Funny (political, religious) pictures

Denbrought

Denbrought

blotsfan said:
Mixed-race, plus the defintion of who is hispanic is legally "you are if you say you are."
Click to expand...
That's the definition of every ethnicity, if we're being flippant.

The "legal" definition of Hispanic in the U.S. is roughly “Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano or Puerto Rican or Cuban – as well as those who indicate that they are another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin” (this one is used by the U.S. census). I self-identify as white/Caucasian, but checkbox "Hispanic" on any forms that have the "... or Spanish origin" (which is a lot, but not all, of them).

CrimsonSoul said:
I'm confused because those percentages add up to more than 100%?
Click to expand...
The factsheet (pdf link) helpfully notes that "Students reporting two or more races are counted once in each race/ethnicity category". Those statistics are only for non-international students, also worth noting.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Denbrought said:
The "legal" definition of Hispanic in the U.S. is roughly “Mexican, Mexican Am., Chicano or Puerto Rican or Cuban – as well as those who indicate that they are another Hispanic, Latino, or Spanish origin” (this one is used by the U.S. census). I self-identify as white/Caucasian, but checkbox "Hispanic" on any forms that have the "... or Spanish origin" (which is a lot, but not all, of them).
Click to expand...
I wasn't being flippant. I was honestly taught in college that if you say you're hispanic, the government considers you hispanic.
 
figmentPez

figmentPez

Staff member
blotsfan said:
Well for one, they probably had a white teacher. Students do better when the teacher matches their race.
Click to expand...
But you don't know that they did. Thus you don't know how much a role that played in this specific person's life.

They also worked to support themselves. Its harder for a black teenager to get a job than a white teenager.
Click to expand...
One point. That hardly makes up for all the disadvantages that they suffered. Thus you have no proof that "white privilege" was the reason that they got where they did. Saying someone got into Yale because it was easier for them to get a part-time job to support themselves through school is like saying someone got cancer because they ate a lot of charcoal grilled burgers. Yeah, red meat and charred food contain known carcinogens, but they're probably not the primary reason they got cancer.

They got scholarships. Despite how people complain about scholarships specifically for minorities, white people get more scholarship money.
Click to expand...
And that doesn't determine if Yale accepts them.

This doesn't mean they didn't work hard. This doesn't mean what yellow said was ok at all. It just means that they had advantages due to their race. Benefiting from white privilege doesn't make you a bad person. You should just use the advantages you have to try to help those without the privileges you do.
Click to expand...
Knowing that a person benefits from white privilege is vastly different that saying that a significant achievement in their life is solely due to white privilege.

EDIT: I'll add this. There is a time and a place to acknowledge white privilege. When someone is announcing that they got accepted to college after working hard is not that time, and it's definitely not someone else's place to do it so publicly and so flippantly.
 
Last edited:
PatrThom

PatrThom

figmentPez said:
Knowing that a person benefits from white privilege is vastly different that saying that a significant achievement in their life is solely due to white privilege.

EDIT: I'll add this. There is a time and a place to acknowledge white privilege. When someone is announcing that they got accepted to college after working hard is not that time, and it's definitely not someone else's place to do it so publicly and so flippantly.
Click to expand...
Yes. Saying that "white privilege" was the deciding factor cheapens the remainder of red guy's effort. When all the things in red guy's life that led up to Yale are stacked on top of one another, "white privilege" is no doubt going to be a part of that pile. But would removing it from that pile have made it too short to be allowed to ride the Yale ride? Probably not.

--Patrick
 
Dave

Dave

Staff member
I just want to chime in to say that in college admissions, being a white male is actually a detriment. Colleges go out of their way to push females and minorities. Get four people who are identical in every way - one white male, one white female, one minority male, and one minority female - they will be admitted in reverse order from how I posted them. Not saying that white privilege hasn't had some effect in the guy's life, but admission to a college ain't one of them.
 
Eriol

Eriol

Dei said:
One of the reasons such a high percentage of white people voted for Trump was that white people who had to earn what they got felt like they were being shit on for no reason. This Facebook post is a pretty good example of that. White priviledge is a thing, but parading around acting like white people can ONLY succeed because of it is completely ridiculous and spits in the face of a lot of people.
Click to expand...
See I actually take this somewhere else entirely. Whenever we used to see "mis-matches" between races and jobs, admissions, etc, it was blamed on either economics (which have racial components, ie: all the races youth didn't start in the same economic state), or people being outright racist/sexist to other people. So you condemned the people who were being racist, tried to identify/track where it was likely happening (this gets iffy fast, but can be OK too) and tried to put forth policies to bring more people up to an "OK" economic state so that there was less disparity as a starting point.

But the idea of "privilege" had altered the discussion. It more than implies that anybody succeeding has a large component of "you're only there because of your race" and more than implying that unless you "give up" something you have, you're actively abusing your "privilege" and putting down somebody else.

IMO the discussion has shifted from "treat everybody fairly regardless of race/background, and punish those who are not doing so," to "if you're white/straight/male (or God forbid, all of them) you are by definition putting down people who aren't like you if you're not supporting racist/sexist/you-name-it-ist policies that favor others over yourself, regardless of relative merit because other people (not you) are racist/whatever so you must compensate for them, or you're bad." That's what the language and culture of "privilege" promotes. It says that because I'm treated fairly (usually because of race), and you're not, that I'm "bad" in some way for not supporting unfair treatment the other direction, compensating for those who are treating some unfairly in my favor, even if I speak up against the unfairness, and don't engage in it myself.
 
Tress

Tress

blotsfan said:
Click to expand...
Aside from the obvious that we shouldn't encourage violence and definitely shouldn't encourage assassinating a president just because we don't like him...

If Trump was assassinated, things would get 10x worse. The entire right half of this country would lose their shit and go into full-on fascist/totalitarian mode, all under the guise of protecting "freedom". And lord help us if the assassain is anything other than a white, heterosexual Christian male, because all bigots would really go into overdrive.
 
blotsfan

blotsfan

Tress said:
The entire right half of this country would lose their shit and go into full-on fascist/totalitarian mode, all under the guise of protecting "freedom". And lord help us if the assassain is anything other than a white, heterosexual Christian male, because all bigots would really go into overdrive.
Click to expand...
I don't know how to tell you this but...
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Tress said:
Aside from the obvious that we shouldn't encourage violence and definitely shouldn't encourage assassinating a president just because we don't like him...

If Trump was assassinated, things would get 10x worse. The entire right half of this country would lose their shit and go into full-on fascist/totalitarian mode, all under the guise of protecting "freedom". And lord help us if the assassain is anything other than a white, heterosexual Christian male, because all bigots would really go into overdrive.
Click to expand...
Plus, that'd just mean 11 years of President Mike Pence.

(For the non-Americans among us, the presidential term limits are only on being ELECTED twice. A VP can succeed an assassinated president for the remainder of the term, then still be elected and then re-elected. With the martyrdom of Trump, it's not hard to imagine Pence getting the political capital to do it.)
 
Last edited:
blotsfan

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
Plus, that'd just mean 11 years of President Mike Pence.

(For the non-Americans among us, the presidential term limits are only on being ELECTED twice. A VP can succeed an assassinated president for the remainder of the term, then still be elected and then re-elected. With the martyrdom of Trump, it's not hard to imagine Pence getting the political capital to do it.)
Click to expand...
If it's more than two years of trumps term, it counts as a term served. If it were to happen now he could only run in 2020.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
blotsfan said:
If it's more than two years of trumps term, it counts as a term served. If it were to happen now he could only run in 2020.
Click to expand...
Not that I don't believe you, but can you link me to a source on that? I don't remember hearing it, and wikipedia and google aren't being very helpful.

In fact I am pretty sure that Teddy Roosevelt tried (and failed) to accomplish this... McKinley died in 1901, Teddy got elected in 1904, didn't run in 1908, but then tried to get re-elected in 1912 (but lost).
 
Denbrought

Denbrought

GasBandit said:
Not that I don't believe you, but can you link me to a source on that? I don't remember hearing it, and wikipedia and google aren't being very helpful.

In fact I am pretty sure that Teddy Roosevelt tried (and failed) to accomplish this... McKinley died in 1901, Teddy got elected in 1904, didn't run in 1908, but then tried to get re-elected in 1912 (but lost).
Click to expand...
22nd Amendment said:
No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once ..
Click to expand...
See Wikipedia.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dei
blotsfan

blotsfan

GasBandit said:
In fact I am pretty sure that Teddy Roosevelt tried (and failed) to accomplish this... McKinley died in 1901, Teddy got elected in 1904, didn't run in 1908, but then tried to get re-elected in 1912 (but lost).
Click to expand...
Term limits weren't codified until after Franklin Roosevelt. Until then they were just precedent.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
EDIT: Nevermind, discussion moved on, and missed a page or two. My bad.
 
Last edited:
DarkAudit

DarkAudit

@Li3n said:
That's clearly not true, since there's a lot happening because of them saying that word... then again, that's because of Spain's retarded violent response to the referendum...
Click to expand...
So far no one has recognized their independence. More than a few have stated that they will NOT.
 
Gruebeard

Gruebeard

DarkAudit said:
So far no one has recognized their independence. More than a few have stated that they will NOT.
Click to expand...
If Canada and the UK recognized their independence, Catalonia would be joined by Quebec and Scotland by nightfall.

I'm surprised Trump hasn't recognized their independence, in a bid to make his Puerto Rico problems vanish.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top