This is the syllogism they are using.
A) Black people use this social program B) Republicans want to cut this social program
Therefore, Republicans want to cut social programs because Black people use them.
So if you want to cut welfare you hate black people. If you point out that the large majority of people who use welfare in America are not black, so why you hear, "DIBRPORITONALLHY BLACK." These people have no idea what a proportion is or what it should mean. Ask someone, "What is the proper proportion that something should be of another thing?" They have no idea and can't unpack it.
Bonus points, if instead of talking about disproportionate black people they instead say "people of color" you can ask them how they got so racist that they would use an old-timey racist phrase like "colored people" AND lump in all races into one group as if Cubans, and Italians, and Arabs and Indians and African Americans and Koreans are all the same, have no special identity that matters to them and their only feature is not being white. Sounds like a white supremacist talking point, doesn't it?
Edit: People should actually just read this book instead of launching misinformed and unrelated arguments against what I said. It turns out the professional academic goes into a little more detail and cites extensive sources, unlike my exceedingly brief reddit comment. Literally, go read a book. It's very short, because half of it is citations.
Haven't watched it yet but I suppose he's promoting his book The Madness of Crowds, which was pretty damn entertaining tbh, especially the Audible version narrated by Murray himself.
I guess the biggest impression I got from the book was that minority groups are being used as battering rams for leftist ideology. A quaint example was when Peter Thiel was declared not gay after showing support for Trump.
I think Andrew Yarrow's book, Man Out: Men on the Sidelines of American Life, is fairly well received; and he's got pretty solid liberal/progressive credentials. He also published an article in the Washington Post a few years back that touched on the same subjects, entitled "Why progressives should stop avoiding men’s issues."
Granted, he's talking about why the issues should be addressed by progressives, so it's not quite the same as demonstrating that progressives, in fact, fail to address these issues. Nonetheless, he wouldn't have written the article (or the book) if progressives were actually addressing the issues "head on"; so the article does support the proposition that progressives aren't really "dealing with" men's issues.
He's a crackpot schlocky spy novelist that was last a journalist 10 years ago.
Oh, and the book he published last year claims that marijuana is causing a secret epidemic of violence and psychosis that the media is trying to hide.
https://www.amazon.com/Tell-Your-Children-Marijuana-Violence/dp/1982103663
He's a trash nutjob with no medical training that should be listened to by exactly zero people.
Yes his style is to win by any means necessary,obviously that involves throwing all your morals and ethics out the window and start conning people over several decades at a time.. or better described as his non bestseller:
I don’t understand how the GOP could continue to vote for this absolute blatant fuck to our democracy. People need to understand it may appear terrible at the White House currently, because it is, but this guy on the senate floor is causing so much visible harm and nothing good for the people that voted for him(except those that get him $omething $weet) that goes unnoticed the best way to look at it is like The WH is just the a huge cage with a monkey throwing his shit around and at as frequently as the sun rises... yet it’s all a clever distraction while a bad zookeeper that was meant to be fired a bunch of times decides he can pick up cash on the side by hiring poachers to come in and hunt at night then tell you he is outraged that you would even ask him if he knew anything about it and blame you for trying to get “insurance scam money” before farting in the office and walking out.
He also filibustered his own bill but I’ll let the turtle rest for now��
It's an interesting subject.
One factor is that the black population tends to be younger, which has an impact.
Thomas Sowell went into this in more depth in his book, "Discrimination and Disparities."
The book changed my perspective, which had previously been that our institutions were riddled with so much racial bias and corruption as to be almost useless, to something more tempered.
There's definitely discrimination at play. But for a real, more permanent, more effective, and faster solution, we will need to look deeper. But there are other factors that may make it appear worse than it is. And these factors should inform the solution.
For instance, banks owned by blacks are actually less likely to make loans to black borrowers, and that's the case in both single-factor and multi-factor analysis.
The point is, to win the fight against racism, not fight people or companies that simply happen to look racist, when, in fact, they may be applying policies that have nothing to do with racism.
Because the situation is not always as it seems at first glance.
Send me a message if you'd like to talk about this, because my family and I have been discussing it, back and forth, for some time.
Discrimination and Disparities https://www.amazon.com/dp/1541645634/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_4kCuFb699QVY1
Her entire argument is trashed by a much more intelligent man than her. Thomas Sowell is the boss when it comes to these topics.
Quote him and watch them call him a racist. Then drop a picture of him. 😂
If you're actually interested in knowing facts, I recommend this book. Berenson is not anti marijuana at all! It's a great book. Eye opening with regard to age and use.
https://www.amazon.com/Tell-Your-Children-Marijuana-Violence/dp/1982103663
No, es sumamente dificil hacer un argumento completo en un comentario de reddit, pero te dejo un par de libro para que los leas.
My experience? Men's experience? Women's experience? Is there anyone who's opinion you're willing to uphold that makes the case that the current dating environment is the pinnacle for health and happiness in relationships? The former actually worked 'one hell' of a lot better than most people here think it did.
Take it from the US's leading center-left think tank, that thinks where things are headed represent a huge threat to modern society. Take it from politicians who are shitting their pants wondering where the funding for domestic social programs will come from. It's actually quite hilarious.
Women here would have you believe past relationships are a thing relegated to the history books, because now women can make their own choices about who to date and aren't dependent on men. In fact, it's 'exactly' the other way around. When society starts coming apart at the seams because of the ensuing dysfunction, where are women going to turn to? Their cavalier attitude and recklessness is going to 'cause' the very thing they think is above happening to them in the first place.
​
We can certainly agree that your degree - if you have one - is irrelevant in this matter. To get a few actual facts - those pesky buggers again - read the studies quoted in The Madness Of Crowds: Gender, Race & Identity, by Douglas Murray <https://www.amazon.ca/Madness-Crowds-Gender-Race-Identity/dp/1635579988/ref=sr\_1\_1?crid=TBI4KOT1ZU46&keywords=the+madness+of+crowds&qid=1654483641&s=books&sprefix=the+madness+of+crowds%2Cstripbooks%2C168&sr=1-1> You see, dearie, it has been established beyond any RATIONAL doubt that everyone's sex is biologically determined. (Gender may be partially otherwise to a greater or lesser degree.) And your vicious claim that pointing this fact out is "basically like saying that if you were born with a penis you should commit rape total impunity" reveals your likewise vicious and rancorous misandry. I challenge you to provide factual opposition to my claims based on the science, not whatever pseudo-science your Wimmin's Studies courses have told you.
Former guest and COVID truther Alex Berenson is a big believer in this idea as well. He wrote a whole book about it.
https://www.amazon.com/Tell-Your-Children-Marijuana-Violence/dp/1982103663
While I certainly didn't have time to read all of that (you didn't either...wokes rarely do) I did read enough to see that there were very little actual disparities in the few I was able to read. I agree that there's a 5-10% cost of racism and we should work toward getting rid of that. But CRT posits that everything is racist and must be changed. That would be bad for everyone, including black people.
As a counter, I offer https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1541645634
I'm also a big fan of John McWhorter https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/09/opinion/critical-race-theory.html?searchResultPosition=3
As a mediocre American, you are about as unqualified to speak on either of these topics as a human being could possibly be.
OP, The “gay” question is less than settled scientificly. I would suggest the excellent book by Douglass Murray: The Madness of crowds.
https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Crowds-Gender-Race-Identity/dp/1635579988
We can always listen to whomever talking about whatever proclivity you want however kids need to protected from grooming.
You can see with shows like this how Floridian parents can be upset:
That certainly it can make one pause about the same message in school.
Book links were not sent for you to counter in a reply. They were provided in case you, or anyone reading this, would like to go deeper into the topic/data. Our back in forth communication with links to articles is a good starting point to try and dig into what reality is but a book with years, or a lifetime of research, is much more effective/useful. Unfortunately the media does a great job of manipulating data and swaying popular opinion with misleading headlines and biased/misleading articles to push a grand narratives and make money. Books are the most useful antidote. Again, if anyone is interested, what I consider the two most important book links are below.
​
Thomas Sowell should be a house hold name. Man is a genius. Discrimination and Disparities by Thomas Sowell...
​
Data, data and more data. Facing Reality by Charles Murray...
> There’s literally nothing else a man can offer a woman that she can’t get from somewhere else.
Turn off the computer and walk outside and ask yourself what they was made mostly by women (including your computer while you're at it).
> There will always be enough men who actually like women and don’t despise and want to control them that they will emerge the winners.
Someone hasn't been keeping out with world trends. In fact, the leading center-left think tank in the US disagrees with you and sees it as an emerging crisis that's looming on the horizon and needs to be rapidly addressed. (When even the Liberal Butthurt say this shit, you've got a real problem on your hands.)
In the African slave trade (lets say approx. 1500s-1800s), there were potentially as many as 1-1.5 million white, European enslaved laborers taken to Africa (source: Sowell's Discrimination and Disparities) - most of this occurred before and just as the North American Slave Trade was starting. Now this number, despite being high, is still significantly smaller than the 10-14 million African enslaved laborers brought to North America.
And that number pales in comparison to the estimated 40 million humans currently living in enslaved conditions with ~71% are women used in some form of human/sex trafficking.
TLDR; slavery was and continues to be rampant.
you should be the most enraged. They're using you as a sack of meat to feel better about themselves. I'm old enough to remember gay activists fighting to say that homosexuality was not a deviation but an orientation present from birth. Imagine how buffled would they be if they knew that today LGBT allies are pushing the "fluid sexuality" narrative (allow me to advise you to read this book on the matter: https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Crowds-Gender-Race-Identity/dp/1635579988/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1641328706&sr=8-1).
And let me guess,
>people’s freedom of identity and expression.
but only if it complies with the narrative, right? Or maybe you're a based libleft, idk.
I'd also read "Letter to a Christian Nation" and "The End of Faith", both by Sam Harris. Those two books are what turned me from an atheist to an antitheist.
Bonus read: ["Misquoting Jesus"](amazon.com/Misquoting-Jesus-Story-Behind-Changed/dp/0060859512/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2LIQXWBRUVGRA&keywords=jesus+misquoted&qid=1638650258&sprefix=jesus+misq%2Cstripbooks%2C145&sr=8-1), by Bart Ehrman. Very readable book on how the bible is clearly a book written and edited over time, not the "word of god".
btw this can depend on who you're talking about.
Look at who we held down, and how they are next to their closest control group.
Compare African Americans to Africans. Compare Indians now to those in the past, or compare to uncontacted tribes which still exist. Who would be more likely to wish to trade places? African Americans or Africans?
One of my people, now laid off, was from Pakistan. Arranged marriage, etc. It wasn't all peaches and rainbows, but they made it very clear to me they considered English occupation to be a good thing overall. Without it they wouldn't have infrastructure now, is what they told me. Very educated people.
Another thing to compare. African American vs 1st generation African immigrant work ethic etc.
I only bring these things up because what you say does not stand up to basic scientific scrutiny.
You should read some Thomas Sowell. I highly recommend it. You're a smart guy but I don't think you've looked in to it past the main talking points. Understandable, you're very busy.
#1 in several topics. Only 320 pages. https://www.amazon.com/Discrimination-Disparities-Thomas-Sowell/dp/1541645634/ I haven't read it yet tbh but it's on my list.
Indeed.
What's hilarious about all of it is how quickly it's all going fall apart for them in the future. American's leading center-left think tank wrote a whole book on the problem of men dropping out of society and the problems this will cause in the future. And that's not even the biggest issue by far. Climate change is going to wreak havoc (h t t p s : / / t i n y u r l . c o m / y 7 z z 4 n j y) on society. Most people don't even have a plan for that. Fortunately I moved out of the progressive shithole that California has become and already have planned ahead for the future.
Enjoy the decline.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chavs-Demonization-Working-Owen-Jones/dp/1844678644
Check this book out, its pretty much a spot on response to your question. It points out that their is indeed powerful forces in politics, media and pop culture all intended to make us despise each other.
It's not about feeling attacked, as I'm distinctly middle class. It's about calling out problematic narratives. Read up on Owen Jones work on this matter: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Chavs-Demonization-Working-Owen-Jones/dp/1844678644
How is calling out your stupidity feeling attacked and letting it get to me, kiddo?
If you do a deep dive into the matter and you'll find the situation is so fucked in every way it is honestly absurd. I could go on for a while but really just read this book. tl;dr: the whole paradigm around resolving Indigenous issues is hopelessly inept and cannot possibly solve their existing issues, but a truly enormous amount of people have a stake in perpetuating it anyways. Above all else, there is an extreme taboo on speaking out against the paradigm in Canada, which further helps perpetuate it.
His memoir has 3.8 out of 5 stars on amazon...
bet he cares how he'll be remembered...
probably reads the reviews too...
https://www.amazon.com/Long-Game-Memoir-Mitch-McConnell/dp/0399564101
Douglas Murray has a great book on that
I get it though, thinking is hard and it's often easier to let others do it for you https://www.amazon.com/Madness-Crowds-Gender-Race-Identity/dp/1635579988?ref_=d6k_applink_bb_marketplace
Men are more likely to break the law, especially at higher frequency. High variability in traits (such as IQ) lead to disproportionate numbers of men in elite (heads of state, STEM fields) and downtrodden (welfare recipients, vagrancy) levels of society. Without debating the viability of the fetus, it's the woman's body at risk when deciding over an abortion; men should not dictate their decisions.
Yes, discrimination against men exists; I've experienced it. However, disparities do not imply discrimination; they can arise from group differences in behavior and a complex mix of factors.
What do you mean "should this be acceptable?"
If you mean should this line of thought be excised from the public discourse. No, because shes right about the stats and probably right about the reality of the situation.
If you mean, is it acceptable for people to racial profile. Then, no. That is something we would strive against.
​
Realistically, this is a very complicated issue that occurs in more areas than just the scenario Abby outlines. Like in job interviews, if background checks are required for the position, they've found less discrimination based on names and appearance.
Thomas Sowell wrote an entire book about this. Discrimination and Disparities.