Planned Parenthood cleared

Shoulda put that at the front, I was so ready to tear into your strawman until I saw this, lol.

 

So literally pages 2 and 3 of this very thread then?

 

in keeping with this newfound trend of asking annoying and somewhat pedantic questions, are you saying that racism and discrimination in the US has since faded, vanished, or otherwise disappeared?

 

i think abortions are wrong unless its **** or incest. If i had a kid by accident i could never ask her to get an abortion, it seems almost the same as killing a baby to me and even worse if it's yours. Idk tho i might need to look into it more.

id rather be alot poorer with my baby than get an abortion, i wouldnt be able to deal. planned parenthood is killing babies

 

... why would you even get a kid pregnant in the first place? you are a horrible person.

also they are not killing babies don't be a dumb****.

 

Racism: Faded, in the process of vanishing, though with the possibility of being refreshed (though likely with new angles) depending on how stupid people get about certain things.

Other forms of Discrimination: Still quite present. Then again, everyone discriminates against something to a degree. For example, most people discriminate against murders and rapists, even those that have ostensibly "served their time" or otherwise completed the full judicial process. That said, discrimination against certain things has been greatly reduced. Homosexuality or trans-genderism for example is less discriminated against currently than it was in the past (though still not as widely accepted as it had been even further in the past). Religious discrimination is also greatly reduced with some specific exceptions. Middle-Easter Muslims in particular are a subject of hate and fear, but this is largely a product of being viewed as murderers and rapists (or, according to one Dutch Youtuber [according to Geressen] for their supposed penchant for reproduction). In particular because of ISIS, but the US' close Friends and Allies in Saudi Arabia aren't helping either (among other places).

I read an article about an ex-Imam, IIRC from Saudi Arabia but I could be misremembering, talking about how what ISIS was doing was technically right, but they could probably do it in a way that made it look better to the outside world.

On the other hand discrimination against Mormons while still present seems less wide-spread and hostile. Atheism, various Paganisms, Witchcraft, and even Satanism are relatively more acceptable than they have been historically in the US.

So there's a bit of a mixed bag here.


Mind if I ask why you're asking?

 

In English, at least, the custom of calling the unborn child within a pregnant woman a "baby" was largely well established long before Abortion was legalized. I don't know for certain, but it seems to have been that way for many other languages as well (at the very least, Spanish and a few other languages I know).

This is, of course, debating semantics. By and large the main issue between Pro-Life and Pro-Choice is about what constitutes Life. Or rather, what constitutes a Person. There is difficulty in determining that. Some go so far as to say that "Life" or person-hood, begins at the moment of Conception. Others believe even a born and physically independent (in terms of bodily function) baby might not be considered a person (on up to age 3 as a rough guess).

These are of course the extremes of both ends of the spectrum. Though just because it's the edge of the Overton window doesn't mean it can't be correct.

 

Isis is just Saudi Arabia but without being full of oil, not murderous to foreigners, and alied to the US though.

 

most people i know would probably say something more like "as is the racism and discrimination that has persisted to present day", instead of even coming close to giving the impression that racism/discrimination based on race (specifically against blacks in america) is not a thing anymore (with usage of the past tense).

 

Well, in terms of legality, it is gone. There are no more laws (that I'm aware of) that specifically forbid actions or otherwise treat people unequally based on Race, and the Constitution in fact forbids the creation of those laws (though it sure as hell took a while for people to enforce that amendment on various issues).

Of course, one can argue that the War on Drugs is "unfair" to Black people, but this has more to do with secondary factors (Blacks being encouraged to sell/buy drugs as a means of financial advancement, seems to have caught on more than other minorities and of course non-minorities, but) the laws themselves don't have it in them to discriminate on that basis. If and where there are unfair treatments in this regard, it isn't because of the law institutionalizing unfair treatment, but rather (in my opinion a minority of) racist hold-outs being unfair on a personal level... and often at risk of their job or even criminal or civil penalties themselves if they are properly outed as being discriminatory based on race.

The persistence of racism and discrimination in modern days are certainly bad, but it isn't what the nation is based on, and it has been fading, and is not nearly the factor it once was.

Out of curiosity, why do you believe that "most people" you know answer differently? And also, how would you yourself have answered?

 

Well, ISIS does actually have Oil (in fact, the positioning of Armies between Turkey and Russia is largely due to Russia not liking Turkey buying ISIS oil), and the US has (accidentally?) supplied them with weapons, including Stinger Missiles (might have been other NATO nations on that specific front though). I do think Suadi Arabia has killed a number of foreigners, but I could be thinking of something else (they apparently killed like, 75 people on New Years Day, ostensibly to avoid having a New Record for the number of executions in a given year, not sure how many if any were Foreigners though).

So even fewer differences than one might have initially thought.

 

to answer the last questions first- because i was raised by and around some pretty seriously liberal people. i can count on probably just my hands (an achievement in itself) the number of people that i know who are both modern conservatives and tend to discuss their ideology or opinions of current events. offhand i can think of 3 people.

i don't know what answer i would have given, i probably would've played it safe and edged towards something more like what i had put under the "other people" tag.


the other part is that with what i'm used to seeing, people don't stress the exact legal nature of it so much as the environment, or the what have you. i know a decent number of people that would probably attack various parts of what you wrote here, including but potentially not limited to, well all of it.


i'm not one of them so i'll try to avoid doing that for now.

 

racism hasnt faded alot of it has just changed form and isnt as direct but still extreme. most of the people who seem to think racism has faded are white and live in nearly all white communities and therefore dont experience it.

 

I wouldn't say my views are really emblematic of "modern conservatives" in a general sense. Not only are my views often different based on discussion with such people, but I don't think perception of racism is(/should be) tied to political views on a broad spectrum.

So, rather than say: "I'm not sure." or "I haven't come to a conclusion on that yet." or something, you'd go with what you've heard most?

Well, I think it's important to make that distinction when discussing governments. Laws are essentially a manifestation of the will of the Government (and in republics and democracies, should be representative of the will of the People, albeit with a delay due the processes required for legislation). Not only that, but they often have a huge impact on the social environment.

But they can't actually directly force someone to think differently than they do. If the US once again said that Black People were only 3/4ths of a person, it couldn't stop people thinking otherwise, but it could create an environment that emboldens Racists as a side effect or give their "teachings" more legitimacy in the eyes of the public, especially if the law lasts long enough for multiple generations to come into existence (in part because of the legal equivalent of "tenure" and more importantly because the generations are growing up being taught "this is the law" and whatever justifications are spouted for that law).

It's also because, when discussing government, laws are more or less the extent of what a government can do to try and resolve a social problem. Ultimately, what really roots out Racism is an evolving society, lots of accurate information, etc.

I do think part of why people don't break it down like this might be that they don't actually discuss the details of it often, or look at the causes, other than perhaps parroting something they heard from someone else but may not have fully thought out or investigated.

Absolutely, you asked for my opinions, and I most certainly don't expect everyone to agree with any, or even all, of what I think on the subject. I try to not let that bother me, other than when people effectively say: "no, you're wrong!" over and over and refuse to engage in why and how I"m wrong beyond something like: "well, you're white, so clearly you know nothing Jon Snow" or whatever. Which is irritating, but something I just need to get over.

It should also be said that I don't think I'm 100% right, though I'm sure I act like that from time to time. If someone can show me some serious arguments about something that challenge my opinion, I'll definitely consider it. I might not change my mind right away, but who knows. And since I figure I'm like that, I'll go ahead and engage others and challenge their own beliefs, to get them to think about it even if I don't convince them, any time soon or at all.


Back on topic, it's a large part of why I brought up the new CMP videos, because I thought they were worth having people at least think about, even though in that case I don't have a fully formed opinion on the matters involved yet.

*shrug*

I'm rambling now though, so...

 

piece by piece-

i didn't say you were the epitome of the modern conservative. what i was getting to more was that i know very few conservatives of really any stripe (outside this forum at least).

it was my understanding that you wanted me to answer the question in a similar format. in which case yeah, while i think i made it fairly clear what my general knowledge of the subject is, i will, yes, likely reply based on what i've heard if pressed (as i understood myself to be).

3/5ths is the number i'm more familiar with. aside from that, one could argue that the role of govt in fading racism out further is largely in ensuring that not only are its citizens not needlessly segregated, but also that its citizens are actually all given a fair shot. both of these are (from what i see) frequently challenged. as for why people don't break it down; i would suspect that's because you get fewer good headlines that way. also, from where i'm sitting there's decidedly an issue with people saying "well this is just how it is" when it comes to a law.

laws aren't made to be broken, they're made to be adapted. no lawmaker worth the Firk it took to make them will tell you that the law they're trying to enact is perfect, or will last for goddamn ever in an everchanging series of circumstances. laws are about how we see now, and how we want to see the future. (so far as i'm concerned, i'm not exactly a top level policy maker)


the last bit is the least relevant i think; the quote you snagged was more just me looping back around to the specific political climate i'm used to.


the bit that stuck out from the other post was you saying that the US wasn't founded on racism- while it wasn't a core ideological tenet that was unilaterally held to (not that there are too many of those), if it wasn't founded on racism it sure grew a huge crop pretty fast. i dunno.

 

*shrug*

It just seemed you were lumping me in there as a sort of generic descriptor. I guess I'm not sure that's fair (either to me or them).

Personally, I find one-word (or even some two-word) descriptors of one's political stances usually inadequate. Which, in part, feeds into the sort of tribalism, or "team"-ism involved in some politics. "Oh, you're a left/right-wing guy?"

And then sometimes that's the end of the conversation. In my experiences, unless they are largely following a personality or something, people of the same generic persuasion can have wildly different views on specific issues. But that's more of a reason to engage people on these things than not. So I certainly appreciate your asking random questions.

Not necessarily. Besides, I'm sure the forum would appreciate fewer walls of text. My "format" is not concise for example, but I very much appreciate and and somewhat envious of those that can make their point or thoughts known in a concise manner.

Well, there are three things here:

1. How are you seeing segregation being promoted?

2. What, in your view, constitutes a "fair shot"?

3. How do you see that being questioned?

(And of course, are any of these challenges actually meaningful?)

I can guess some of your answers, but I dislike making too many assumptions.

The establishment of the US didn't grow the racism, it was already present (and at the time, present throughout most of the known world, and far less focused on Africans as a sole target). What the founding of the US failed to do, was to create a more "hostile" environment towards racism, to be more proactive in dismantling the establishments which fostered it (mainly slavery). Basically, they decided it was better to not deal with it and have these other (in some ways more pressing, given military action and occupation) issues dealt with, and let the States handle it as they wished.

Far from perfect, but quite a juxtaposition from PP, which Sanger helped create as a means of executing her Racist Ideologies specifically (though I don't think it was monolithic past the upper level, I'm sure many wanted to do good by people, and PP itself has, reportedly, done quite a bit of good). But again that doesn't mean it's currently still acting on those ideologies.

 

i don't have modern day specifics (there's a reason i've been saying "one could argue")- i think the most recent thing i remember is seeing a dramatization of the desegregation (not sure if that's the word they used) of yonkers. what i tend to think of as segregation these days is more along money lines- the main reason i think of it as also racially based is because of how i think of the economic spread across racial lines- which is to say, i think of most minorities as being in lower income brackets. i'm also given to understand that the distribution of americans across the economic scale has almost taken the form of a pyramid, with perhaps a weak absolute base.

all that to suggest that firstly, my views may be incorrect. secondly though, and i think more importantly, that it's not important for a racial comparison to have the same number of top black earners as top white earners, as the numbers of earners from both categories are, i would imagine, very different in size. more that it's important that there be a roughly equivalent percentage in each group. i'll go see if i can find those numbers.


so far i've turned up a census report ( https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2015/demo/p60-252.pdf ) but it seems to be running its own analytics for specific things on the data i actually want, which isn't exactly helpful for this.

next is something off the nytimes site ( http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/upshot/americas-racial-divide-charted.html?_r=0 ) which, again, doesn't have the numbers i think i'm looking for. it does, however, lead me to the bureau of labor statistics (i skimmed for the graphs)

which brings me here http://www.bls.gov/opub/btn/volume-3/income-and-spending-patterns-among-black-households.htm

again, not all the data i'm looking for.

http://www.bls.gov/mlr/1995/04/art8full.pdf

i think that link might come closest (maybe i'm just searching for the wrong things, i'm not sure), but it's also from 1995. not exactly a modern study.

i'll come back to this later

 

Several pages late here, but I'm going to make a comment anyway (haven't read past first page)

It never stops amazing me how hypocritical some of the right wing power units act. Historically always been an uphill battle for liberal organizations going through the political system, and it's refreshing to see that start to swing. But these arguments, like that of the judge in the video, that essentially say "it isn't the Republican way so it isn't right" certainly isn't the way to pronounce distaste in this process, nor does it make you or your party look good. It's not a big deal if it happens here or there, but recently, especially after the kickoff of the presidential campaign, this has become more and more the mindset

Just recently in an episode on Colbert, bill O'Reilly talks about his new book and praises Reagan. He then slams sanders for wanting free college because of our debt. Colbert then points out that Reagan ran huge deficits too, to which O'Reilly replies "of course, but he did it to defeat the soviet "

Colbert then points out how silly it is to support deficits for militaristic goals, but not supporting the same deficits to enhance education.

All I can say is that I am more than glad that planned parenthood is cleared. They deserve every ounce of support they can receive, it's a fantastic organization that works on the enhancement of health in a multitude of ways.