Sorry, lost me when they changed the definition of "racism" to "a set of people holding power over other people."
But that's not what the word means.....

Rac·ism /ˈrāˌsizəm/ noun
1)prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.
2)the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

Power has nothing to do with it, it's belief in superiority/inferiority based on heritage. Lots of ignorant uneducated poor white trash think they're better than Tyler Perry despite the fact that he has infinitely more power by almost every measure.

They missed a number of other things GOP Jesus clearly must have said...

"Blessed are the warmongers."

"Blessed are the vain and narcist."

"Totally judge others, or I'll judge you." GOP Jesus points to his eyes, at the crowd then back at himself and back at the crowd. "I'm watching you."

They could have expanded the healing the sick section to have him say something like "heal the sick, but don't care if the debt crushes the life out of them, tell them they should have gotten a better job".

"They who have much on Earth will have more in Heaven, those who have little will be given even less."

"Don't be a light unto the world, be one of if not the reason most people leave the faith or are turned off the faith if they aren't in it."

"Many others will come in my name and say they are doing things in my name... they are totally real and fully approved by me."

And my personal favorite of GOP Jesus' teachings. "Let those who have sinned, totally throw stones, especially stones of hatred, bigotry and discrimination."

EDIT to add:

Oh and "don't render unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar, do all you can to keep as much for yourself, to hell with the public good... but don't forget to render unto me."

And of course "Ignore Sodom's sin, focus only one of the small supporting things they did, sexual immorality, and ignore the other supporting things like being hostile to foreigners, hate foreigners with all your heart, have no compassion for them. And when you read 'And this is the sin of your sister Sodom.' Ignore the sentence after that, because the Father was crazy that day. 'For she was a land of plenty and did little to help the needy and the poor in her borders.' Pfshh... as if. If you are a land of plenty, I tell you now, don't help the needy and the poor."

Yeah, I've never understood churches being exempt from taxation. I know the argument is that the government could use taxation as a method to infringe upon which churches it doesn't approve of, but if all churches were forced to pay exactly the same rate it would be impossible to discriminate against a specific one.

Of course, churches and religions get away with a lot of crimes that anyone else would get destroyed for. Looking at you, Catholic Church!

Chinatowns, like many ghettos, are often the result of historical patterns of housing discrimination against Chinese...As in, historical exemptions on housing deeds etc...

And now, often poverty of immigrants puts them into ghettos where they first arrive and try to assimilate...

Just sayin'

The most surreal part was the Aryan Nations segment when he was in Coeur d'Alene

So this boils down to a discrimination of minorities.

So glad of you to be their champion. That you need to look down and these class of citizen that you must intervene.

I think higher of minorities. They are my equal. I don't look down in pity as you do. I believe minorities can find a way to obtain an ID. Its not that hard or expensive.

I'll ignore your un-intentional racism and chalk it up to you being miss informed by main stream media. No hard feelings, newt. Your are not alone.

Republicans want ID laws so only AMERICANS vote. Democrats do not want ID laws. Hence to allow ILLEGALS to vote. Democrats don't care about minorities, just votes.

@ChaosEngine:
"The first 3 levels of sexual violence ALL involve no physical contact and are entirely verbal. "
100% fine with this. You can be a creepy sleazebag without touching someone and it's still not ok.

Perhaps you misunderstand. I also oppose verbal harassment and discrimination. I disagree with calling sexist and racist comments acts of violence. I agree with condemning them and acting to stop them.

Real world example, a Canadian student TA at Wilfred Laurier University played a short clip of a publicly broadcast debate over trans pronoun usage between 2 U of T professors in a class. She was brought into a meeting with 3 WLU staff who told her she was horribly wrong for doing so because playing that clip was "an act of violence" against any trans students in the room.

This abuse of language is manipulative and wrong.

I'm a man, and I'm not scared of being accused of sexual assault. None of my male friends are scared either.

With burden of proof I'm thinking beyond merely sexual assault. This already practice in forms in Canada. Ontario has an entire system of Social Justice Tribunals that run parallel to the criminal court system. It's been a gradual transformation of the civil court system, so civil and family courts are lumped in as tribunals now there. The specific one relevant in this case is the human rights tribunal. If the WLU faculty, or a student from the classroom, wanted to file a human rights complaint for the 'violence' they faced, the burden of proof would be a preponderance of the evidence rather than innocent until proven guilty. Which I can even understand in some cases, but lets not say that doesn't make people nervous about being falsely accused. That is not what scares people the most though in Ontario. The social justice tribunals have paid for legal representation for the accusers, and so the government foots the financial costs for the accuser. The accused however is on their own. The erosion of burden of proof and fear of financial damages from malicious or vengeful complaints is a very, very real thing in Canada. Accusations of sexual harassment being just one of many kinds of accusations that you can be damaged by while entirely innocent.

"You give the woman a victim hood mentality ."

First, sexual assault happens to both men and women.
Second, yes, because I am specifically talking about VICTIMS of sexual assault.

"What about the guy? He too carries this to his grave. He too sufferer a life of pain of a un erasable false accusation. "

Yes, a false accusation of rape is awful. I've said so multiple times now. But it's still not as bad as being raped. I don't want to break my arm, but I'll take it over being shot in the chest. See how too things can be bad, but one is worse than the other?

Plus, at least, with a false accusation of rape, there's a chance you will get your name cleared.

"The difference The man carries a tag on his back for all to see and discriminate against.
The woman carries internal pain. Which is hurt most?"

Easy. The rape victim.

"this does not give society the obligation to take her at her word just because she is a woman."

Which is exactly why I never said that. What I said is that anyone who makes a claim of sexual assault is "entitled to be taken seriously", i.e. have said claim investigated. Due process still applies.

"Even is false hoods are 1% - that is too much, if it is you. Just think today if a work colleague told your boss that you grabbed he upper spots? Not even rape. You would loose your job. Then what How do you explain this at the next job? No one would hire you , just to be on the safe side. You are black listed."

Can you please try using a spell checker? That is really hard to read. What the hell is "you grabbed he upper spots" supposed to mean?

Anyway, assuming you're talking about sexual harassment in the workplace, I would expect not to be fired until an investigation had proved I was in the wrong.

Again, false accusations are bad, and yeah, it would totally suck if it happened to you.

But it's just not that common. The numbers don't support your case at all. Rape far out numbers false accusations, and that's not even getting into other forms of sexual assault, like groping or catcalling, most of which isn't even reported.

Newsflash: most women don't WANT to be perceived as a victim of sexual assault.

"Trump has nothing to do with this."
Yeah, he does. He (and you) contributes to the culture that is more worried about a tiny percentage of false accusations than the NINETY FUCKING THOUSAND RAPES THAT OCCUR EVERY YEAR IN THE US.

Your statement.....

"Obviously, a false accusation of rape is a terrible thing. In the most extreme circumstances, it can lead to having years of your life taken away in prison. But sexual assault is a life sentence, you will carry that to your grave. "



Is quite naive. You give the woman a victim hood mentality .

What about the guy? He too carries this to his grave. He too sufferer a life of pain of a un erasable false accusation.

The difference The man carries a tag on his back for all to see and discriminate against.

The woman carries internal pain.

Which is hurt most?


Agreed most cases are he said she said and she mostly gets the wrong end of the deal. But this does not give society the obligation to take her at her word just because she is a woman.

Even is false hoods are 1% - that is too much, if it is you. Just think today if a work colleague told your boss that you grabbed he upper spots? Not even rape. You would loose your job. Then what How do you explain this at the next job? No one would hire you , just to be on the safe side. You are black listed.



Trump has nothing to do with this. False accusations of woman are. And it will ruin you.

Remember one of the biggest moves in the conservative movement, one of the main reasons why evangelicals support the GOP, was because the government forced desegregation on Bob Jones University. Though evangelicals started down the GOP path before that, it was a huge turning point in getting evangelical church's directly involved with politics and having them tell their members to vote for the GOP and part of why they call Democrats, who are probably doing more along the lines Christ Himself would, Demoncrats. It's when you'll see the 700 Club, TBN and many others start pushing the GOP agenda rather openly.

Study up on Christian Reconstructionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_reconstructionism), dominionism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_theology), and The Family: The Secret Fundamentalism at the Heart of American Power (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Family:_The_Secret_Fundamentalism_at_the_Heart_of_American_Power). Remember to vet things along the way. You'll start to see how those at the top of the Christian right movement, are moving their masses like a cult to be what it is now... making their members think they are the ones who are most thoughtful and intelligent, while blinding them to any sort of truth. This why they accept "alternative facts" and "truth isn't truth" that truth in the eye of the beholder, and facts don't matter if they contradict what is being preached.

Sure the conservative movement is one of if not the main reason why people leave the faith and are turned off by the faith, but they don't care. Greed is now a good thing, and so long as they get in, they don't care what they make the faith look like to the world. They dig their heels in more and more and behave less and less Christ like, showing less of the love of Christ, and more bigotry and discrimination in concordance with the goals of the movement a the top levels.

The CIA doesn't have to do much to make him look crazy. He has, at various points said, there are "Humanoids that are 80 percent gorilla, 80 percent pig," Michelle Obama is actually a man and she murdered Joan Rivers, and my personal favourite, in England, "They had tanks, people with gills, and there were little babies, and they were in there just gulping, clawing at the sides. You see a turtle at the zoo that wants out and you feel for it? They got humanoids crossed with fish and stuff. I mean... we are screwed people, you understand that?"

I mean... fish people? Nevermind the math on the gorilla/pig hybrids, but fish people? He's like the Weekly World News. I honestly feel sorry for anyone who believes that stuff. Poor people like @Sagemind and @bobknight33 a lack of proper education, perhaps parents who didn't keep enough books in the house... poor nutrition? I honestly don't know what deprivations a human mind has to go through to become that incapable of discriminating the obvious lies people like AJ tell.

This is the paradox of modern politics.

These people are fucking morons of the highest order. They're poorly educated idiots spouting complete nonsense that has zero basis in reality.

In a sane world, we'd ignore them as lunatic outliers. They're not new; they've been here forever, they just change the nonsense.

The problem is that we now live in a world where the most powerful man in the world actively encourages these people, if not explicitly, then at least implicitly with his own brand of deranged paranoia.

The fundamental issue is that internet is great at connecting people, and it doesn't discriminate between connecting Bronies, small-town homosexuals, fans of William Shatner's music, political dissidents in oppressed countries or people who indulge in insane conspiracy theories.

There's no putting that technological genie back in the bottle (and even if we could, the cost would be too great IMO).

So what to do about that?

If we ignore them, they thrive underground and if we give them "airtime" their ranks are bolstered.

I really don't have an answer for this.

What I mentioned was couched as a quota/limit for Asian kids, not an advantage for white ones. It might not still exist, it was a while back and I'm well out of school.

Yes, reservations allow discrimination based on heritage.

Yeah, don't listen to people who watch breitbart, Fox, or Jones. Just walk away, they're either insane, liars, or dupes.

The racism you complain about is only meant to mitigate the racist policies and reality those students suffer from because we aren't working to end it. Like I said on your profile, we are making the disparities bigger here by defunding programs that do help and are mostly means based, not race based. We're idiots.

I think you need to stop thinking in terms of what you think society will tolerate. You should talk for yourself, maybe your group, but society will tolerate more than you could imagine. The groups getting the assistance tolerated FAR more than someone cutting the line at college. You forget, it's society that created these plans, not some outside group forcing them on you.

I'm not wrong, these programs are decades old with no revolution starting because of them, and there's less effort to crack that nut daily.

There's no racist law against whites here, only a few programs benefiting other groups. You can claim that's against whites, but then you must admit the totality of law and society is against minorities....at least here.

Not true here....sorry. we've survived giving disadvantaged groups a leg up for quite some time, and haven't resorted to using the military to enforce it since desegregation in the 60's.

I'm less familiar with American demographics, but I agree with the overall principal. Here in Canada we have IMO an even more severe segregation and unequal opportunity for Aboriginal peoples. It's severe enough up here though that not only are communities segregated by living on reserves with their own separate schools, but we have separate school divisions, and even their reporting and funding lines are different from all other schools.

That adds up to an enormous amount of differential treatment. Replacing that with equal opportunity though is much more desirable than 'waiting' till the school system has already failed kids and then 'lowering the bar' in one way or another to help them get into university.

In Canada I think our supreme court has done as at least 1 disservice greater than you guys though in making race a required consideration in sentencing. The appropriate section of sentencing:
"In sentencing an aboriginal offender, the judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular aboriginal offender before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the offender because of his or her particular aboriginal heritage or connection."
The goal is to address the over-representation of aboriginal people in prisons. The effect however, is ultimately discriminatory as well. Before you dismiss the discrimination against whites as ok because it balances things out as is the 'goal', that's not the only affect. Another problem in Canada is the over-representation of Aboriginal peoples as the victims of crime, because most violent crime is between parties that are related. So on the whole crimes committed against Aboriginal people will on average be sentenced more leniently...

Failing to address the real underlying unequal opportunity can't corrected by more inequality later to balance the scales. In Canada, our attempt at it are too lesson the sentencing of people with unequal backgrounds, but the expense of victims that also faced those same unequal backgrounds...

And that 'corrective' inequality is also creating similar resentment amongst white people here too. People don't like their kids not getting into a school of choice potentially because of a race based distinction, but they like it even less to see a crime committed against them treated more leniently because of race.

@newtboy,
without racial preferencing FOR white kids
I know for a fact though that in Canada any law, policy or practice that in any way, shape or form stated that has been abolished long ago. Any new ones would be destroyed in court immediately and without question. I've always understood the US to be the same, is that not correct? Is there anywhere in existence in US law, or policies that discrimination based upon race, outside of affirimative action, is ever allowed to exist?

I was convinced enough that the US was like Canada in this regard that back when Obama was president I had someone tell me about a Breitbart report claiming anti-white racism being dictated directly from the President's office. I barely bothered to look for evidence to disprove such a blatant lie from a known extremist propaganda rag. It's hard to express my shock/discouragement to hear that very same refrain, not from a right winger, but from the sources on the left adamant about the necessity of it...

I don't know how else to say this without repeating myself, but you can't achieve equality with racism. It is a situation where even if you are right, your still wrong. Putting actual race based discrimination into official party policy, and now apparently even into law is no longer something society is willing to tolerate. Doubly so when their children are the ones being discriminated against. The people will vote you out of office. You can kiss swing states goodbye. They will stack the Supreme Court against you to challenge and throw out the discriminatory law as unconstitutional.

You are fighting a battle you can not win. You are wrong to think that solving the problem of underfunded schools in bad socioeconomic regions is the harder nut to crack. Maintaining a law and systematic racism against whites to 'balance' the lack of opportunity is much harder, it's being dismantled already because people will not tolerate it. Demanding that university's open up XX spots for socioeconomically disadvantaged kids, regardless of race is already normal practice here in Canada and everyone can get on board. Doing it for race though, humans just don't work that way. The only times that's been successfully maintained is through force of numbers or military strength.

@newtboy
"Discrimination by itself is not bad, it's discriminating against someone (especially based on racial assumptions) that's considered wrong."

And there we can agree. I would count assumptions of white privilege as racial assumptions that are wrong to be used as a basis for discriminating against people. I get that you disagree vehemently.

I also agree that equality and diversity and race aren't simplistic problems, and that on some level everybody has some manner of assumptions or prejudices that affect their decisions.

What I can't accept or agree with is the notion that coding into law that entities should use race to discriminate for/against people makes things better.

Again, even ceding all of your points to you(only for arguments sake) coding law to discriminate against people based upon race is still bad.

No matter how hard and long you try to explain the greater good it serves, and no matter how right you are, humans will not tolerate that discrimination. When their friends, family and especially kids are impacted or are simply potentially going to be impacted negatively by it, they will push back. When the group you are discriminating against is a majority, the push back will be all the more certain and vehement when it comes.

Mark my words, if the Democrats want to die on this hill and give not an inch on it, they will continue to lose election after election until they distance themselves from it.