Washington rids itself of sexist language

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

How much time?  Who decides?  Oh, and all the while we keep teaching one race of the evils of the other at every turn, that's sure to make things rosy in the future. 

Yea, but flip it around. What day did we magically achieve perfect racial equality. Emancipation Proclamation? The day MLK was shot? Jackie Robinson's first game? The day Obama was elected?

We didn't. It's a process. The systems in place are designed to motivate/force people into that process. A few generations will go by, and there won't be any need for the regs anymore.

[Lennys Tap]

Maybe you can help your argument out, by pointing out cases where the mainstream media and MLK III/Sharpton called for hate crimes in situations where there were not hate crimes. 

Don't use GZ as an example, it is a bad example and a very unique case.  If you can point out some cases that actually are legitimate (as opposed to the present cases), maybe we can understand your case better.

Al Sharpton I has a long history as a radical race hustler/hate monger with blood on his hands. He still has yet to apologize in the Tawana Bradley Hoax, where the patently false accusations he and his "client" (her actual lawyers were disbarred) peddled resulted in a cop's death and a prosecutor (who later won a civil suit against Al) disgraced. Then there were the Crown Heights riots, fomented by Sharpton's virulent anti-Semitic remarks following an accident. Lots, lots more on Reverand Al, a true merchant of hate. Why has NBC devoted so much to rehabilitating a reputation so despicable? That's a very good question. Read up on Al and get back to us with your thoughts.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

Yup, by all groups of people, yet there are some people that believe that is impossible.  Just as you mentioned, there are some that don't believe everyone is equal.  No one will disagree with you on that.  There are also racists among all groups of people, but there are actually people out there that are unable to process this reality.

Yep... but here is the key difference:

While I'm certain there are people out there who hate me because I'm white, my race has never been used to systematically keep me and my family, and my fellow whites from prospering.

Several minority groups in the US have been identified and systematically (and legally) persecuted because of the color of their skin or their nation of origin.

The system had to be changed to ensure that it couldn't happen again... even in a subtle manner. (ie I run a small business, and I just don't want to hire any African Americans)

AND, I'll say again that the current system isn't perfect. But, as a white guy, I don't really feel like I'm being persecuted against.

[Lennys Tap]

Yea, but flip it around. What day did we magically achieve perfect racial equality. Emancipation Proclamation? The day MLK was shot? Jackie Robinson's first game? The day Obama was elected?

We didn't. It's a process. The systems in place are designed to motivate/force people into that process. A few generations will go by, and there won't be any need for the regs anymore.

You make a very good point, Guns. Many who benefitted from the discriminations against blacks will  say let's make everything perfectly equal from here on out - even though the playing field hasn't been truly leveled yet. On the other side, I'm sure there will be people asking for preferences long after they're no longer needed. How will we know when? Hard to judge, but I think most would agree it's a ways off.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

You make a very good point, Guns. Many who benefitted from the discriminations against blacks will  say let's make everything perfectly equal from here on out - even though the playing field hasn't been truly leveled yet. On the other side, I'm sure there will be people asking for preferences long after they're no longer needed. How will we know when? Hard to judge, but I think most would agree it's a ways off.

Bingo.

It ain't perfect. There are going to be bumps in the road. But, if we (as a nation) want equality, we are all going to have to be patient with the process.

It won't happen overnight, and certainly there are white and black dudes taking advantage of the system. But, don't let those few spoil how far we have come, and the positive steps that have been made.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yea, but flip it around. What day did we magically achieve perfect racial equality. Emancipation Proclamation? The day MLK was shot? Jackie Robinson's first game? The day Obama was elected?

We didn't. It's a process. The systems in place are designed to motivate/force people into that process. A few generations will go by, and there won't be any need for the regs anymore.

I'll believe it when I see it and I certainly you are right, but there are too many people very interested financially and for accumulating votes that want those regs very much in place. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

I've noticed that Police/Fire Dept. are always mentioned when talking discrimination. But I am amazed how it is used to show how whites are discriminated against. I guess we need to forget the 200 years blacks were discriminated against when it came to Police and Fire (cuz only the last 30 years matter).

Are the current hiring practices discriminatory? Probably - but also necessary to make up for the past.

As far as liberal media - we will continue to disagree. Even on "liberal" networks like NBC, CBS, etc., all you need to do is look at the guest breakdown on their weekend news programs. I'm amazed how these "liberals are constantly putting more Republicans than Democrats on their shows. And a quote from over 50 years ago is hardly relevant.

But as I said, it is never the whites who have their voting rights threatened.

Again, you bring up history....thus you support a racist solution for  racist problem that happened long ago.  A make good, as it were.  So for those today that are discriminated against that had nothing to do with what their great grandfathers did or their grandfathers, they pay the price.  You can imagine, that doesn't sit well with a lot of people and only stokes more racial divide.

Your liberal media comment was funny....are you there counting the guests?  LOL.  It's about WHAT they report, HOW they report, what SPIN they report it on.  Number of guests...wow.  Uhm, ok. 

[ChicosBailBonds]

Al Sharpton I has a long history as a radical race hustler/hate monger with blood on his hands. He still has yet to apologize in the Tawana Bradley Hoax, where the patently false accusations he and his "client" (her actual lawyers were disbarred) peddled resulted in a cop's death and a prosecutor (who later won a civil suit against Al) disgraced. Then there were the Crown Heights riots, fomented by Sharpton's virulent anti-Semitic remarks following an accident. Lots, lots more on Reverand Al, a true merchant of hate. Why has NBC devoted so much to rehabilitating a reputation so despicable? That's a very good question. Read up on Al and get back to us with your thoughts.

Much obliged

[ChicosBailBonds]

Yep... but here is the key difference:

While I'm certain there are people out there who hate me because I'm white, my race has never been used to systematically keep me and my family, and my fellow whites from prospering.

Several minority groups in the US have been identified and systematically (and legally) persecuted because of the color of their skin or their nation of origin.

The system had to be changed to ensure that it couldn't happen again... even in a subtle manner. (ie I run a small business, and I just don't want to hire any African Americans)

AND, I'll say again that the current system isn't perfect. But, as a white guy, I don't really feel like I'm being persecuted against.

I'm glad in your area that is the case.  It's different everywhere.  When I worked for the Angels there was a edict that came from MLB that we needed to get "more diverse". I've always asked what that means...diversity of thought, race, gender?  What is true diversity?  But I digress.  So our next hire was going to be a minority, no matter what.  Now, it turned out the guy we hired was a great guy (who has since passed away of cancer).  We were fortunate.  Were there potential better hires that were not minority that we could have gone after...of course.  Same goes for the flip side.  To me, I want it based on meritocracy and not have a preset judge of criteria to start the show. 

Right now we are going through merit reviews of our people, and each person has a scorecard about abilities, leadership qualities, functional knowledge, etc, etc....also included is whether they are a minority with check box.  I always find that interesting.  I've asked HR why does that matter (is it merely for demographic information or something else).  I like to keep it simple...can they do the job or not.  Are they executive material or not?  Do they have room to grow through promotions or are the tapped out?  What gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, I could give a rat's ass.

[forgetful]

Al Sharpton I has a long history as a radical race hustler/hate monger with blood on his hands. He still has yet to apologize in the Tawana Bradley Hoax, where the patently false accusations he and his "client" (her actual lawyers were disbarred) peddled resulted in a cop's death and a prosecutor (who later won a civil suit against Al) disgraced. Then there were the Crown Heights riots, fomented by Sharpton's virulent anti-Semitic remarks following an accident. Lots, lots more on Reverand Al, a true merchant of hate. Why has NBC devoted so much to rehabilitating a reputation so despicable? That's a very good question. Read up on Al and get back to us with your thoughts.

I was not implying that Al Sharpton is a good guy.  I am well aware of his history and activities in race baiting.  In fact, frankly I despise the guy.  I was mainly looking for instances where they called for Hate Crime charges in instances where crimes were committed (like all the cases we are looking at) but were not hate crimes.  Was just trying to get a feel for where he is coming from as the current cases do not fit.

[forgetful]

And I'm pointing out that reports you rely on appear to be factually incorrect.

Would you care to provide some documented evidence to the contrary, or are you going to stick with he doesn't look white to me.  Just curious as I haven't seen any reason to doubt his friends and the police.

[forgetful]

I'm glad in your area that is the case.  It's different everywhere.  When I worked for the Angels there was a edict that came from MLB that we needed to get "more diverse". I've always asked what that means...diversity of thought, race, gender?  What is true diversity?  But I digress.  So our next hire was going to be a minority, no matter what.  Now, it turned out the guy we hired was a great guy (who has since passed away of cancer).  We were fortunate.  Were there potential better hires that were not minority that we could have gone after...of course.  Same goes for the flip side.  To me, I want it based on meritocracy and not have a preset judge of criteria to start the show. 

Right now we are going through merit reviews of our people, and each person has a scorecard about abilities, leadership qualities, functional knowledge, etc, etc....also included is whether they are a minority with check box.  I always find that interesting.  I've asked HR why does that matter (is it merely for demographic information or something else).  I like to keep it simple...can they do the job or not.  Are they executive material or not?  Do they have room to grow through promotions or are the tapped out?  What gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, I could give a rat's ass.

If you want to discuss how attempting to reach equality has led to inequalities, that is different than your previous argument (the cases you chose to use are horrible examples).  I would agree with you that this is the case.  In fact I (a white, christian male) have been told that I missed out on major career advancing opportunities largely because I in fact am a white, christian male.  It sucks, but I'm largely ok with it, as I have also benefitted greatly at other points in my life.

It is also well documented that changes in school curriculum to better relate to the manner in which women learn has had negative consequences on male youth.  This is a problem, but can be addressed.  Again, something had to be done, they initially overcorrect and we can adjust from there. 

The fact of the matter is, that right now opportunities for minorities are still not equal and likely will not be for several decades.  This manifests in many ways.  One major one, is continued high poverty rates in minority populations.

An outcome of this (as I linked in the OSU article) is an apparent increase in crime rates.  Consequently, that leads to a misperception that minorities are inherently more violent, leading whites to be fearful of them and making them subconsciously less likely to hire them...cycle persists.

Can we do a better job of trying to approach equality, absolutely, but assigning your anger to these cases is misplaced and inappropriate.  Sometimes that leads us to go to far in the opposite direction and start looking to find these 'inequalities' in everything (aka the present cases).  Honestly, that is the problem in politics today.  We assign anger and hate, instead of looking for solutions.

[ATL MU Warrior]

How much time?  Who decides?  Oh, and all the while we keep teaching one race of the evils of the other at every turn, that's sure to make things rosy in the future.  

Your entire argument makes me think you are implying that American society has reached the point of racial harmony and balance and that special treatment based on what you call a "historical" problem is no longer warranted. Rather, this continued special treatment for "historically" persecuted groups is now only moving us further away from this racial harmony that you seem to think exists.  

Is this what you are implying?  

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'll believe it when I see it and I certainly you are right, but there are too many people very interested financially and for accumulating votes that want those regs very much in place. 

And this is fundamentally where you and I differ.

You equate all of the rules and regulations with the people who are somehow taking advantage of it.

For me, it's not political. It's a process. It started with Lincoln, and it continues today. It's not linear. It's not perfect. It's painful. It takes time.

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

I'm glad in your area that is the case.  It's different everywhere.  When I worked for the Angels there was a edict that came from MLB that we needed to get "more diverse". I've always asked what that means...diversity of thought, race, gender?  What is true diversity?  But I digress.  So our next hire was going to be a minority, no matter what.  Now, it turned out the guy we hired was a great guy (who has since passed away of cancer).  We were fortunate.  Were there potential better hires that were not minority that we could have gone after...of course.  Same goes for the flip side.  To me, I want it based on meritocracy and not have a preset judge of criteria to start the show. 

Right now we are going through merit reviews of our people, and each person has a scorecard about abilities, leadership qualities, functional knowledge, etc, etc....also included is whether they are a minority with check box.  I always find that interesting.  I've asked HR why does that matter (is it merely for demographic information or something else).  I like to keep it simple...can they do the job or not.  Are they executive material or not?  Do they have room to grow through promotions or are the tapped out?  What gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, I could give a rat's ass.

You're right. It's technically not fair.

But, as I have said at least 10 other times... it's a process. It's going to take time. Sometimes change has to be force fed. After a while*, we can loosen and remove some of the regulations.

*When we get to that point, I don't know. But, I know we aren't there yet. Maybe another generation or 2.

[Pakuni]

Again, you bring up history....thus you support a racist solution for  racist problem that happened long ago.  A make good, as it were.  So for those today that are discriminated against that had nothing to do with what their great grandfathers did or their grandfathers, they pay the price.  You can imagine, that doesn't sit well with a lot of people and only stokes more racial divide.

Chico's, are you suggesting that racial discrimination is a merely a piece of history, a "problem that happened long ago" and it no longer occurs and no longer affects the living?

Are you also suggesting that the true victims of racial discrimination today are white men oppressed by "racist solutions" like anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action and similar measures?

That's how the above reads, but I'm offering you a chance to explain further if you wish.

[Lennys Tap]

I was not implying that Al Sharpton is a good guy.  I am well aware of his history and activities in race baiting.  In fact, frankly I despise the guy.  I was mainly looking for instances where they called for Hate Crime charges in instances where crimes were committed (like all the cases we are looking at) but were not hate crimes.  Was just trying to get a feel for where he is coming from as the current cases do not fit.

You want to get a feel for where Al Sharpton is coming from regarding hate crimes? Really? A guy who is unapologetic about the deaths he's caused trumpeting hate crimes that never happened or were obvious accidents? His BUSINESS is black victim, white perp and in his twisted mind every real or made up instance is by definition a hate crime.

[Lennys Tap]

Chico's, are you suggesting that racial discrimination is a merely a piece of history, a "problem that happened long ago" and it no longer occurs and no longer affects the living?

Are you also suggesting that the true victims of racial discrimination today are white men oppressed by "racist solutions" like anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action and similar measures?

That's how the above reads, but I'm offering you a chance to explain further if you wish.

You don't put people in chains, literally and figuratively, for hundreds of years without bearing some responsibility for and having a major stake in their rehabilitation. I'm not convinced that many of the programs designed to that end haven't been counter productive, but that's another debate entirely. The responsibility is still there, and anyone who thinks the work is done isn't looking at the same landscape I see.

[brandx]

You're right. It's technically not fair.

But, as I have said at least 10 other times... it's a process. It's going to take time. Sometimes change has to be force fed. After a while*, we can loosen and remove some of the regulations.

*When we get to that point, I don't know. But, I know we aren't there yet. Maybe another generation or 2.

Pretty much agree with all you've said. But I think you * point is the best yet.

Check out young people in pretty much any city and you'll see a huge difference from just a generation or two ago. Color or sexual orientation just don't seem to matter to most anymore. This is a huge change. I always played sports against black kids when young, but it really wasn't acceptable to mix in social context 50 years ago. Today it is accepted and that is a huge change. My grandkids have many latino, black, mixed friends that they bring over to the house. As the current and next generation come of age and ascend into power, I think we will actually see the changes we need.

[ChicosBailBonds]

All I can say is that Americans each and every year believe that about the media.  Whether it is the Gallup poll on the subject, the Pew poll, etc.  Plenty of studies out there (which no doubt people who don't like the results will rip).

In 2013, 46% of Americans felt the media liberal, 26% said conservative per Pew.  GOP and independents mostly felt it was liberal, but even Dems came out in high numbers (36% said liberal, 37% said Conservative).

In 2011, Gallup had similar results.  Most see liberal bias and their tracking study has shown that year in and year out going back to 2002.  When you have that kind of consistent number year in and year out, even consistent breakdowns in the internals, it's hard to argue it.  The only ones that do argue it are those that don't want to believe it, even if in their own ranks they are split down the middle.

[reinko]

All I can say is that Americans each and every year believe that about the media.  Whether it is the Gallup poll on the subject, the Pew poll, etc.  Plenty of studies out there (which no doubt people who don't like the results will rip).

In 2013, 46% of Americans felt the media liberal, 26% said conservative per Pew.  GOP and independents mostly felt it was liberal, but even Dems came out in high numbers (36% said liberal, 37% said Conservative).

In 2011, Gallup had similar results.  Most see liberal bias and their tracking study has shown that year in and year out going back to 2002.  When you have that kind of consistent number year in and year out, even consistent breakdowns in the internals, it's hard to argue it.  The only ones that do argue it are those that don't want to believe it, even if in their own ranks they are split down the middle.

29% of Republicans in Louisiana also believe Obama to blame for the Katrina response.  So yeah an opinion that a bias exists doesn't mean it does.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/polls_show_louisianians_disapp.html

PS:  And yes of course, mainstream media tilts left.  But less and less people are reading newspapers and watching national news.  So if the lamestream media continues to lose influence, what will the next rallying cry be?

[brandx]

They'll fall back on the old standard - the Christians are being persecuted and discriminated against.

As far as Katrina - these are the teabaggers that skew the percentage. There is NO intelligent life there. I disagree with mainstream Republicans on most things, but I would never stereotype them as ignorant or racist.

It's very easy to stereotypes the tea partiers.

[WellsstreetWanderer]

HMMM. Wanting lower taxes and smaller government is the standard of low intelligence?  Quite the opposite.
I'm not a member BUT That's ALL they espouse.

[ChicosBailBonds]

Pretty much agree with all you've said. But I think you * point is the best yet.

Check out young people in pretty much any city and you'll see a huge difference from just a generation or two ago. Color or sexual orientation just don't seem to matter to most anymore. This is a huge change. I always played sports against black kids when young, but it really wasn't acceptable to mix in social context 50 years ago. Today it is accepted and that is a huge change. My grandkids have many latino, black, mixed friends that they bring over to the house. As the current and next generation come of age and ascend into power, I think we will actually see the changes we need.

If we can get the race hustlers \ race baiters out of the equation, we might have a chance.  If not, then it will take that much longer.  Too many people profit from division, real or manufactured.  We also need to have people start to look inward and address their own issues and not constantly blame everyone else.  With the divorce rate, out of wedlock kids, etc in some of these communities, that's going to be even harder.  All hail Bill Cosby and others for daring to speak about it.

[ChicosBailBonds]

29% of Republicans in Louisiana also believe Obama to blame for the Katrina response.  So yeah an opinion that a bias exists doesn't mean it does.

http://www.nola.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/08/polls_show_louisianians_disapp.html

PS:  And yes of course, mainstream media tilts left.  But less and less people are reading newspapers and watching national news.  So if the lamestream media continues to lose influence, what will the next rallying cry be?

Over 50% of Democrats believed 9/11 was an inside job caused by Bush.  http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/More_than_half_of_Democrats_believed_Bush_knew.html

You're posting one poll about one event (by a Democrat pollster), just like I just did with my above example. There are some really funny ones out there on college campuses with video behind them that will make your head spin.  This one is great.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOieS9GA2r8&feature=c4-overview&list=UU9nEh4nFE0ff0rYRtY360xg    My favorite was the "4th trimester" one recently done...  Holy #$#@.  http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/video-college-students-sign-petition-to-legalize-39fourth-trimester-abortio/


The Gallup Poll I linked show you what year in, year out what people believe on the Gallup poll.  Not an isolated incident. 

The media bias is not a rallying cry.  You can also go to studies by UCLA, Harvard, etc where they track some of the biases.  To each their own, but that perception is out there and it's not surprising.  When you see things like the literally 50+ former media members now working in the current administration, supposed "straight down the middle" media types, it only adds to that perception.