Donald Trump and US politics

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Meanwhile, Mexico doesn't want to accept its citizens back when the US expels them for being in the country illegally.

So, it's horrible that the US refuses to accept a criminal alien presence, but Mexico is cool to refuse to take them back?

But it's not gonna work out so well for Mexico:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/02/22/mexico-again-demands-illegal-alien-mexicans-be-kept-out-of-mexico/#more-129009

"

What no one noticed yet was Trump administration immediately postponed the release of the new immigration policy executive order (until next week). Remember, part of President Trump’s expressed policy outline was an immigration rule that explicitly invalidates any reciprocity Visa process from any nation that does not accept repatriation of it’s own citizens.

The ‘repatriation-tied-to-visa-program’ principle, was generally directed toward nations like Yemen, Somalia (or any others) etc. who are part of the larger immigration policy, and who have refused to accept the return of their own criminal citizens.

However, if Mexico also takes themselves into this tenuous position then Mexico could also lose non-restrictive travel authority into the United States; and simultaneously blow up the former NAFTA agreement which is their only lifeline toward any semblance of economic leverage.

If Mexico refuses repatriation of illegal Mexican aliens from the U.S., the larger Mexican population could lose their ability to travel legally into the U.S.

=^[.]^=

"

diablofdb wrote:

"

Vhlad wrote:

I identify as a rutabaga. I'm conflicted what to do now because I'm staring at stew with rutabaga in it.

RAWR! I want to stew you with my Guacamol

"

DalaiLama wrote:

Some people do honestly identify differently than they are perceived. Mocking them for this is sad. Just because we may not understand someone else, it doesn't make it right to think negatively of them if they aren't harming or advocating harm to others.

The lack of exposure to, or understanding of people who are different from what we know is one of the ways discrimination starts and spreads.

"

Vhlad wrote:

The more we can joke about this stuff the more meaningless and less powerful identity politics become. Until then it will continue to be used as a tool to divide/manage populations.

"

Manocean wrote:

i think i can make a little obviously hyperbolic joke toward a user who called me mentally ill and told me to "seek mental help" in a very serious and hateful manner a few pages back

"

Vhlad wrote:

Please, read the definition of racism and then the definition of implicit bias. These are not the same. They are not interchangeable terms. At the end of your reply you linked an article about implicit bias to try to support a position that black cops are racist toward blacks, but you can't make this connection if you're using the terms correctly. Implicit bias is not racism.

"

Vhlad wrote:

It's not a reflexive fear of Japanese men either. You can reverse it: put white people vs Japanese people in pictures and give the test to Japanese people, and the shooting results will be skewed toward whites. That does not mean Japanese have a reflexive fear of whites.

People keep trying to make the results sound racist. Look, this test is very bad. It involves reacting to an image to press a button in less than 1 second. In that timeframe, what you get is primarily a response to anything that looks different than what the test subject is used to looking at. It's so broad and quite disingenuous to isolate specific groups.

This is why I went on to say, in the part of my post that you conveniently cut from your quote, that if we redid the test using sesame street characters or people in Halloween costumes, those groups would get shot more often as well (unless your test subjects were children/parents who spent a lot of time looking at sesame street characters).

You can design the test conditions to get any result you want. The university should be ashamed.

"

Raycheetah wrote:

Time to buy stock in popcorn futures!

Is James O'Keefe About To Smoke CNN? Tells Hannity He's Set To Release "Hundreds of Hours" Of Newsroom Footage "Wikileaks Style"

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-02-21/james-okeefe-about-smoke-cnn-tells-hannity-hes-set-release-hundreds-hours-newsroom-f

Note that O'Keefe didn't specify CNN by name, but, ya know... This is coming out tomorrow, or thereabouts. Should be a hoot. =^[.]^=

"

Vhlad wrote:

Look, jokes like this rarely come from a place of hate, negativity, or lack of understanding.

"

It gets perceived as a message of mockery but that's because there's so much identity politics and false narratives pushed by the MSM that people have stopped feeling secure about themselves.

The intended message is: it doesn't matter what you identify as. The need to classify yourself into some category is an unnecessary need that doesn't change who you are or what you do. It's only relevant if there are cultural differences but any race/gender/orientation can have any culture so these classifications shouldn't matter outside of biological/medical considerations.

"

If we are to become a society without gender/racial/orientation isms/phobias it has to be irrelevant. Replace black lives matter with all lives matter. Replace minority rights and womens rights with human rights. Replace gay/trans/inter pride with pride.

The more we can joke about this stuff the more meaningless and less powerful identity politics become. Until then it will continue to be used as a tool to divide/manage populations.

"

In the experiments, subjects completed a questionnaire that measures the extent to which they hold prejudiced views against each of these groups. Later, they read several jokes targeting homosexuals and racists. In the next part of the study, they were told that due to budget cuts, the university has to cut money from several student organizations and they ask for their help to determine how to allocate the money. The subjects had to determine what organizations should lose the university support and suffer from budget cuts. Among the organizations presented to the subjects were the gay and lesbian student association and a racist organization, Southern Heritage Student Association (SHSA). The SHSA was described as "committed to serving and protecting the political and social advancement of White people, and has recently drafted a proposal to eliminate government oppression of students through affirmative action admission policies."

The results were very clear. Subjects that held anti homosexual views supported significantly higher cuts for the gay and lesbian organization after they were exposed to anti gay humor, compared to subjects who were not prejudiced against gays and lesbians who were exposed to the same jokes. On the other hand, disparaging jokes against racists did not foster more cuts to the SHSA from people who were high on prejudice against racists, and their cuts were no different than the ones offered by subjects with low prejudice towards racists.

In other words, when we consider groups that most people discriminate against, and feel they are justified in doing so, disparaging humor towards that group does not foster discriminatory acts against them. On the other hand, for groups for whom the prejudice norm is shifting, and there is still no consensus not to discriminated against (women, gays, Muslims and so on), if you hold negative views against one of these groups, hearing disparaging jokes about them "releases" inhibitions you might have, and you feel it's ok to discriminate against them.

Previous studies by Ford and others on sexist humor showed the same pattern. People who are sexist to begin with and enjoy sexist jokes show higher tolerance for sexist events, tend to accept rape myths, and tend to show greater willingness to discriminate against women.

"

Budget_player_cadet wrote:

"

Vhlad wrote:

Look, jokes like this rarely come from a place of hate, negativity, or lack of understanding.

You mean when someone says, "I'm transgender" and someone else responds with, "Sure, and I'm an Apache Helicopter", this isn't coming from a place of hate, negativity, or lack of understanding? Because I have literally never seen it used as anything but that, and I have just about never seen any trans individual laugh with the joke. Because it's not very funny. Because the punch line is, "Ha ha, the gender in your brain not corresponding with the sex of your body is hilarious and also fake". Most people I've seen who will make that joke will then make it clear that they don't consider gender to be a real thing, and that they consider transwomen to be men.

"

jackof8lades wrote:

The apache helicopter line is used to show just how ridiculous the claims for the 60 different genders
you ppl claim there as a way to make fun of these absurd claims.
It does not refer to ppl whit gender dysphoria.

"

And nobody is pointing at ppl whit a mental disorder and go haha you have a condition lets all laugh, that doesnt happen(well mb some individual assholes do this but normaly no).

"

And as for nobody is laughing at these jokes well the left isnt exacly known for its sense of humor.
Also you can link any joke study you want about how we are all so racist and trans/homophobic and blablabla.

"

The "studies" are biased as fuck and are set out whit the goal to find prejudice, the whole test is set up this way so yeah ofc they are gonna find the racism and homophobia they are looking for.