly is literally the poster boy of white privilege.

White privilege is not being racially profiled even though whites commit far more crimes than blacks. White privilege is not ever being stopped and frisked by police officers. And white privilege is never having to worry about a traffic stop turning into your death sentence because of a trigger happy cop. Just to name a few of countless examples of white privilege...
Post 10-19-2014, 07:29 PM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: I am a libertarian, come debate me!

jrodefeld Wrote: This is my first defense of libertarian principles. I don't want to hear objections about how this or that institution or State function might work in a libertarian society or any such utilitarian concerns as of yet. I first want to hear you critique the principle of self ownership. I want to hear a reason why ethical rules can or should be non-universal. I want to hear you explain why you are content to espouse barbarism and violent exploitation, instead of the consistent and principled defense of non-aggression as the libertarians do.
Welcome to the DemocraticHub, jrodefeld. You may have some difficulty finding many people who agree with you on the forums, but your points of view are welcome on this website.

I will start off by saying that it's difficult to debate someone over the pro's and con's of Libertarianism if you confine the debate to a singular issue, this one being the principle of self ownership. Libertarianism is far more complex than being confined to this singular debate topic.

The concept of self ownership in and of itself is something that sounds sexy and I actually agree with many of it's tenants, but it gets more complex when you bring in a growing world population and the demands that places on a society. It would be wonderful if an individual had complete control over their own body and life's path, but you lose me when you extend those same rights to multinational corporations.

Another problem with this philosophy is that it completely neglects to bring history into account. Libertarians seem to just cast aside centuries of racial and gender discrimination that we continue to deal with today. How in the world can we enact the policies that you wish to enact while ensuring that everyone actually does have an equal place at the table? It is literally impossible to accomplish and is one of many reasons why I don't think that Libertarianism is a sound policy.

We also must address the fact that it is nearly impossible to run a functioning government this way. Who will put the fires out and respond to crime if we conform to your orthodoxy? How would we ensure that all children receive a proper education if we adapt your way of thinking? Who will build the roads, railways, hospitals, dams, and countless other projects that must be completed in order to keep a society of 300 million from crumbling apart?

I welcome your response to these questions and anything else you wish to discuss.
Post 10-17-2014, 08:05 PM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: ISIS Problem is a serious mess

Dutch Wrote: Sorry my worldwide contacts especially in Europe think that way.
That's the equivalent to someone saying "I'm right because my friend says so." I don't doubt that you have friends in other countries who feel that way. That doesn't mean that is how the rest of the world feels.

I can call up some of the acquaintances I met while living in Peru and have them tell you the exact opposite. They love America and Americans in Peru. Why? Probably because a hell of a lot of Americans visit there and stimulate their economy and we've never invaded them before. The world is a big place.

Dutch Wrote: Polls as you should know are either political or hypocritical motivated; always praise/reward your enemy; you may need them for something!!
There are two different types of polls: scientific and unscientific. Scientific polls are the only ones I pay any attention to and is the poll that I provided a link to. Pew Research is a non partisan think tank that does in-depth polls both in America and throughout the world. Rasmussen, The New York Times, USA Today, and many other polls are far more partisan. You will never see me provide a link to a partisan poll because they are worthless.
Post 10-17-2014, 04:26 PM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: Ebola Outbreak Wreaking Havoc in West Africa; Is the Western World Next?

Zach F Wrote: Well we are shoveling spending into military. The humanitarian training and resources are lacking. So when end up sending poorly trained people to help the sick. Which can potentially cause more harm than good.
I don't know if I would agree with you here. Trust me, I am no fan of our military adventures in the Middle East and throughout the world, but they have done plenty of good in this world as well. As I said, they are the first to be called when there's a natural disaster. Nations don't call up China or Russia and plead for their help. They know the American military is properly trained to handle these types of crises and ask for our help.

I would also push back against your claim that we are sending poorly trained people to help the sick. The military has some of the most highly trained doctors in the world and I'm quite certain they are trained to fight this crisis. We spend billions of dollars a year on our military. I would trust them to do a decent job providing care to those who need it most in West Africa.
Post 10-17-2014, 03:57 PM
jaredsxtn

Democrat
Portland, OR
Posts: 2658
Thread: Ebola Outbreak Wreaking Havoc in West Africa; Is the Western World Next?

Dutch Wrote: Yes Tony, I fully agree; this should be a coordinated approach ( not like the ISIS one) by all western nations, without "military" involvement.
There are enough emergency response teams who dealt with disasters worldwide who are the right resourse. Again if the US is arrogant and wants to run the show lots of countries will "hook off". The WHO should be the one in command not the US army.
Do you know who provides the majority of the funding to the World Health Organization? I'll give you one guess...

I fully understand that you have a deep distrust of the United States when it comes to handling world affairs, but you can't have it both ways. You can't say our military should stay out of everything, but be fine with moving a couple spreadsheets around and have another predominately American funded organization do the job.

Everything our military does isn't an act of war. Who do you think is called first whenever there's a tsunami on a far corner of the world? Who do you think is called when a major earthquake devastates a country? It's the American military. Do they show up with guns and bombs? No. They show up with water, meals ready to eat, and blankets.
Displaying 1 - 15 of 1129 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 .. 76 Next

About Us  -  Advertise  -  Contact Us  -  Terms & Conditions  -  Privacy Policy