Who wants proven innocent blacks executed anyway because, based solely on their skin color, he believes "they mugged someone"? Mr Don Trump- Trumpublican

Who wants to shove more "thugs" (his word for blacks) in prison for longer sentences? Mr Don Trump-Trumpublican

Who complained loudly that the Biden crime bill didn't lock up enough blacks for long enough? Mr Don Trump-Trumpublican

Who wants to execute way more "thugs" (blacks), but wants something less "comfortable" than lethal injection (like slow public hangings)? Mr Don Trump-Trumpublican

Who thinks white supremacists, treasonous confederates, and neo Nazis are "good people" who shouldn't serve time for rioting and attacking peaceful anti-racism protesters? Mr Don Trump-Trumpublican

Who still holds these beliefs and has never once apologized for them? Mr Don Trump-Trumpublican

You are so dishonest and desperate.

You know... If they just gave gay people a different skin color...

So "not entirely inaccurate, though" equals "that statement is wrong" to you? I can see why it's so hard to have a discussion in the English language with you. Is it not your original language?

"they are likely mistrustful of people who don't look like them and could be swayed by one or two strong voices to persecute those they see as "other""

Seems like you're fine making large behavioral generalizations based on skin color, or am I reading that one wrong too?

Yes, and imo any reasonable person would have done exactly that instead of intentionally causing an incident he could film and maybe profit from, or at least get some world star views.

She's married to a black dude, so I'll go out on a limb and say she isn't afraid of black men more than other men.

Of course, there's the possibility that she's actually a captive of her husband, forced against her will to marry and live with someone she feared and didn't respect because of their skin color just to torture her because she's really a racist bitch, but I seriously doubt it.

If the answer is yes, she's done this before to white guys they just didn't film it to publicly shame her and instead just used their fob again like a reasonable neighbor, would you change your position?

No, he has no obligation beyond the building's written rules to engage her at all, but that's exactly why she was suspicious, he violated building rules and stupidly refused to be reasonable....whatever his reason might have been, likely a mistaken assumption she was racially motivated and not just a good neighbor looking out for the safety of her building as the management had repeatedly requested everyone living there do.

What do you think he would do if a few 6'6" skinheads barged in when he opened the door, shoved past him, and rudely refused to prove they belonged there while filming him, snidely commenting about the dumb black boy who thinks he's security? Would you then excuse the hundreds of death threats he started getting from random racists for daring to confront white men? I hope not.

I'm an atheist and will always be one of the first in line to suggest that religions should be subject to criticism and the rule of law just like any other organization.

That being said, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea that congregations are complicit in the misdeeds of the institution itself, whether or not they are aware of verified instances of misdeeds. ...Pretty slippery slope.

Expand that to, say, nations. In the history of the US, the government has committed some pretty indefensible atrocities. Genocide, mass relocation, and other offenses against Native Americans in the name of "manifest destiny". Enslavement of a race of people based on skin color, with disenfranchisement and continued abuse well after slavery was abolished, with elements that certainly persist to this day. Funding and supplying extremist organizations because they happen to have a short-term enemy that coincides with ours, which frequently comes back to bite us in the ass later. Using underhanded tricks including false-flag operations to justify wars and other offensive actions. Attempting to assassinate democratically elected leaders of foreign governments. And on and on.

Are all US citizens complicit in those misdeeds, merely by an accident of birth? But those things were in the past, you might argue. Given the depth of dirt you can find on our past with a little digging, I'd say it is reasonable to expect that there's things that the government is doing now that we may or may not be aware of that would be similarly difficult to defend.

Many/most Catholics can either remain intentionally blissfully ignorant about these problems, or will be able to go to great lengths to rationalize their way around them. Just like most US citizens don't lose much sleep over our government's past and present misdeeds. In either case, indoctrination puts the blinders on -- and can be incredibly difficult to escape.

For the religious, "love the sinner, hate the sin" is an oft-repeated phrase. As an atheist outraged by these scandals and the decades/centuries of intentional cover-ups by the Church itself, I might be tempted to turn that on its head. "Accept the religious, hate the religion." By all means, be outraged towards the institution itself. By all means, fight to end the protections that have allowed this kind of abuse to go unchecked. But perhaps try to keep some (Christian?) empathy for the average Catholic congregation members who have been brainwashedindoctrinated their whole lives and are likely in too deep to escape. Reserve that hatred for the clergy that abused their positions of power and control to commit these crimes, and the organizational system that systematically allowed it to happen while covering it up. They deserve every bit of hate you throw their way.

Your stance says it. Objecting to using race as one of many criteria for admission in favor of a single test that clearly benefits your group ignores "all racial discrimination and racial obstacles except that single instance you can point to where it doesn't come out in your favor, then suddenly racism IS a problem that needs eradicating...."

Short sighted tribal reasoning was electing a lying cheeto with anger issues because it wore red.

Yes, but that score must, to be honest and have any value, include a measurement of the obstacles overcome to achieve that score. Taking financial, societal, opportunistic, familial, etc obstacles they've overcome doesn't seem to bother you, race is one more obstacle for many, one that's rightly taken into account when measuring a student's efforts required to achieve their current status, especially proper when diversity is part of the desired outcome of the computation.

Include a numerical modifier that takes overcoming those multiple obstructions into account and skin color might eventually be reasonably removed, but not before.

Lower scoring candidates should be chosen over higher scoring candidates based on other factors. Race is, right now, the best way to generalize those factors when trying to create a diverse student body, something we've determined is a benefit to all students. Of course, it would be better to examine all facets of performance on an individual basis, but schools don't seem to do that anymore, it's a Herculean task. Again, fund them better and they tend to do better.

"saying humans are born with either a penis or vagina isn't a hateful statement against people."
It absolutely is hateful to hermaphrodites, clearly saying they aren't human. Use the qualifier "usually" or "almost always".

"As for gender being something different than sex, if you define it that way"
No, you said that. I'm saying all the physical attributes of gender are changeable besides the brain, and many humans with male gonads have female brains, and vice versa. Today, gonads can be surgically changed, so where is gender? I argue it's in the brain, which today can't be changed.
Gender is different from sexuality, clearly, no?
Edit: I guess I do think gender is different from "sex", if sex is determined solely by your gonads.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_and_gender_distinction
....as to who cares about gender....the bigoted bakers do. ;-)

We're talking perceived race, gender, sexuality, ethnic group, as identified by the discriminating individuals. They don't DNA scan or brain scan customers before serving (or denying) them, they react based on perception.

Skin color, that's totally changeable. Never heard of spray tans or bleach? Try watching Eddie Murphy's 'White like me'.

Odd you might argue against perception being the measure, since you seemed to argue that gays could be perceived as acceptably heterosexual by not acting on their uncontrollable urges and desires, bypassing the bigoted discrimination, essentially by lying.

Again it's about perceived ethnicity, not actual genetic heritage. Like you say, your actual heritage is unidentifiable by strangers, so less important to this discussion of public business discrimination.
If I want my wedding cake for me and Chris, and I wear my pink paisley silk shirt, leather chaps, choker, and heavy makeup to buy it that doesn't make me gay but the bigot baker would still deny me because he would assume I was.

newtboy you have the exact same mindset as a racist. You feel that a member of a certain group of people wronged you in some manner and now you bundle all of them together. Replace the word Cops with a skin color and you have a typical racist quote...

Goobacks: "a hairless, uniform mix of all races" with the same skin color, while their language is a guttural mixture of all world languages.
Also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_of_the_future

Alternate Title: How police willingly create snipers and ambushers.

Tens of thousands of dollars in damages, multiple ruined lives, trauma, fear, ridiculous charges, theft of money, homelessness, and loss of employment all over under a gram of marijuana....and the officer smiles about how he's screwing the guy's life and family up over nothing because 'I just have a job to do and you're caught in the middle of it'.

"The moral of the story is, don't sell drugs to the residents"....yeah, except you found no drugs for sale, so clearly not selling drugs didn't help.
"I can tell you are associated just from what I've seen" by which I can only assume he means his skin color, because they saw no drug sales and found no drugs to associate him with.

I see this as an armed home invasion by the blue gang.

I would say that Stalin, the Kin Jong's, Various African Tribal Genocides, and Pol Pot might disagree with your account of wholesale slaughter being reserved for the 'white' Europeans and their descendants. That is just to name a few. Also, what is a 'white' European? I mean the southern Europeans have quite a bit of Moorish blood in them, do they still count as 'white'?

All sarcasm aside, your argument is extremely flawed. Conquerors tend to lay waste to the societies they conquer, not always in terms of total lives lost, but in terms of cultural death. The reason why 'white' people are vilified for this lately is because for the past several hundred years they have been the ones expanding and taking over the regions you speak of. This is not exclusive to a skin color or originating locale, it is absolutely a core of our human nature.

I gave some examples earlier of non-European conquerors, but they are fairly recent. If we look in history at other groups, we find the same meme. The Steppe Horse Tribes were BRUTAL to cities and countries that did not capitulate. Look up "Measuring against the linchpin". That saying came from the fact that if you resisted Mongol rule, they would slaughter every male taller than the linchpin of a wagon wheel. The Aztecs and Mayans ruled southern American empires through great brutality, including human sacrifice for 'religious' purposes. Recent discoveries even indicate that it was considered a good omen if the sacrifices were crying in pain before they were to die. Remains recently found showed "All shared one feature: serious cavities, abscesses or bone infections painful enough to make them cry."

Slavery originated as early as human recorded history, if not sooner. Slavery can be traced back to the earliest records, such as the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1760 BC), which refers to it as an established institution. Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations. Mass slavery requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable. Although slavery in some form or another existed in most European countries, it wasn't until after contact with the Arabic African slave traders that it soared in the 15th and 16th centuries.

tl;dr

You are referring to recent history to make an example while completely ignoring THOUSANDS of years of similar history. All humanity is flawed, narrowing it down to a singular group with cherry picked data is not going to persuade anyone with a brain.

Are you implying that white people are shitty to everyone else because they are white? Or is it less about skin color and more about how a dominant culture/race treats and mistreats others?
No matter which group is currently dominant, power always corrupts.

@Jinx
I'm not sure you could call this cultural misappropriation, I'm pretty sure GITS is owned by a Japanese company and sold the movie rights to Hollywood. And the credits will still feature the name of GITS's creator, Masamune Shirow, a Japanese man. So white people are not taking credit for something they didn't create.

People say they want to see more cultural diversity but they start throwing fits whenever someone uses a cultural element in their work and they themselves are not from that culture.
I see a world where older cultures are gradually going to mix together and become newer ones, this to me, is inevitable; and I look forward to the day where we can simply enjoy good works without all the moral hand wringing.

As for the trailer itself, I think it looks better than what little I've seen before. Although I am not sure I like some of the turns they are taking in the story that this trailer seems to imply. The first of her kind? I seem to recall there were lots of people like her in the mangas and the anime.

Uhm, nope. The far future is most likely to have less caucasians than today. The genes for darker skin color and asian facial features tend to be rather dominant. Also, white people are already outnumbered on this planet. Which is great, cause they're really shitty to everybody else.