I think humans are very superficial. Which makes A LOT of sense. You can't have a one hour minimum conversation with everyone you come across to make sure you're not judging them completely randomly. People here are more scared of a bunch of 'foreign' looking male teenagers being noise than of a group of 'German' looking ones. They don't MEAN to be, they just are. And it's not solely because of their looks, but because they know few people who look like that. And the few people they do know shape their whole image of what they are like. Most people here have at least one story to tell of making a bad experience with those guys. I mean, a CHILD tried to beat me up for telling him not to throw everything around in school in a room we had just cleaned. Yes, a male 'foreign' looking child. It's really mainly Turkish people, here. What was I trying to say... right. Yes, it SHOULD not matter what people look like, ideally. But until everyone knows at least as many good people of one type of looks as bad people, there's going to be stereotyping going on. And it's very impossible to know enough people to cancel out stereotypes. Whether it's about skin colour or emos or bikers or those really fancy lots of make up expensive hand bag girls. There's just no way it's not at all about skin colour. Just that it's never JUST about skin colour. But a thousand other things as well, that all work subconsciously. Well, that's what I think, anyway.
Michael: If she's happy then I'm okay with that. And I'll be out in the woods, I'll be fine. I'll be in my element. *shrugs* A happy ending for us both.
(-swallows down a BIG rant on how THAT is just why police in the US seem like untrustworthy, badly trained idiots with far too much permission to shoot-) (-also swallows her doubts about someone randomly dying from having their arm seperated from their body, cause bleeding out from just that would take quiiiite long-)
Aquila... there are people here who go into schools and shoot people then themselves... no matter how untrustworthy our cops are our people are much worse... thats why I trust an authority figure who chooses to protect people over someone from the street... our cops arent perfect but i dont believe theyd shoot for no reason... not when all this happens every time especially... I just... the video doesnt add up to me... theres something... wrong about it... the lady doesnt care and you never see the cops face just an arm and a gun... and the fact shed post it live on facebook seconds after her boyfriend was shot... it doesnt make sense...
It doesn't make sense that someone dies of 'being shot in the arm four times'. Not if the policeman, his colleague, or ANYone did the sensible thing and called an ambulance.
And hey, we get school shootings, too. Rarely. Less guns means less cases of it. But our police shoots close to never. Not even if a guy with a knife tries to stab them. And if they shoot someone who's gone around shooting other people? They still have to go to court and justify it. Our police are armed with guns, yet don't shoot even if they get beaten to a pulp with a metal chian. Don't get me wrong, I don't want police to be beaten up. But your police is far too trigger happy to earn my trust.
Being better than a school shooter does not automatically make something alright.
There are so many cases on the news of police killing people over petty crimes like shoplifting and selling illegal cigarettes, and the police basically always get away scott-free.
Feeling threatened does NOT allow you to KILL. Being nearly killed yourself, now that might. But you never have the right to friggin shoot first. -.-
-takes a deeeep breath- -shakes head- I'll just... it's pointless to rant about it. The US of A won't change. Too many people who don't want it to change, I guess.
... except if you lobby against stricter gun regulations, or vote for parties who don't think police shoot too many people. Then you're a (teeny tiny little) part of the problem.
... of course not Aquila... i think we should have strict gun laws... civilians dont need them... i think no one should have them and no one should be able to get them... there should be types of cops like SWAT who have them but not all and most should use tazers instead... i really hate our gun laws... people act surprised when people always die but they shouldnt be were the ones giving bad people the guns and practically going 'oh god ahead just kill someone already'... I HATE guns and I wish they were banned COMPLETELY... it would solve so many problems with this country! ... i might save up money and go live in Europe somewhere...
If I save up some money, I'd probably go to a really isolated island in the middle of fuck nowhere. I would have no risk of going insane as you need sanity for that. I'd be fine by myself :)
I really enjoyed this video- it's such a creative way to present slam poetry.. And I like how it addresses rape culture, and white privilege. I hope you all will enjoy watching this as much as I did.
... and I always struggled with the fact the US as well as the UK only have two political parties worth mentioning. The f- are you guys thinking, limiting your choice like that? Although I guess you have your parents and grandparents to blame for it, too. ... not to mention the US voting system (the heeeeeck) or the House of Lords (why do you allow that? Just... 0o) My federal state had a good, nice, very well liked king when we went from monarchy to democracy. Even now, people speak well of him. But still, we didn't leave a single right on him. Because it wasn't about him as a person, but about the system. It's sad that he ended up heartbroken and feeling betrayed by his people - but it sure helped democracy come along. (And he did quite a bit of money per month to live of, so it's not like we randomly pushed him into poverty.)
Adra, I like the concept. But they are a bit too fast and aggressive for me to enjoy it. That plus... well. Different society I come from. The things they say don't hit home, for me, personally. We have a different set of problems, here.
@Noelle The video isn't loading right now because the wifi is meh and my dad's updating apps on his phone. It sounds cool from the description though.
@Aquila Honestly, basically everyone hates the two party system, but people are afraid to vote for a third party because they're worried that candidate will end up splitting votes with the less-evil of the two parties.
Instead of having a vote for one, we should really have a vote for your top 3 so, for example, you could vote Green Party but have the democratic nominee as your second pick in case it comes down to that.
@the us voting system I KNOWWWWW IT'S SO ANNOYING. The Washington primary was supposed to be my first election to vote in, but my vote would only actually count if it was for Trump because the Democrats use the caucus results and just ignore the primary results and yet they still have a primary despite the fact that all the delegates were already decided. And by that point the non-Trump Republicans had all dropped out.
So I just didn't vote. I don't like being that asshole who talks about how voting doesn't mean anything, but in the case of the Washington primaries, it doesn't/didn't.
I will be voting in the general election though. Can't not.
We have a system where you have two votes. One for a party, and one for a person. And you can use them for a person from a different party to the one you voted for, too. The parties decide on lists of candidates earlier on, but if you're a member of that party (which is like being a member of a club, really. You get to go to meet-ups and stuff, but you also have to pay a bit per year), you get to help deciding on that. If a single person gets enough votes they can get in, even if their party didn't make it. And if a party gets less than five percent of the votes, it won't get any seats. Which seems undemocratic at first and the EU even fined us for it, I heard? But it's the lesson we took from our first, failed democracy. The Weimar Republic was that vulnerable because it 1) had no means to defend itself against undemocratic parties and 2) the parliament was so split up into tiny little parties who only worked for a very specific group of people, that they didn't get to do shit. We had parties for bakers, or for smiths, or things like that at the time. So you can imagine it... On the smaller scale, we always have candidates who aren't associated with any party, too. When we vote for our town's group of people who decide or for our mayor, and sometimes even for our federal state's parliament. Whenever someone here complains about how Germany's politics work, I ask them if they know an existing better system. And I usually get a moment of silence as answer, followed by them admitting they can't think of one that works better, either. The only one that got suggested as better, to me, was the Swiss one. (Which I personally don't like, cause... with that many votes, at some point people won't care much anymore. Want proof? They forbade Muslims to build those little tower things on their mosques.)
It's never a good thing when 'us vs. them' thoughts happen.
(Snipers?!? The fuck do you even sell them to people for? Do you WANT people to get killed? No one needs a sniper for sport or hunting! -grumbles off-)
Violence won't help with the violence problem, people...
@Aquila Oh no. I reserve the right to complain about a system where the results of the election are quite literally ignored. It's not like I just didn't vote because I was lazy or something. I didn't vote because the results were decided months before I received my ballot.
In 2015, the US police killed at least 102 unarmed Black people. That's almost 2 people every week. Two innocent people. in 2015, at least one third of the Black men and women shot by police, were identified as being unarmed. At least one third. The statistics are probably skewed favourably to the police force, however, due to underreporting. In 2015, unarmed Black people were killed at a rate of 5 times more than whites. In 2015, of the 102 cases, only 10 resulted in the officers being charged and only 2 resulted in conviction.
To put it in the words of Jesse Williams, the US has a system where "paid public servants can pull a drive-by on 12 year old playing alone in the park in broad daylight, killing him on television and then...[go] home to make a sandwich."
The US system of justice does not determine innocence and guilt by facts and evidence. The US system of justice determines innocence and guilt by melanin levels. White is pure. Black is corrupt. But the reality is White is the colour of hundreds of years of systematic oppression and unrivalled, undeserved privilege.
... just because someone is unarmed... doesnt mean theyre innocent... unarmed people can still hurt and kill... unarmed people can still wrestle for control of a gun or put someones life in danger...
... all I see is 102 cases where people were shot... they might have made the cop feel threatened or put his life in danger but either way they were shot and its awful that they were... but saying 102 unarmed black people were killed doesnt say anything but the result... it doesnt mention why... it doesnt mention what they were doing at the time... it doesnt say anything... the result of what happened is the only thing people care about and i think thats sad...
... either way... 102 people died... it doesnt matter what color they were... and thats sad... and it should be a sad time... not an angry one and not a violent one... but thats what its turning into...
... I never said they deserved to die no one deserves to die thats awful but theres a reason why they were in the situation and why the cop shot them and the reason is more than the color of their skin... im sorry if im coming across wrong :(
... i think im maybe a little too naive and idealistic to have conversations like these...
... when I see people protesting about white cops shooting black people... I disagree with them... not because I think their cause is bad but... because to them... the color of peoples skin matters... not the thing itself... Look... 'White cops shooting black people' ... take the colors out of the phrase... 'Cops shooting people' ... to me thats a better cause... and why not even go further... 'Shooting people' People shouldnt be protesting and getting angry about the color of peoples skin but they should be protesting about gun violence as a whole... whether its a white cop shooting a black person or a black person shooting a white cop or a white person shooting a white person or a white cop shooting a white cop its the EXACT same act... no matter what situation people are doing the same thing to each other... and thats what I think people should be focusing on more than skin color but the act itself... to try and stop it happening to ANYONE ever no matter what color or religion or gender or occupation they should just want it to STOP...
... I kinda have a same opinion about feminism... why just be for womens rights??? Why not be for EVERYONES rights... stop inequality in all its forms and not just the ones relevant to you... you know??? Whether its man on women discrimination or woman know men discrimination its the same thing and it should be opposed COMPLETELY... not just one part of it... thats what i think...
Lauren, don't worry, it doesn't sound like you're fine with it, don't worry. I think the only reason this turned into a discussion is that you tried to pass your police of as the good guys who risk their life for their country. A selected few of them are. But if all of them had to risk their life all the time, your country would be worse off than a third world country, don't you think? ;)
I just... wanted to get across that just because a black person was shot by a white cop doesnt mean that this was somehow racially motivated or that the victim was innocent... I just feel that people here are judging the situation based on the colors of peoples skin which to me is WRONG... on the other forum theres a rule which says 'accusing others of trolling can be a form of trolling'... accusing others of racism can be a form of racism... ... none of us were there... none of us know what actually happened for sure and people are reacting like this and I just dont think its right... as i was saying the act is the same thing no matter who was involved and... i dont know... i just oppose violence on every level... regardless of age or color or gender or sex or religion or nationality or political opinions or species (i say that for human on animal violence)... its all the same thing to me and its ALL wrong... if someone or something has been shot by a gun then irrespective of EVERY other factor THATS the most important thing that happened... ... and when there are people who think that this is somehow more important than any other act of the same kind because of the skin colors of the people involved thats wrong also...
... as i was saying... idealistic and naive... i kinda expect people to be blind to things like sexuality and skin color because while I think they contribute to who a person is its not ALL they are... and when people act like they matter i get disappointed...
@Aquila: I've never voted in a General UK Election, but I have done in the Welsh Assembly Gov't election- and that has a constituency ballot (for the individual AM who will represent me and my constituency. There are 40 constituencies which makes this pretty local), and a regional ballot (for the parties or independent candidates who get seats for my region. There are five regions, though, and 4 AMs for each, so this is less local, and there are fewer regional seats overall. Also I think regional seats are actually allocated partially based on constituency seats, so the more constituency seats your party got, the harder it is to get any extra seats through the regional vote as well). That maybe sounds a bit similar to what you're describing for Germany? One for a party, one for a person - and they don't both have to be the same?
I'm told that the House of Lords is improving..? I don't know much about this, but I think lots of them got kicked out, and it's now mostly 'experienced politicians', rather than people who got there purely because of their wealth/class/family/whatever. Don't know about this, though. Still don't know that I agree with it, either. Some older people seem to, though, idk?
I agree that we shouldn't identify people based on their sexuality or their gender or their skin colour or their ethnicity or their religion - I agree that we should be able to say 'a person got shot today' if somebody got shot regardless of who they are and what features.they were born with. I agree that those things shouldn't matter.
But I think the fact of the matter is that in current society - those things do matter to an awful (and I mean awful in the negative sense, here) lot of people. And most of us do see 'black' and 'Asian' and 'gay' and 'Muslim', possibly because that's what society points out to us. We have to remind people that somebody is black or gay or transgender or Muslim because otherwise we picture them as straight white cisgender Christians/atheists. If somebody says "Danny's ugly" somebody else turns around and says, "no, she's not", because you fight a misjudgement by countering it. If somebody says 'Black peop should die" we need somebody else to turn around and say "no, they shouldn't". So I don't think that just dropping those words and labels when we talk about people will change the prejudices held against them. I agree that we shouldn't need them, but I think that currently we do?
I don't think that if we all stop saying 'women get paid less than men', women will start to get paid equal to men. I don't think that if we change 'a black man got shot today' to 'a person got shot today' it will stop black men from getting shot disproportionately to people of other colour and sex (And in the US it IS out of proportion. I don't have figures for the sexes, but according to the BBC, 30% of victims of police violence in the US are black. Only 13% of the US population is black. If people didn't discriminate against colour, both figures would be around 13%. Racism accounts for one figure being more than double the other.)
So I personally agree with 'black lives matter' and 'gay pride' and 'feminism' and 'support trans people' and all of these minority groups asking for more because they have less. And it's not saying 'our group is better than yours', it's not saying you shouldn't support each group of people, it's not 'black lives matter and white ones don't' (and if they are saying those things they're doing it wrong); it's saying 'we exist too' and 'people discriminate against us' and 'this needs to change'. It's not saying the majority groups shouldn't get treated well, but the majority groups don't get shot or enslaved or killed or locked up just for being a majority - and those are things that minority groups have gone through and go through - just because of the group they're in. It's about asking to be more equal, not to be more than equal. IMHO, it's not discrimination to say 'we aren't being treated fairly, and we should be' and it's not discrimination to say 'they aren't being treated fairly and they should be', either.
From my observations personally (and Britain is guilty for this too, especially with racist hate figures visibly rising since Brexit), it seems that there are always always always people who comment on these events saying 'serves the n*****s right' and 'they deserve it, for what they are' and 'send em back where they came from' - and I think until that gets straightened out, simply taking the adjectives about race and gender and religion out of our vocabulary would hinder and not help the problem.
(Not ranting at anyone in particular, that's just how I've personally come to understand these things. Once again, sorry for all the words. :))
My sister has a friend over. Even though he is only 8, the kid's a real prick even at this age. He keeps telling my sister to do bad/nasty things and the annoying part is, he whispers it as well, thinking we can't hear it. The parents have no idea how to raise a child, that thing has become apparent. As well as that, unless something tragic happens in the future, he'll be a right cunt in a few years. I raised my voice and told him off because he kept kicking my door in. He does not understand the concept of behaving and it is definitely due to the lack of discipline he has received. Now, I will be straight and honest with my parents. They will either prevent my sister from being influenced by this kid and meeting up with him or I guarantee I will permanently disable him sometime in the future.
((@Fera: I grew up with friends like that, and I like to think I'm not a massive dick nowadays? It didn't influence me in the least, probably because I was given an OK sense of what morally is right and wrong? Our entire personality isn't based on how one friend acts. I'd say teach the sister to respect others, instead of taking a friend away from her. :/ Also, my childhood asshole/friend had an older brother who was REALLY polite and respectful, so it might not be just how he gets raised/disciplined, too.))
@Fwra: Because that'll give the kids a good influence.
@Taia: Agreed. :) :)
@Lauren: Don't get me wrong, most of us don't LIKE to talk about these things through the light of race. When someone dies, it's a tragedy no matter their skin colour. But if people are dying BECAUSE OF their race, then ignoring it and going "well it's a tragedy" will not stop the racism happening. It's like how in schools they tell you that if you see someone being bullied and you ignore it and don't help them, you're contributing to the problem. (I shall save my rant about anti-bullying propaganda for another day). Problems don't go away if you ignore them. And the best way to address them is to speak up about them. Yeah, it is tough. To try and get rid of racism one usually has to focus on race. Bit weird and paradoxical. When one encounters this paradox, I this j the thing to do is think "what causes the most racism here, focusing on race or ignoring it and letting the racism continue?" and go with whichever you think is the least damaging option. Really, there will never be any way to 100% get rid of racism unless we breed humans to all have the same skin colour. Where diversity exists, discrimination exists. The object of the game is just yobtry and reduce it as much as possible. Some may say it's pointless and hopelessz but if it helps more people than it harms, it's worth it. So yes, focusing on race in order to protest against racism is, in some ways, racist. But a lot of people would argue that these tactics are the best way to reduce racism.
TL;DR - I think you're right in a lot of ways but I respectfully disagree in others.
Just gonna say now - I love debating and discussion, and if I've upset you somehow I'm sincerely sorry; it wasnt intentional. Just leaving this disclaimer because I do make a habit of unintentionally upsetting people.
Also I would like to point out that fmas you can't have gender equality for only one gender, it is technically for men's gender equality as well, assuming the movement sticks to the definition on the banner. And feminism can't POSSIBLY fight for racial and economic equality as well as gender equality all at the same time z because then it would be too purposeless. Imo, you need specific movements to target specific things. It's like how you have Save the Wale and Save the Panda and Save the Rainforest - specific causes and specific plans so specific useful tasks can be undertaken - instead of Save All Things Everywhere, which is really too vague . . . I mean, their aim is so broad that it'd be hard to identify what specifically needs to be done and things would slip through the net. The idea is that you believe in equality and then support multiple causes, OR devote yourself to one cause so you can give it your all and then let others devote themselves to equally good causes so each one gets full-on devotion. It's like how you only do a Physics degree at uni instead of trying to do a Physics degree, a History degree and an Fine Art degrees all at the same time.
People are limited resources . . .we have limited devotion, attention, time and money. That's why abolishing feminism andbrellaving it with "equality for all!" doesntbreally work.
I don't give a shit in all honesty. If he grows up to be polite, that's good. If he becomes a pricks and does stuff that has bad influence on my sister and pisses me off, I'll break the fucker's arm, at least.
Michael: If she's happy then I'm okay with that. And I'll be out in the woods, so it won't affect me? I'll be fine. I'll be in my element. *shrugs* A happy ending for us both.
Adra is 5'0". She is very petite, and weighs around 70 pounds. Her hair is very long, too, and the kind of white that Kerli Koiv has. Her hair is so beautiful- naturally wavy, though she frequently straightens it. She was born in 1586, in what would eventually be Estonia. Her appearance is very Scandinavian- pale blue eyes, the color the she sky on a rainy day, when the clouds break; very clear, snowy skin too, like spilled milk. She has a few scars that mar her skin, but is otherwise clear of moles and freckles. She has a small scar on the side of her neck, where her neck meets her shoulders. Her other scar is on her sacrum, and is a bit longer.
of course i am talking 7-10 years in the future. not right now. i understand he's a kid. just saying i won't tolerate anyone messing with my sister, in the future.
Michael: I miss a lot of people Flauros. Again, you can't let it stop you. *looks almost sad, almost wise* If I'd let grief and missing people stop me then I'd have died aged eight.
((Because, as an adult, assaulting a kid is absolutely legal and completely morally unquestionable. >.> With all due respect, breaking his arm won't make him polite, it'll just make him a injured fucker who just learned how to break somebody's arm and whose idea that violence + disrespect are OK just got reinforced a bit.))
Michael: Flauros I can't just.. Stay here. I hate being in one place for a long length of time, I need to be out in the woods. I'll still be visiting her..
There could be other reasons why theres a disproportionate amount of black people who are victims of police violence... I really truly mean no offence by this im just brainstorming but maybe because of social/economic reasons there are a disproportionate amount of black people who get involved in crime and put police in a situation where they need to use violence... or maybe its repeat offenders (this wouldnt work obviously if the police violence made people die :()... I just think that there are 2 sides of every story... and because everyone is focusing on just 1 doesnt mean the other one is any less true and thats what I was trying to get across before when I was making out the cops to be the good guys... my point is that just because a victim of police violence happens to be black doesnt mean its racist or part of some invisible war against ethnic minorities which people are making it sound like... theres always another side and always more factors to consider...
... I guess part of me expects people to be like me and think it shouldnt matter what color someones skin is and maybe im too optimistic about everyone i probably am because im hugely naive and I want the world to be perfect but my opinions dont really carry a huge amount of weight in an imperfect world where gender and skin color do matter to some people and where there is racism and sexism and everything else so you know you can just ignore me ;)
Eh, Fera. Instead of treating your sister like some poor little thing that will do whatever she's told... why don't you attempt making her more confident? Teach her to stand up for herself and what she thinks is right, and she'll never get in trouble because of an idiot friend. And if you want to be VERY sure, teach her how to punch and kick, too. ;P
@Lauren: Sure, but imo the social/economic circumstances will also be due to racism, just in different places or times. I understand what you're saying, though. :)
"I swear, people are just like those ouroboros things. We just bite into ourselves and rip ourselves apart and then wonder why we are in such a state" - Star, Jan. 11th, 2015
@Lauren: Yeah, a lot of the reason black people get disproportionately killed is because police focus on poor areas. However, I think a lot of people also subconsciously perceive black people as more threatening. There is stuff and things proving this out there on t'internet, but I CBA to find it. XD If you want me to go and hunt, just say.
@Taia: Okay, imagine you need to employ ten people. Equality of opportunity: Everyone is allowed to apply for this job regardless of race gender or whatever. Their applicants all get looked at and the jobs are given to who the employers deem the best people for the job. Equality of outcome: Well, half thebworld is male and half is female, so they employ five men and five women. Ten per cent of the population is black so one person must be black. If you implement equality of outcome, it could be that a better candidate is rejected because of their gender or whatever. It is unfair. So if someone suggested lowering the physical requirements in the military so that more women could get in, I'd disagree. If a woman's good enough, she should DAMN WELL be allowed to get in. That's equality of opportunity. But if someone isn't good enough, then whatever their gender, they shouldn't get the job. However I DO like representation in the media. The media is a little different . . . I mean, you're allowed to discriminate between actors based on their skin colour and hair colour and accent and all sorts.
Of course the counterargument is that white males have a natural advantage because people are biased towards them (true. Been proven. Once again, just shoutbif you want me to hunt). But I don't think quotas are the answer. I think the answer is something that my local council do - when one applies for a Council job, they take the front page off your application so the people rating your application don't know your name, gender, race etc. I think that's completely brilliant. <3 Wish everyone did that. :(
there are three people of various heights trying to look over a fence it showed that giving each a box to stand on, despite the snortest still not being able to see, was equality...
the other part showed the same three people with different numbers of boxes but could all see, that's equity)
Really that's an oversimplification. Tbh "equality of outcome v. equality of opportunity" is an oversimplification, come to mention it.
I went to a summer school on Tuesday and Wednesday, and one of the girls there was in a wheelchair. People had to help her lift her wheelchair down the stairs ABD stuff, and help push her when her arms got tired (it wasn't motorised). And she got to use the lift whereas we had to use the stairs. Technically, going to all the extra effort to deal withbher wheelchair is equality of outcome. If we'd aimed for equality of opportunity, we'd have taken her chair off her and said if she couldn't crawl fast enough to keep ul then she'd just get left behind and that's tough. Obviously I don't believe in that. However, by aiming for equality of outcome and giving her a wheelchair and helping her move from place to place, we that actually made it possible to grant herbequakity of opportunity . . . she wouldn't have been able to come to the summer school if she hadn't had the extra help to compensate for her disability.
So yeah, in terms of qualifications and jobs, YES to equality of opportunity and NO to equality of outcome. But when it cones to completing everyday tasks, YES to equality of outcome and NO to equality of opportunity.
Maybe I should just stop saying I support equality and start saying I only support it in certain instances. XD Which will make me seem like some intolerant jerk when I'm not, but hey, getting used to that.
With jobs, you want the best person. Hence discrimination against the less able is just what's required.
However, you want everyone to be able to complete everyday tasks like going to the toilet. You don't want only the people who are best at going to the toilet to do it ABD those who are terrible at it to find something better to do.
The nature of equality you desire depends upon the end goal.
@Chloe: I mean, equality of outcome seems good in that particular example. But imagine if they said "Okay, so person A is shit at maths (they're better at English), person B is alright, and person C is the next Einstein. Therefore we're going to teach B, leave A to their own devices, and give A extra tutoring till they have maths coning out of their ears. At the end, they'll all get about the same score and we'll have achieved equality." Bad idea, yes?
Flauros: but she wont be completely happy. But hey, at least someone will be there for her. SHe has been lonely for most of her life. With her parents being slaughtered and skinned infront of her
I think I remember saying that about the ouroboros, you know. Can't remember when, though. I think that was one of the moments when I remember that humanity is really rather shitty. Since Brexit I've had everyday reminders of that. XD (Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government apart from everything else we've tried so far, and he was so right.)
I love hearing opinions in general . . . opinions are beautiful. <3 I can't do English Lit, I'm afraid. I'm becoming a physicist now, which apparently involves a lot of high level banter directed as students of other subjects. XD
But like... Somebody with a speech impediment might be considered to be less qualified to work as a waiter or on a shop floor, because their job relies on speaking to people - which, by definition of their disability, they would be less able to do. So equality of opportunity would not get them the job. But they can talk and might well be very sociable and could have been awesome in one of those jobs, so... Would you agree with that outcome?
Sounds like your local council has a nice system. :)
DISCLAIMER: I hope that no one feels like I’m targeting them/their argument with what I’ve said below, I’m truly not and don’t want my words to come across like that. But I've been reading the comments these last few days and thought that voicing my thoughts might be good, seeing as America is my other home and I studied American Studies at university and so know a lot of factual and academic arguments.
------
The thing about the shootings is that the racial aspect is unavoidable and needs to be acknowledged. Sure, the most recent shootings may not have been racially motivated, but the BlackLivesMatter hashtag started because African-Americans have a highly probability of 1. being the target of police investigation, 2. being violently attacked by police, and 3. being killed by police. That is a fact that cannot be denied - white people just don't have as much of a rift with police as minorities do (that is not to say that white people don't, they still definitely do). And so although it is false to say that the recent shootings were racially motivated (as that is something that will never be known), the fact that they have a racial ASPECT is true.
As so, you have to observe the racial aspect of the situations to fully understand them. Yes, there is a problem with police shootings full-stop. It happens far too frequently and America needs to sort it out. But, facts show that police shoot more minorities than white people and the reason is that it's the sociology and psychology of it all.
There is an image of black people in America that is racist and disgusting. They are labelled as uneducated, unintelligent, inherently violent, anti-establishment, and worth less than white people. Although a large percentage of the population don’t believe in this image and actively campaign and protest against it, an (arguably equal) percentage of Americans agree with the image and believe it. Some people accept the image and let it settle into their brains without them even knowing. Some people accept the image, acknowledge it, but don’t act upon it. Some people acknowledge the image and act upon it - be it in verbal, physical, sexual, political, or institutional attacks. As such, due to America’s racial climate, some people have been nurtured to accept a preconceived idea of black people and how to act in response to them.
In the video from Alton Sterling’s shooting, you can see that the cop is distraught and overwhelmed with what had just happened. He shouts “FUCK!” over and over and seems genuinely upset that he shot Alton.
But.
You have to ask whether the event would have gone the same way if Alton had been white. And, honestly, if you weigh up everything, it does heavily lean towards ‘No’. Alton had been pulled over for a busted tail-light. That’s it, nothing criminal. Broken tail-lights are routine and innocent. And so the cop shouldn’t have had any preconceived ideas that the driver would be dangerous or violent. The fear that the cop had had to come from somewhere. If Alton had had his gun out and/or was verbally attacking the officer, then the fear would be slightly more understandable (not to the extent that it would be okay for him to shoot Alton, however). The fear wouldn’t have come from the woman on her phone in the passenger seat, or the little girl sat in the back of the car. The fear wouldn’t have come from Alton either, seeing as he was complying with the cop by reaching for his ID to hand it over, whilst informing the police officer that he was indeed carrying a weapon (which is a very logical thing to do in such a situation). Therefore, the fear must have come from the cop’s perception of the event - which is where the image of black people comes into play. If someone has been lead to believe that a black person is violent and unpredictable and hates cops, they would therefore be wary of an armed black man that they have pulled over. Warning bells labelled ‘Racial Prejudice’ go off in that person’s mind and cause them to feel threatened, even if the person in front of them is entirely innocent. And, if that person is an armed cop from a trigger-happy society, the result can be the death of an innocent person.
The cop in Alton Stirling’s shooting may not be racist. Hell, he may be anti-racist. But it is inarguable that racial prejudice has wormed its way into his mind to the extent that it can affect his actions and cause him to fatally shoot an innocent man. As such, you have to acknowledge the racial aspect of Alton Sterling’s death.
Because from my POV, equality of opportunity should, er, give everyone equal opportunity to reach a goal. So, somebody with a disability is able to get the same job as somebody without - if the rest of their CV were identical. Isn't that the whole point? ^^
Now, the cops in Philando Castile’s shooting are different to the cop from Alton Sterling’s shooting. Although it is somewhat arguable that the aforementioned cop may have feared for his life (given that he was alone and that Alton was not restrained and therefore had the ability to access his gun), the cops from Philando’s shooting had pinned him to the ground. Two fully grown and quite stocky men had pinned an equally grown and stocky guy to the ground. Therefore, it’s clear that the police in this situation had the upper hand. And, although it’s quite highly unlikely that Philando was reaching for his gun (as video footage had shown), even if he had been there was no need to shoot him in order to stop him. Of course, I was not involved in the situation and it is wrong to simply go off video footage from witnesses, however it’s clear that seeing as Philando was restrained in such a way, he was of no real threat to the officers even if he WAS reaching for the gun. (Additionally, the fact that both cops’ cameras suspiciously got “dislodged” in the situation undoubtedly points to the fact that they may genuinely be in the wrong and not have been justified in shooting Philando - but that’s another point entirely).
As such, Philando’s shooting once again highlights the issue of the preconceived ideas of black people in America that comes as a result of their negative image. If Philando had been a white woman that acted in the exact same way, it’s highly viable to argue that there wouldn’t have been a shooting. If Philando had been a white man, it is once again less likely that the police would have shot him. This is because of racial prejudice that has become ingrained in parts of society.
However, once again, this is not to say that either of these shootings were racially MOTIVATED, just that they have a racial ASPECT which influenced their outcome.
(Probably) unrelated to the recent shootings, but equally important, is the issue of the ‘God Complex’ in American police (it happens in police all-round the world, but it’s most potent and arguably most dangerous in America). This is where people believe that they have the power to do whatever they want - including deciding whether someone should live or die. This is an extremely dangerous complex to have regardless, but it is made more dangerous given other factors. If they are in a position of institutional power, i.e. a police officer, it’s worse. If they believe there is a societal hierarchy, i.e. racism, it’s worse. And so, if there is a racist cop who has a God Complex, violence - like police shootings - is a possible outcome. And in that case, some police shootings/asphyxiations/attacks are definitely racially motivated - no denying it. Sometimes they just are. Just like the fact that sometimes they aren’t racially motivated.
And the thing is, you can't judge the situation unless you were there - so you can't say "the police may have feared for their life" or "the police didn't fear for their life", or “the attack was not racially motivated” or “the attack was racially motivated”. Unless you're involved or an unbiased witness, it's difficult to fairly judge the situation and make calls. But, the fact that black people are more likely to be the victim of police brutality – i.e. violence from an institution that can sometimes have a significant level of racial prejudice and undeniably employs workers with God Complexes - makes highlighting the racial aspect of the deaths of black people at the hands of police officers important. Unfortunately given the societal climate, saying “I don’t think race comes into it” is illogical because there is a significant possibility that it does.
And so, as much I would love labels to not be used, or to be used in simply a factual, informative manner completely void of prejudice…the world just isn’t like that. It’s important to say “Black man killed by police officer” because - as a result of the world and society - the race of the victim has a distinct possibility of having been considered in the mind of the cop when they decided whether or not to pull the trigger. Saying “Man killed by police officer” doesn’t help because the racial aspect of some crimes needs to be acknowledged before anything will change. Not saying the victims race won’t stop racism, it will just hide it when, in this climate, people need to be aware of it.
Some fine examples of high level banter from physicists:
My undergraduate tour guide from Birmingham: That's the Arts building. We frown down upon them. And the *something* Tower is that, uh, tower behind you, which belongs to social sciences. We scowl down on them as well.
Lecturer from Birmingham: Does anyone here do chemistry? Come on, don't be shy. It is a proper science, after all. Unlike biology.
My physics teacher from school: Well, biology isn't really science, it's mostly data collection.
Lecturer from Birmingham: My wife, who has an English degree - someone has to - gets annoyed at me for saying mini Big Bang.
Lecturer from Cambridge: I think that all science is really one thing anyway, and that thing is called physics.
Also, I completely agree. Gun violence in general is a big problem in America. There is a horrific number of mass shooting each year and it’s getting worse. But, that is just another problem that stems from a whole group of problems. Gun accessibility. Lack of background checks. Inadequate mental health support. Homophobia. Transphobia. Ill-aimed patriotism. All of these are problems in America and the wider world. But so is racism. And putting “Black man killed by police officer” does not belittle the problem of gun violence, but instead highlights two significant issues - racism and gun violence - and how they can sometimes come in tandem and can sometimes exacerbate one another.
Once again, please don’t take this as me attacking anyone or anyone's views, I just believed that I should raise my own views due to my experience in, knowledge of, and research regarding police brutality, racism, and gun violence. I just wish to broaden the consideration of the situations because I personally believe that one should not discount the racial element of police shootings.
(Also please do not view this as anti-police or think that I hate cops and think they’re all bad – I really don’t. I just think that there is a bigger picture that should be acknowledged.)
-----------
[Also, just a side note – true feminism means equal rights for everyone, and doesn’t just focus on women. Movements such as #BlackLivesMatter, feminism, and LGBTQ rights aren’t saying that the people they represent are the only ones that should receive support, they’re just highlighting the fact that, due to social history, these groups of people are lacking on the equality and justice scale and need help attaining the level that whites/men/cis people have. Sure, sometimes people from these movements don’t believe that the people that suppressed them should have rights, and sometimes the movements are inaccurately represented in the media as vicious groups. BUT, at the core of the movements is a drive for equality of all.]
Michael: Maybe. But that's my mistake to make. *grabs his shoulder tightly* Look after the girls. *lets go, walking to the door* *pokes his head out to check Dustin isn't anywhere in sight*
@Star: Yay, another physicist! :) Haha, that does seem to be the case - my favourite physics teacher used to call chemistry 'noddy science' and his doctorate was in chemistry XD
@Taia: No, they shouldn't get the job. The END GOAL, when offering a job, is to get the BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB. If that person cannot fulfill those requirements, they shouldn't get the job. It's like how you can't really be in the infantry if you're disabled. And you can't really be an accountant if you're terrible at maths.
Wow. Wonderfully argued, Flora. I can only agree with all of that. Thank you for educating us. :) Also hi! It's super to see you, how're you doing?
@Star: Do they not still only offer Natural Sciences @ Cambridge, rather than each science individually? Cause I'd have thougt they'd be a little more open to the others, given that you have to study them. :P
@Star: But then, where's the equality coming into it? By this logic, the person with the speech impediment can't get a stable job involving speaking because somebody else gets it each time. Can't work in an office because of the phones, can't get a job involving meetings, can't teach or lecture. Hell, even being a bin-man requires communication with your colleagues. Doesn't seem very equal if somebody with a stutter struggles to get even a minimum wage job. ^^
As someone who studies biology... not all sciences are created equal. >.>
And social sciences are... a lot less scientific. For obvious reasons - you're bound by ethics, big time. If you want to learn about humans, but experiments are not an option, then yeah.
Dustin: *holds hands up defensively* whatever.. not as if I'm helping a recovering drug addict or whatever. But I would consider staying *smirks* there are guys here who are dying to get their hands on her
Psychology will never be a science like the natural sciences are.
Because you can't measure someone's mind. And at the point where you CAN measure someone's mind? It's not psychology, but behavioral biology, biochemistry, chemistry, physics. The things that are scientific? ALL things that are scientific? We have it covered, and we ain't gonna share that cake. ;P
Michael: *grits his teeth* Well I wish those guys luck, Alys is smart enough to avoid them. *lets Dustin go* Just because they like her doesn't mean they get her.
Thanks for all the positive responses everyone :) sorry for it being so long - I didn't realise how many comments it would be! Haha but I figured I'd give my two cents on the matter
And I'm great thanks Taia, how're you? How's everything in your life? (That goes to everyone here btw :) )
(to be a 'science' there is what ou call a 'core' criteria that needs to be met Control- lab experiments in psychology have control over the variabes Objectivity- lab experiments are objective Reliability - many lab experiments in psychology can be repeated to ensure this Empiricism- psychology lab studies involve direct methods to falsify theories
so in that aspect it is
but a science must also have a shared set of assumptions
the different approaches have the same set of beliefs but these conflict with the beliefs of other approaches
so it isn't
but psychology should not be a science because behaviour is so so complex it needs diversity in explanations of behaviour)
(I don't want to be seen as putting down physics but I learned that it may not be as scientific as other science there are some theories that cannot be tested so therefore cannot be falsified)
Science is all around us... Science is life, one could possibly argue, because it's all around us.
Psychology and other topics may be subjective, but they are scientific in that they are bound by method theory. Most of the "hard sciences" (chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy, etc) deal with tangible things.
But the mind can't be seen. The brain can, but consciousness can't.
I mean, psychology is analyzing who we are- consciousness and thought can't be denied. Just because we can't see it, or touch it, doesn't mean that the study of it makes it unworthy (regardless of how it /is/ studied, because there are a shit ton of fruit cases out there *cough* Freud and Skinner *cough*)
Personally, I don't think that that makes psychology any less of a science
Control - meaning a control group. An untreated comparison. Objectivity - nothing is objective if you can't measure it. Because where does 'sad' for example start, and where does it end? And how much 'sad' is this compared to that? Reliability - can they be repeated with the same people, too? And do you have large enough sample sets? How do you correct for individual differences? And you only ever get volunteers, so your samples are never entirely representative, either...
EMPIRIC things are NOT scientific. Medicine is empiric. Medicine is not a science. If something is empiric, it just means 'we noticed that it always works like that'.
And THEN you have the 'problem' that you can't apply, let's say, some standared traumatising experience to some healthy people to see what happens next. Cause er... that'd be a horrible thing to do.
Right I'm sorry but my own internal definition of science is just "the scientific method." Finding ohtabouf the world by testing stuff and reducing what doesn't work. I would give a really nice definition here but I'm too tired so I hope you kind of get what I'm on about.
So in my mind, a science is just a subject that applies said scientific method to a particular area. However over years abd years people have found out so much shit&stuff that people have to, when teaching in schools, teach all the stuff that everyone else has sound out first which really tends to end up distracting from the actual science bit because you just end up telling people a load of knowledge without proving it.
Um, I'm sure there was some point I was making here. Yeah um. Maybe. Idk maybe it meant something.
Michael: Because as cruel as this sounds my life does not revolve around her. I have my own life, I'm not her body guard and I know Flauros and Archer will protect her.
@Chloe: YES I need to grab you and like take you around to show you tobphysixsists so you can tell them. XD or I can just tel l them. Yeah physics does lose itself a bit because we get distracted by all the pretty stuff. So in some ways biology is more of a science than physics. XD as far as I'm aware biologists rarely get lost.
No problem, Star. xD Was just interested, I don't need an answer or anything. :)
"Mathematics is not a science from our point of view, in the sense that it is not a natural science. The test of its validity is not experiment. We must, incidentally, make it clear from the beginning that if a thing is not a science, it is not necessarily bad. For example, love is not a science. So, if something is said not to be a science, it does not mean that there is something wrong with it; it just means that it is not a science" Everytime people talk about how sciences relate to each other I just think of this one chapter in Feynman's lectures about how physics relates to each of the sciences and he's such a good exception to the physicists like physics rule and :)
And, when done properly (and not like the idiots who make up the "reports" about how "climate change doesn't exist"), psychology uses methodology. My mom is a transpersonal psychologist. There are so, SO many rules and pathways that must be gone through in order for something to be published, let alone accepted (just like every other field).
But because psychology is fluid, and changes with culture and age and gender and status and biology, it isn't a "real science". It frustrates me so much.
@Aquila: I would call that less "lost" abd more "trapped." Like we're all walking along a yellow brick road, and psychology gets tangled in a load of underhangibg tree branches, and then biology gets stuck a bit further down, and then physics sees a load of lights through the trees and is like "ooh pretty" and wanders off the road, and chemistry . . . chemistry is the most reliable. XD
"Social Science" is separate academic definition to "Science" as it is more theoretical due to its lack of definite facts. Things like Sociology and Psychology take influence from scientific observation and analysis but throws in human influences and consideration (hence the term "Social Science"). They never fully identify as "Science" but as a branch of the definition. Just wanted to clear up the meaning of the name for people! :)
Psychology isn't a science. Psychology is still interesting, it still matters, and I'm willing to praise every single psychologist out there trying to standardise it. But in the end, it stays subjective.
Just look at the amount of mentally healthy people ending up in asylums. For years. Pyschology still messes up big time, whenever one of the psychologists messes up. And that poor guy tried to appeal to more psychologists, tried to force people to get more opinions on him, all of it. And what happened? The other psychologists looking at his case just looked at what the first one wrote. They did not speak to the guy.
Psychology is important, but psychology is also dangerous. And psychiatry even more so. You have to be truely desperate to trust a psychiatrist or psychologist with your life. =P Just... gah. Sorry, but the case of that man? Hit me hard when I heard about it.
I'm good, thanks Flora. Uh, not too confident about how my exams went this year, but I have until mid-August before I have to worry about that again, and it's summer, so *shrugs*. I'm good. :) Thanks for asking. ^^
I just want people who I can be like "your science isn't a proper science!" and they can be like "but your science is stupid and irrelevant abd makes no sense!" and I can be like "yeah true XD".
I think psychology is, at my level,more dismissed as not being proper because it isn't hard. Personally I think ANY subject is hard if you study it properly, but I think that's often the argument.
Just pointing out women can now serve in all British army roles and I'm so pleased but I'm so disappointed that it's only happened now. :(
... Star, if you study psychology like a science, then you ought to be treated by a psychologist. Cause you'll be harming people. Many, many people over and over.
Adra, that, or you have a very trustworthy one at your hands.
I know it sounds harsh, but I... do not trust them. I still like psychologists better than psychiatrists, because if they make a mistake diagnosing you, then at least they won't drug you. Just a personal opinion, though.
Posts
4,984 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 4801 – 4984 of 4984Flauros: Alys will move on
Alys: *hugs* I if he doesn't.. I m may try with A archer...
I think humans are very superficial. Which makes A LOT of sense. You can't have a one hour minimum conversation with everyone you come across to make sure you're not judging them completely randomly.
People here are more scared of a bunch of 'foreign' looking male teenagers being noise than of a group of 'German' looking ones. They don't MEAN to be, they just are. And it's not solely because of their looks, but because they know few people who look like that. And the few people they do know shape their whole image of what they are like.
Most people here have at least one story to tell of making a bad experience with those guys. I mean, a CHILD tried to beat me up for telling him not to throw everything around in school in a room we had just cleaned. Yes, a male 'foreign' looking child. It's really mainly Turkish people, here.
What was I trying to say... right. Yes, it SHOULD not matter what people look like, ideally. But until everyone knows at least as many good people of one type of looks as bad people, there's going to be stereotyping going on. And it's very impossible to know enough people to cancel out stereotypes. Whether it's about skin colour or emos or bikers or those really fancy lots of make up expensive hand bag girls.
There's just no way it's not at all about skin colour. Just that it's never JUST about skin colour. But a thousand other things as well, that all work subconsciously. Well, that's what I think, anyway.
Michael: then.. At least she'll be happy
*looks at Flauros*
If she's happy then she's happy.
Tresha: Archer?
Flauros: what about you?
Alys: h he's nice.. And he's c charlottes dad..
Michael: If she's happy then I'm okay with that. And I'll be out in the woods, I'll be fine. I'll be in my element.
*shrugs*
A happy ending for us both.
Tresha: I suppose so.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/07/facebook-live-video-appears-to-show-black-man-shot-police-minnesota-philando-castile
I just... i wouldnt believe her boyfriend was shot... shes just focused on saying the cops did it for no reason... she just... doesnt care...
(-swallows down a BIG rant on how THAT is just why police in the US seem like untrustworthy, badly trained idiots with far too much permission to shoot-)
(-also swallows her doubts about someone randomly dying from having their arm seperated from their body, cause bleeding out from just that would take quiiiite long-)
Aquila... there are people here who go into schools and shoot people then themselves... no matter how untrustworthy our cops are our people are much worse... thats why I trust an authority figure who chooses to protect people over someone from the street... our cops arent perfect but i dont believe theyd shoot for no reason... not when all this happens every time especially... I just... the video doesnt add up to me... theres something... wrong about it... the lady doesnt care and you never see the cops face just an arm and a gun... and the fact shed post it live on facebook seconds after her boyfriend was shot... it doesnt make sense...
It doesn't make sense that someone dies of 'being shot in the arm four times'. Not if the policeman, his colleague, or ANYone did the sensible thing and called an ambulance.
And hey, we get school shootings, too. Rarely. Less guns means less cases of it. But our police shoots close to never.
Not even if a guy with a knife tries to stab them.
And if they shoot someone who's gone around shooting other people? They still have to go to court and justify it.
Our police are armed with guns, yet don't shoot even if they get beaten to a pulp with a metal chian. Don't get me wrong, I don't want police to be beaten up.
But your police is far too trigger happy to earn my trust.
Being better than a school shooter does not automatically make something alright.
There are so many cases on the news of police killing people over petty crimes like shoplifting and selling illegal cigarettes, and the police basically always get away scott-free.
Feeling threatened does NOT allow you to KILL.
Being nearly killed yourself, now that might. But you never have the right to friggin shoot first. -.-
-takes a deeeep breath-
-shakes head-
I'll just... it's pointless to rant about it. The US of A won't change. Too many people who don't want it to change, I guess.
Im sorry i didnt mean to cause this
It's fine, it's not like this is the first time we've debated about current events in this comment section.
It's not your fault either.
... except if you lobby against stricter gun regulations, or vote for parties who don't think police shoot too many people.
Then you're a (teeny tiny little) part of the problem.
Aquila, you live in Germany, right?
yo.
Yeah I'd say try avoid killing innocents.
... of course not Aquila... i think we should have strict gun laws... civilians dont need them... i think no one should have them and no one should be able to get them... there should be types of cops like SWAT who have them but not all and most should use tazers instead... i really hate our gun laws... people act surprised when people always die but they shouldnt be were the ones giving bad people the guns and practically going 'oh god ahead just kill someone already'... I HATE guns and I wish they were banned COMPLETELY... it would solve so many problems with this country!
... i might save up money and go live in Europe somewhere...
If I save up some money, I'd probably go to a really isolated island in the middle of fuck nowhere. I would have no risk of going insane as you need sanity for that. I'd be fine by myself :)
actually, that would be great. I'll do that in some years, when i am prepped :D
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7638530.html?ir=Good+News§ion=us_good-news&
I really enjoyed this video- it's such a creative way to present slam poetry.. And I like how it addresses rape culture, and white privilege. I hope you all will enjoy watching this as much as I did.
Yes, I live in Germany.
... and I always struggled with the fact the US as well as the UK only have two political parties worth mentioning.
The f- are you guys thinking, limiting your choice like that? Although I guess you have your parents and grandparents to blame for it, too.
... not to mention the US voting system (the heeeeeck) or the House of Lords (why do you allow that? Just... 0o)
My federal state had a good, nice, very well liked king when we went from monarchy to democracy. Even now, people speak well of him. But still, we didn't leave a single right on him. Because it wasn't about him as a person, but about the system. It's sad that he ended up heartbroken and feeling betrayed by his people - but it sure helped democracy come along. (And he did quite a bit of money per month to live of, so it's not like we randomly pushed him into poverty.)
Adra, I like the concept. But they are a bit too fast and aggressive for me to enjoy it. That plus... well. Different society I come from. The things they say don't hit home, for me, personally. We have a different set of problems, here.
@Noelle The video isn't loading right now because the wifi is meh and my dad's updating apps on his phone. It sounds cool from the description though.
@Aquila Honestly, basically everyone hates the two party system, but people are afraid to vote for a third party because they're worried that candidate will end up splitting votes with the less-evil of the two parties.
Instead of having a vote for one, we should really have a vote for your top 3 so, for example, you could vote Green Party but have the democratic nominee as your second pick in case it comes down to that.
@the us voting system I KNOWWWWW IT'S SO ANNOYING. The Washington primary was supposed to be my first election to vote in, but my vote would only actually count if it was for Trump because the Democrats use the caucus results and just ignore the primary results and yet they still have a primary despite the fact that all the delegates were already decided. And by that point the non-Trump Republicans had all dropped out.
So I just didn't vote. I don't like being that asshole who talks about how voting doesn't mean anything, but in the case of the Washington primaries, it doesn't/didn't.
I will be voting in the general election though. Can't not.
Who doesn't vote doesn't get to complain. -nods-
We have a system where you have two votes. One for a party, and one for a person. And you can use them for a person from a different party to the one you voted for, too.
The parties decide on lists of candidates earlier on, but if you're a member of that party (which is like being a member of a club, really. You get to go to meet-ups and stuff, but you also have to pay a bit per year), you get to help deciding on that.
If a single person gets enough votes they can get in, even if their party didn't make it. And if a party gets less than five percent of the votes, it won't get any seats. Which seems undemocratic at first and the EU even fined us for it, I heard? But it's the lesson we took from our first, failed democracy. The Weimar Republic was that vulnerable because it 1) had no means to defend itself against undemocratic parties and 2) the parliament was so split up into tiny little parties who only worked for a very specific group of people, that they didn't get to do shit. We had parties for bakers, or for smiths, or things like that at the time. So you can imagine it...
On the smaller scale, we always have candidates who aren't associated with any party, too. When we vote for our town's group of people who decide or for our mayor, and sometimes even for our federal state's parliament.
Whenever someone here complains about how Germany's politics work, I ask them if they know an existing better system. And I usually get a moment of silence as answer, followed by them admitting they can't think of one that works better, either. The only one that got suggested as better, to me, was the Swiss one. (Which I personally don't like, cause... with that many votes, at some point people won't care much anymore. Want proof? They forbade Muslims to build those little tower things on their mosques.)
I know Aquila i dont like it either haha
... 4 cops dead, 11 shot by snipers in Dallas because they were escorting a protest against the cops shooting black people
It's never a good thing when 'us vs. them' thoughts happen.
(Snipers?!? The fuck do you even sell them to people for? Do you WANT people to get killed? No one needs a sniper for sport or hunting! -grumbles off-)
Violence won't help with the violence problem, people...
@Aquila Oh no. I reserve the right to complain about a system where the results of the election are quite literally ignored. It's not like I just didn't vote because I was lazy or something. I didn't vote because the results were decided months before I received my ballot.
Here's the thing with the US police system.
In 2015, the US police killed at least 102 unarmed Black people. That's almost 2 people every week. Two innocent people.
in 2015, at least one third of the Black men and women shot by police, were identified as being unarmed. At least one third. The statistics are probably skewed favourably to the police force, however, due to underreporting.
In 2015, unarmed Black people were killed at a rate of 5 times more than whites.
In 2015, of the 102 cases, only 10 resulted in the officers being charged and only 2 resulted in conviction.
To put it in the words of Jesse Williams, the US has a system where "paid public servants can pull a drive-by on 12 year old playing alone in the park in broad daylight, killing him on television and then...[go] home to make a sandwich."
The US system of justice does not determine innocence and guilt by facts and evidence. The US system of justice determines innocence and guilt by melanin levels. White is pure. Black is corrupt. But the reality is White is the colour of hundreds of years of systematic oppression and unrivalled, undeserved privilege.
... just because someone is unarmed... doesnt mean theyre innocent... unarmed people can still hurt and kill... unarmed people can still wrestle for control of a gun or put someones life in danger...
... all I see is 102 cases where people were shot... they might have made the cop feel threatened or put his life in danger but either way they were shot and its awful that they were... but saying 102 unarmed black people were killed doesnt say anything but the result... it doesnt mention why... it doesnt mention what they were doing at the time... it doesnt say anything... the result of what happened is the only thing people care about and i think thats sad...
... either way... 102 people died... it doesnt matter what color they were... and thats sad... and it should be a sad time... not an angry one and not a violent one... but thats what its turning into...
There is a lot of space between "innocent" and "deserves to die."
*nods at Lantern*
... I never said they deserved to die no one deserves to die thats awful but theres a reason why they were in the situation and why the cop shot them and the reason is more than the color of their skin... im sorry if im coming across wrong :(
Jesus, I nearly fainted at horseback riding, again
Are you ok Adra???
... i think im maybe a little too naive and idealistic to have conversations like these...
... when I see people protesting about white cops shooting black people... I disagree with them... not because I think their cause is bad but... because to them... the color of peoples skin matters... not the thing itself...
Look...
'White cops shooting black people'
... take the colors out of the phrase...
'Cops shooting people'
... to me thats a better cause... and why not even go further...
'Shooting people'
People shouldnt be protesting and getting angry about the color of peoples skin but they should be protesting about gun violence as a whole... whether its a white cop shooting a black person or a black person shooting a white cop or a white person shooting a white person or a white cop shooting a white cop its the EXACT same act... no matter what situation people are doing the same thing to each other... and thats what I think people should be focusing on more than skin color but the act itself... to try and stop it happening to ANYONE ever no matter what color or religion or gender or occupation they should just want it to STOP...
... I kinda have a same opinion about feminism... why just be for womens rights??? Why not be for EVERYONES rights... stop inequality in all its forms and not just the ones relevant to you... you know??? Whether its man on women discrimination or woman know men discrimination its the same thing and it should be opposed COMPLETELY... not just one part of it... thats what i think...
Adra, low blood pressure?
Lauren, don't worry, it doesn't sound like you're fine with it, don't worry. I think the only reason this turned into a discussion is that you tried to pass your police of as the good guys who risk their life for their country.
A selected few of them are.
But if all of them had to risk their life all the time, your country would be worse off than a third world country, don't you think? ;)
I just... wanted to get across that just because a black person was shot by a white cop doesnt mean that this was somehow racially motivated or that the victim was innocent... I just feel that people here are judging the situation based on the colors of peoples skin which to me is WRONG... on the other forum theres a rule which says 'accusing others of trolling can be a form of trolling'... accusing others of racism can be a form of racism...
... none of us were there... none of us know what actually happened for sure and people are reacting like this and I just dont think its right... as i was saying the act is the same thing no matter who was involved and... i dont know... i just oppose violence on every level... regardless of age or color or gender or sex or religion or nationality or political opinions or species (i say that for human on animal violence)... its all the same thing to me and its ALL wrong... if someone or something has been shot by a gun then irrespective of EVERY other factor THATS the most important thing that happened...
... and when there are people who think that this is somehow more important than any other act of the same kind because of the skin colors of the people involved thats wrong also...
... as i was saying... idealistic and naive... i kinda expect people to be blind to things like sexuality and skin color because while I think they contribute to who a person is its not ALL they are... and when people act like they matter i get disappointed...
@Aquila: I've never voted in a General UK Election, but I have done in the Welsh Assembly Gov't election- and that has a constituency ballot (for the individual AM who will represent me and my constituency. There are 40 constituencies which makes this pretty local), and a regional ballot (for the parties or independent candidates who get seats for my region. There are five regions, though, and 4 AMs for each, so this is less local, and there are fewer regional seats overall. Also I think regional seats are actually allocated partially based on constituency seats, so the more constituency seats your party got, the harder it is to get any extra seats through the regional vote as well). That maybe sounds a bit similar to what you're describing for Germany? One for a party, one for a person - and they don't both have to be the same?
I'm told that the House of Lords is improving..? I don't know much about this, but I think lots of them got kicked out, and it's now mostly 'experienced politicians', rather than people who got there purely because of their wealth/class/family/whatever. Don't know about this, though. Still don't know that I agree with it, either. Some older people seem to, though, idk?
I agree that we shouldn't identify people based on their sexuality or their gender or their skin colour or their ethnicity or their religion - I agree that we should be able to say 'a person got shot today' if somebody got shot regardless of who they are and what features.they were born with. I agree that those things shouldn't matter.
But I think the fact of the matter is that in current society - those things do matter to an awful (and I mean awful in the negative sense, here) lot of people. And most of us do see 'black' and 'Asian' and 'gay' and 'Muslim', possibly because that's what society points out to us. We have to remind people that somebody is black or gay or transgender or Muslim because otherwise we picture them as straight white cisgender Christians/atheists. If somebody says "Danny's ugly" somebody else turns around and says, "no, she's not", because you fight a misjudgement by countering it. If somebody says 'Black peop should die" we need somebody else to turn around and say "no, they shouldn't". So I don't think that just dropping those words and labels when we talk about people will change the prejudices held against them. I agree that we shouldn't need them, but I think that currently we do?
I don't think that if we all stop saying 'women get paid less than men', women will start to get paid equal to men. I don't think that if we change 'a black man got shot today' to 'a person got shot today' it will stop black men from getting shot disproportionately to people of other colour and sex (And in the US it IS out of proportion. I don't have figures for the sexes, but according to the BBC, 30% of victims of police violence in the US are black. Only 13% of the US population is black. If people didn't discriminate against colour, both figures would be around 13%. Racism accounts for one figure being more than double the other.)
So I personally agree with 'black lives matter' and 'gay pride' and 'feminism' and 'support trans people' and all of these minority groups asking for more because they have less. And it's not saying 'our group is better than yours', it's not saying you shouldn't support each group of people, it's not 'black lives matter and white ones don't' (and if they are saying those things they're doing it wrong); it's saying 'we exist too' and 'people discriminate against us' and 'this needs to change'. It's not saying the majority groups shouldn't get treated well, but the majority groups don't get shot or enslaved or killed or locked up just for being a majority - and those are things that minority groups have gone through and go through - just because of the group they're in. It's about asking to be more equal, not to be more than equal. IMHO, it's not discrimination to say 'we aren't being treated fairly, and we should be' and it's not discrimination to say 'they aren't being treated fairly and they should be', either.
From my observations personally (and Britain is guilty for this too, especially with racist hate figures visibly rising since Brexit), it seems that there are always always always people who comment on these events saying 'serves the n*****s right' and 'they deserve it, for what they are' and 'send em back where they came from' - and I think until that gets straightened out, simply taking the adjectives about race and gender and religion out of our vocabulary would hinder and not help the problem.
(Not ranting at anyone in particular, that's just how I've personally come to understand these things. Once again, sorry for all the words. :))
Sorry that was about 4 times longer than I expected
Um.
*hugs everyone*
*goes off to be quiet, maybe*
My sister has a friend over. Even though he is only 8, the kid's a real prick even at this age. He keeps telling my sister to do bad/nasty things and the annoying part is, he whispers it as well, thinking we can't hear it. The parents have no idea how to raise a child, that thing has become apparent. As well as that, unless something tragic happens in the future, he'll be a right cunt in a few years. I raised my voice and told him off because he kept kicking my door in. He does not understand the concept of behaving and it is definitely due to the lack of discipline he has received. Now, I will be straight and honest with my parents. They will either prevent my sister from being influenced by this kid and meeting up with him or I guarantee I will permanently disable him sometime in the future.
((@Fera: I grew up with friends like that, and I like to think I'm not a massive dick nowadays? It didn't influence me in the least, probably because I was given an OK sense of what morally is right and wrong? Our entire personality isn't based on how one friend acts. I'd say teach the sister to respect others, instead of taking a friend away from her. :/
Also, my childhood asshole/friend had an older brother who was REALLY polite and respectful, so it might not be just how he gets raised/disciplined, too.))
@Fwra: Because that'll give the kids a good influence.
@Taia: Agreed. :) :)
@Lauren: Don't get me wrong, most of us don't LIKE to talk about these things through the light of race. When someone dies, it's a tragedy no matter their skin colour. But if people are dying BECAUSE OF their race, then ignoring it and going "well it's a tragedy" will not stop the racism happening.
It's like how in schools they tell you that if you see someone being bullied and you ignore it and don't help them, you're contributing to the problem.
(I shall save my rant about anti-bullying propaganda for another day).
Problems don't go away if you ignore them.
And the best way to address them is to speak up about them.
Yeah, it is tough. To try and get rid of racism one usually has to focus on race. Bit weird and paradoxical. When one encounters this paradox, I this j the thing to do is think "what causes the most racism here, focusing on race or ignoring it and letting the racism continue?" and go with whichever you think is the least damaging option.
Really, there will never be any way to 100% get rid of racism unless we breed humans to all have the same skin colour. Where diversity exists, discrimination exists. The object of the game is just yobtry and reduce it as much as possible. Some may say it's pointless and hopelessz but if it helps more people than it harms, it's worth it.
So yes, focusing on race in order to protest against racism is, in some ways, racist. But a lot of people would argue that these tactics are the best way to reduce racism.
TL;DR - I think you're right in a lot of ways but I respectfully disagree in others.
Just gonna say now - I love debating and discussion, and if I've upset you somehow I'm sincerely sorry; it wasnt intentional. Just leaving this disclaimer because I do make a habit of unintentionally upsetting people.
Also I would like to point out that fmas you can't have gender equality for only one gender, it is technically for men's gender equality as well, assuming the movement sticks to the definition on the banner. And feminism can't POSSIBLY fight for racial and economic equality as well as gender equality all at the same time z because then it would be too purposeless. Imo, you need specific movements to target specific things. It's like how you have Save the Wale and Save the Panda and Save the Rainforest - specific causes and specific plans so specific useful tasks can be undertaken - instead of Save All Things Everywhere, which is really too vague . . . I mean, their aim is so broad that it'd be hard to identify what specifically needs to be done and things would slip through the net.
The idea is that you believe in equality and then support multiple causes, OR devote yourself to one cause so you can give it your all and then let others devote themselves to equally good causes so each one gets full-on devotion. It's like how you only do a Physics degree at uni instead of trying to do a Physics degree, a History degree and an Fine Art degrees all at the same time.
People are limited resources . . .we have limited devotion, attention, time and money. That's why abolishing feminism andbrellaving it with "equality for all!" doesntbreally work.
^in my opinion
^and replacing
Also
#equalityofopportunity
I DON'T BELIEVE IN EQUALITY OF OUTCOME
But I was writing in a rather simplified manner so my main point didn't get lost.
(*rolls in*)
I don't give a shit in all honesty. If he grows up to be polite, that's good. If he becomes a pricks and does stuff that has bad influence on my sister and pisses me off, I'll break the fucker's arm, at least.
(*pops in*)
(*cuddles chloe*)
Michael: If she's happy then I'm okay with that. And I'll be out in the woods, so it won't affect me? I'll be fine. I'll be in my element.
*shrugs*
A happy ending for us both.
Tresha: I suppose so.. Just be careful okay?
*agrees with what Star said, and thinks she put it into a words a lot better than I did*
@Star: Been meaning to ask this, if you don't mind. What's the difference between equality of opportunity and of outcome? Why one and not the other?
It was because I've been restricting.
..
Adra is 5'0". She is very petite, and weighs around 70 pounds. Her hair is very long, too, and the kind of white that Kerli Koiv has. Her hair is so beautiful- naturally wavy, though she frequently straightens it. She was born in 1586, in what would eventually be Estonia. Her appearance is very Scandinavian- pale blue eyes, the color the she sky on a rainy day, when the clouds break; very clear, snowy skin too, like spilled milk.
She has a few scars that mar her skin, but is otherwise clear of moles and freckles. She has a small scar on the side of her neck, where her neck meets her shoulders. Her other scar is on her sacrum, and is a bit longer.
Yeah, she is super tiny.
She likes to be carried around :3
of course i am talking 7-10 years in the future. not right now. i understand he's a kid. just saying i won't tolerate anyone messing with my sister, in the future.
(*cuddles Jai*)
Flauros: you'll miss her...
ALys: I I will
gonna go to work now. see yall
(*cuddles back*)
Michael: I miss a lot of people Flauros. Again, you can't let it stop you.
*looks almost sad, almost wise*
If I'd let grief and missing people stop me then I'd have died aged eight.
Tresha: good.. Good.
((Because, as an adult, assaulting a kid is absolutely legal and completely morally unquestionable. >.>
With all due respect, breaking his arm won't make him polite, it'll just make him a injured fucker who just learned how to break somebody's arm and whose idea that violence + disrespect are OK just got reinforced a bit.))
*waves to Jai and Chloe*
Flauros: you have a chance to be happy
Alys: *cradles Charloote*
(*cuddles Taia*)
But yeah, she prides herself on how unique she looks...
She was born with black hair, but practicing alchemy drained the color- so it is white, now.
Yeah
A secret part of her loves to stand out in a crowd
Though the only person who matters is Alastair ❤️
(*waves to Taia*)
Michael: Flauros I can't just.. Stay here. I hate being in one place for a long length of time, I need to be out in the woods. I'll still be visiting her..
Tresha: *looks at the baby*
There could be other reasons why theres a disproportionate amount of black people who are victims of police violence... I really truly mean no offence by this im just brainstorming but maybe because of social/economic reasons there are a disproportionate amount of black people who get involved in crime and put police in a situation where they need to use violence... or maybe its repeat offenders (this wouldnt work obviously if the police violence made people die :()... I just think that there are 2 sides of every story... and because everyone is focusing on just 1 doesnt mean the other one is any less true and thats what I was trying to get across before when I was making out the cops to be the good guys... my point is that just because a victim of police violence happens to be black doesnt mean its racist or part of some invisible war against ethnic minorities which people are making it sound like... theres always another side and always more factors to consider...
... I guess part of me expects people to be like me and think it shouldnt matter what color someones skin is and maybe im too optimistic about everyone i probably am because im hugely naive and I want the world to be perfect but my opinions dont really carry a huge amount of weight in an imperfect world where gender and skin color do matter to some people and where there is racism and sexism and everything else so you know you can just ignore me ;)
Eh, Fera. Instead of treating your sister like some poor little thing that will do whatever she's told... why don't you attempt making her more confident? Teach her to stand up for herself and what she thinks is right, and she'll never get in trouble because of an idiot friend.
And if you want to be VERY sure, teach her how to punch and kick, too. ;P
Lauren, I'm SURE it's because of socio-economic backgrounds.
Question is, how did they end up with a generally worse one?
Flauros: Se needs consistency. how about staying ad goig on trips?
Alys: want to hold her?
Michael: *shakes his head slowly*
No.. I can't Flauros.
Tresha: me?!
@Noelle: :)
"the color of the sky on a rainy day, when the clouds break" :o
*huggles Chloe*
It is!
:0
I sent a story to Alastair the other day.. Lemme post it
It was from my pov
Flauros: everyone makes sacrifices
Alys: *smiles* yes
(hmm I should be posting chapter II of my new blog soon ^.^)
@Lauren: Sure, but imo the social/economic circumstances will also be due to racism, just in different places or times. I understand what you're saying, though. :)
"I swear, people are just like those ouroboros things. We just bite into ourselves and rip ourselves apart and then wonder why we are in such a state" - Star, Jan. 11th, 2015
This is one of my favorites
(That's a really nice bit of writing Noelle.)
Michael: *looks at Flauros*
They do. The question is, what are they sacrificing. I'm 16 Flauros, I'm not ready.
Tresha: I'll drop her..
That's awesome Noelle!)
Flauros: I sacrificed immortality
Alys: n not if you hold her like this
@Lauren: Yeah, a lot of the reason black people get disproportionately killed is because police focus on poor areas. However, I think a lot of people also subconsciously perceive black people as more threatening. There is stuff and things proving this out there on t'internet, but I CBA to find it. XD If you want me to go and hunt, just say.
@Taia: Okay, imagine you need to employ ten people.
Equality of opportunity: Everyone is allowed to apply for this job regardless of race gender or whatever. Their applicants all get looked at and the jobs are given to who the employers deem the best people for the job.
Equality of outcome: Well, half thebworld is male and half is female, so they employ five men and five women. Ten per cent of the population is black so one person must be black.
If you implement equality of outcome, it could be that a better candidate is rejected because of their gender or whatever. It is unfair.
So if someone suggested lowering the physical requirements in the military so that more women could get in, I'd disagree. If a woman's good enough, she should DAMN WELL be allowed to get in. That's equality of opportunity. But if someone isn't good enough, then whatever their gender, they shouldn't get the job.
However I DO like representation in the media. The media is a little different . . . I mean, you're allowed to discriminate between actors based on their skin colour and hair colour and accent and all sorts.
Of course the counterargument is that white males have a natural advantage because people are biased towards them (true. Been proven. Once again, just shoutbif you want me to hunt). But I don't think quotas are the answer. I think the answer is something that my local council do - when one applies for a Council job, they take the front page off your application so the people rating your application don't know your name, gender, race etc. I think that's completely brilliant. <3 Wish everyone did that. :(
(I saw this illustration
there are three people of various heights trying to look over a fence
it showed that giving each a box to stand on, despite the snortest still not being able to see, was equality...
the other part showed the same three people with different numbers of boxes but could all see, that's equity)
Michael: You sacrificed immortality for Tresha
*nods*
But.. I'm not ready Flauros. Not for "love" and not for Alys.
Tresha: Right.. O-okay..
@Noelle: Did I seriously say that??????
Wow. I always sound cooler when I look back on myself years later. :P
https://inclusiveactioneverydaylives.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/40824_176008489215668_1643818166_n1-e1367896308468.jpg
Flauros: well she wont be here forever
Ays: *hands over Charlotte*
Michael: I know..
Tresha: *looks down at the baby, kinda terrified*
Flauros: youre losing her
Charlotte: *looks up at her and giggles*
Say, anyone up to some killer bananas? I think we're all here. (And new people are very welcome. ^^)
(Watching a Pointless Celebrities repeat & James and Oliver Phelps are on together :))
@Chloe: Are ya writing a new story? ^^
@Noelle: Oh my gosh, your descriptions of colour are gorgeous. :0
You did, Star
@Chloe: Well you seeee . . .
Really that's an oversimplification. Tbh "equality of outcome v. equality of opportunity" is an oversimplification, come to mention it.
I went to a summer school on Tuesday and Wednesday, and one of the girls there was in a wheelchair. People had to help her lift her wheelchair down the stairs ABD stuff, and help push her when her arms got tired (it wasn't motorised). And she got to use the lift whereas we had to use the stairs.
Technically, going to all the extra effort to deal withbher wheelchair is equality of outcome. If we'd aimed for equality of opportunity, we'd have taken her chair off her and said if she couldn't crawl fast enough to keep ul then she'd just get left behind and that's tough. Obviously I don't believe in that.
However, by aiming for equality of outcome and giving her a wheelchair and helping her move from place to place, we that actually made it possible to grant herbequakity of opportunity . . . she wouldn't have been able to come to the summer school if she hadn't had the extra help to compensate for her disability.
So yeah, in terms of qualifications and jobs, YES to equality of opportunity and NO to equality of outcome. But when it cones to completing everyday tasks, YES to equality of outcome and NO to equality of opportunity.
Maybe I should just stop saying I support equality and start saying I only support it in certain instances. XD Which will make me seem like some intolerant jerk when I'm not, but hey, getting used to that.
Michael: I lose a lot of people.
*shrugs*
Love isn't my priority. You won't convince me to stay Flauros.
Tresha: h-hey baby..
I suppose it really depends on your priorities.
With jobs, you want the best person. Hence discrimination against the less able is just what's required.
However, you want everyone to be able to complete everyday tasks like going to the toilet. You don't want only the people who are best at going to the toilet to do it ABD those who are terrible at it to find something better to do.
The nature of equality you desire depends upon the end goal.
Huh. Epiphany.
(That I am Taia
its 'through the flames')
Flauros: Fine.. maybe for the best. Maybe se and Archer will work out
Charlotte: *tries touching her face*
@Chloe: I mean, equality of outcome seems good in that particular example. But imagine if they said "Okay, so person A is shit at maths (they're better at English), person B is alright, and person C is the next Einstein. Therefore we're going to teach B, leave A to their own devices, and give A extra tutoring till they have maths coning out of their ears. At the end, they'll all get about the same score and we'll have achieved equality."
Bad idea, yes?
^C
Michael: I hope so, for her sake.
Tresha: *gently raises her up slightly, bowing her head*
(I love hearing your opinion Star ^>^ Its niice to have an alterntive opinion
do English lit XD)
Flauros: but she wont be completely happy. But hey, at least someone will be there for her. SHe has been lonely for most of her life. With her parents being slaughtered and skinned infront of her
Charlotte:*pats her head
I think I remember saying that about the ouroboros, you know.
Can't remember when, though.
I think that was one of the moments when I remember that humanity is really rather shitty.
Since Brexit I've had everyday reminders of that. XD
(Winston Churchill once said that democracy is the worst form of government apart from everything else we've tried so far, and he was so right.)
Michael: *looks away, his voice quiet*
Stop it.
Tresha: *laughs quietly*
Thanks bud
Flauros: Stop what?
Alys: *smiles* she l likes you
Charlotte: *chews on Tresha's hair*
Michael: stop trying to guilt trip me by mentioning her parents.
Tresha: Hey there, don't eat that.
*gently removes her hair from Charlottes mouth, offering her pinky finger as a substitue*
@Chkoe: Thank you. :) :)
I love hearing opinions in general . . . opinions are beautiful. <3
I can't do English Lit, I'm afraid. I'm becoming a physicist now, which apparently involves a lot of high level banter directed as students of other subjects. XD
Flauros: I Wouldn't do that
Charlotte: *sucks on her finger*
^at
Michael: *glares at him slightly*
Look, I have my entire life to settle down and think about relationships.
Tresha: There you go
Flauros: You may never meet someone like Alys
Charlotte: *makes happy noises*
Gotcha, Star. Thanks. :)
But like... Somebody with a speech impediment might be considered to be less qualified to work as a waiter or on a shop floor, because their job relies on speaking to people - which, by definition of their disability, they would be less able to do. So equality of opportunity would not get them the job. But they can talk and might well be very sociable and could have been awesome in one of those jobs, so... Would you agree with that outcome?
Sounds like your local council has a nice system. :)
PART ONE
DISCLAIMER: I hope that no one feels like I’m targeting them/their argument with what I’ve said below, I’m truly not and don’t want my words to come across like that. But I've been reading the comments these last few days and thought that voicing my thoughts might be good, seeing as America is my other home and I studied American Studies at university and so know a lot of factual and academic arguments.
------
The thing about the shootings is that the racial aspect is unavoidable and needs to be acknowledged. Sure, the most recent shootings may not have been racially motivated, but the BlackLivesMatter hashtag started because African-Americans have a highly probability of 1. being the target of police investigation, 2. being violently attacked by police, and 3. being killed by police. That is a fact that cannot be denied - white people just don't have as much of a rift with police as minorities do (that is not to say that white people don't, they still definitely do). And so although it is false to say that the recent shootings were racially motivated (as that is something that will never be known), the fact that they have a racial ASPECT is true.
As so, you have to observe the racial aspect of the situations to fully understand them. Yes, there is a problem with police shootings full-stop. It happens far too frequently and America needs to sort it out. But, facts show that police shoot more minorities than white people and the reason is that it's the sociology and psychology of it all.
There is an image of black people in America that is racist and disgusting. They are labelled as uneducated, unintelligent, inherently violent, anti-establishment, and worth less than white people. Although a large percentage of the population don’t believe in this image and actively campaign and protest against it, an (arguably equal) percentage of Americans agree with the image and believe it. Some people accept the image and let it settle into their brains without them even knowing. Some people accept the image, acknowledge it, but don’t act upon it. Some people acknowledge the image and act upon it - be it in verbal, physical, sexual, political, or institutional attacks. As such, due to America’s racial climate, some people have been nurtured to accept a preconceived idea of black people and how to act in response to them.
[...]
Michael: I know. But I can't let that stop me Flauros.
*rolls off the bed, standing up*
Tresha: cute..
*smiles*
PART TWO
In the video from Alton Sterling’s shooting, you can see that the cop is distraught and overwhelmed with what had just happened. He shouts “FUCK!” over and over and seems genuinely upset that he shot Alton.
But.
You have to ask whether the event would have gone the same way if Alton had been white. And, honestly, if you weigh up everything, it does heavily lean towards ‘No’. Alton had been pulled over for a busted tail-light. That’s it, nothing criminal. Broken tail-lights are routine and innocent. And so the cop shouldn’t have had any preconceived ideas that the driver would be dangerous or violent. The fear that the cop had had to come from somewhere. If Alton had had his gun out and/or was verbally attacking the officer, then the fear would be slightly more understandable (not to the extent that it would be okay for him to shoot Alton, however). The fear wouldn’t have come from the woman on her phone in the passenger seat, or the little girl sat in the back of the car. The fear wouldn’t have come from Alton either, seeing as he was complying with the cop by reaching for his ID to hand it over, whilst informing the police officer that he was indeed carrying a weapon (which is a very logical thing to do in such a situation). Therefore, the fear must have come from the cop’s perception of the event - which is where the image of black people comes into play. If someone has been lead to believe that a black person is violent and unpredictable and hates cops, they would therefore be wary of an armed black man that they have pulled over. Warning bells labelled ‘Racial Prejudice’ go off in that person’s mind and cause them to feel threatened, even if the person in front of them is entirely innocent. And, if that person is an armed cop from a trigger-happy society, the result can be the death of an innocent person.
The cop in Alton Stirling’s shooting may not be racist. Hell, he may be anti-racist. But it is inarguable that racial prejudice has wormed its way into his mind to the extent that it can affect his actions and cause him to fatally shoot an innocent man. As such, you have to acknowledge the racial aspect of Alton Sterling’s death.
[...]
Because from my POV, equality of opportunity should, er, give everyone equal opportunity to reach a goal. So, somebody with a disability is able to get the same job as somebody without - if the rest of their CV were identical. Isn't that the whole point? ^^
PART THREE
Now, the cops in Philando Castile’s shooting are different to the cop from Alton Sterling’s shooting. Although it is somewhat arguable that the aforementioned cop may have feared for his life (given that he was alone and that Alton was not restrained and therefore had the ability to access his gun), the cops from Philando’s shooting had pinned him to the ground. Two fully grown and quite stocky men had pinned an equally grown and stocky guy to the ground. Therefore, it’s clear that the police in this situation had the upper hand. And, although it’s quite highly unlikely that Philando was reaching for his gun (as video footage had shown), even if he had been there was no need to shoot him in order to stop him. Of course, I was not involved in the situation and it is wrong to simply go off video footage from witnesses, however it’s clear that seeing as Philando was restrained in such a way, he was of no real threat to the officers even if he WAS reaching for the gun. (Additionally, the fact that both cops’ cameras suspiciously got “dislodged” in the situation undoubtedly points to the fact that they may genuinely be in the wrong and not have been justified in shooting Philando - but that’s another point entirely).
As such, Philando’s shooting once again highlights the issue of the preconceived ideas of black people in America that comes as a result of their negative image. If Philando had been a white woman that acted in the exact same way, it’s highly viable to argue that there wouldn’t have been a shooting. If Philando had been a white man, it is once again less likely that the police would have shot him. This is because of racial prejudice that has become ingrained in parts of society.
However, once again, this is not to say that either of these shootings were racially MOTIVATED, just that they have a racial ASPECT which influenced their outcome.
[...]
PART FOUR
(Probably) unrelated to the recent shootings, but equally important, is the issue of the ‘God Complex’ in American police (it happens in police all-round the world, but it’s most potent and arguably most dangerous in America). This is where people believe that they have the power to do whatever they want - including deciding whether someone should live or die. This is an extremely dangerous complex to have regardless, but it is made more dangerous given other factors. If they are in a position of institutional power, i.e. a police officer, it’s worse. If they believe there is a societal hierarchy, i.e. racism, it’s worse. And so, if there is a racist cop who has a God Complex, violence - like police shootings - is a possible outcome. And in that case, some police shootings/asphyxiations/attacks are definitely racially motivated - no denying it. Sometimes they just are. Just like the fact that sometimes they aren’t racially motivated.
And the thing is, you can't judge the situation unless you were there - so you can't say "the police may have feared for their life" or "the police didn't fear for their life", or “the attack was not racially motivated” or “the attack was racially motivated”. Unless you're involved or an unbiased witness, it's difficult to fairly judge the situation and make calls. But, the fact that black people are more likely to be the victim of police brutality – i.e. violence from an institution that can sometimes have a significant level of racial prejudice and undeniably employs workers with God Complexes - makes highlighting the racial aspect of the deaths of black people at the hands of police officers important. Unfortunately given the societal climate, saying “I don’t think race comes into it” is illogical because there is a significant possibility that it does.
And so, as much I would love labels to not be used, or to be used in simply a factual, informative manner completely void of prejudice…the world just isn’t like that. It’s important to say “Black man killed by police officer” because - as a result of the world and society - the race of the victim has a distinct possibility of having been considered in the mind of the cop when they decided whether or not to pull the trigger. Saying “Man killed by police officer” doesn’t help because the racial aspect of some crimes needs to be acknowledged before anything will change. Not saying the victims race won’t stop racism, it will just hide it when, in this climate, people need to be aware of it.
[...]
Flauros: You're a fool
Alys: She I is..
(Hello Flora)
Some fine examples of high level banter from physicists:
My undergraduate tour guide from Birmingham: That's the Arts building. We frown down upon them. And the *something* Tower is that, uh, tower behind you, which belongs to social sciences. We scowl down on them as well.
Lecturer from Birmingham: Does anyone here do chemistry? Come on, don't be shy. It is a proper science, after all. Unlike biology.
My physics teacher from school: Well, biology isn't really science, it's mostly data collection.
Lecturer from Birmingham: My wife, who has an English degree - someone has to - gets annoyed at me for saying mini Big Bang.
Lecturer from Cambridge: I think that all science is really one thing anyway, and that thing is called physics.
It's really bad. XD
PART FIVE
Also, I completely agree. Gun violence in general is a big problem in America. There is a horrific number of mass shooting each year and it’s getting worse. But, that is just another problem that stems from a whole group of problems. Gun accessibility. Lack of background checks. Inadequate mental health support. Homophobia. Transphobia. Ill-aimed patriotism. All of these are problems in America and the wider world. But so is racism. And putting “Black man killed by police officer” does not belittle the problem of gun violence, but instead highlights two significant issues - racism and gun violence - and how they can sometimes come in tandem and can sometimes exacerbate one another.
Once again, please don’t take this as me attacking anyone or anyone's views, I just believed that I should raise my own views due to my experience in, knowledge of, and research regarding police brutality, racism, and gun violence. I just wish to broaden the consideration of the situations because I personally believe that one should not discount the racial element of police shootings.
(Also please do not view this as anti-police or think that I hate cops and think they’re all bad – I really don’t. I just think that there is a bigger picture that should be acknowledged.)
-----------
[Also, just a side note – true feminism means equal rights for everyone, and doesn’t just focus on women. Movements such as #BlackLivesMatter, feminism, and LGBTQ rights aren’t saying that the people they represent are the only ones that should receive support, they’re just highlighting the fact that, due to social history, these groups of people are lacking on the equality and justice scale and need help attaining the level that whites/men/cis people have. Sure, sometimes people from these movements don’t believe that the people that suppressed them should have rights, and sometimes the movements are inaccurately represented in the media as vicious groups. BUT, at the core of the movements is a drive for equality of all.]
END
(Sorry for taking up so much space haha)
Michael: Maybe. But that's my mistake to make.
*grabs his shoulder tightly*
Look after the girls.
*lets go, walking to the door*
*pokes his head out to check Dustin isn't anywhere in sight*
Tresha: How are you holding up, with the kid?
Hey Inky :) And hey everyone else :)
How're you all?
@Star: Yay, another physicist! :) Haha, that does seem to be the case - my favourite physics teacher used to call chemistry 'noddy science' and his doctorate was in chemistry XD
:) Thank you, Flora. You've spoken really well.
@Taia: No, they shouldn't get the job. The END GOAL, when offering a job, is to get the BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB. If that person cannot fulfill those requirements, they shouldn't get the job.
It's like how you can't really be in the infantry if you're disabled. And you can't really be an accountant if you're terrible at maths.
(Hey flower.
Next Page: https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?postID=8780631861984382478&blogID=1104475307058729066&isPopup=true&page=11 )
(aaaand chapter 2 is up!)
Flauros: Wait! *Shouts* TRESHA!!!
ALys: I'm o okay.. *hears the screaming*
@Taia: :) :)
Thank you, Jai. :)
Michael: *flinches at the shout, covering his SENSITIVE fox ears*
OW! What the HELL!
Tresha: *looks in the direction of the shout*
I'm being summoned.
*gently hands Charlotte back*
*walks to Michael's room*
ALys: *holds Charlotte*
Flauros: I think you need to talk to my Fiance
Michael: *glares at Flauros angrily*
Flauros I'm DONE talking!
Tresha: *stands in the doorway, having just arrived*
Yes Flauros?
Flauros: he is leaving
Tresha: *looks at Michael*
Michael.. I really don't think you're making a good choice here.
Michael: for Christ sakes I'm a grown man, I know what I'm doing!!!
Flauros: I don't think you do
Wow. Wonderfully argued, Flora. I can only agree with all of that. Thank you for educating us. :)
Also hi! It's super to see you, how're you doing?
@Star: Do they not still only offer Natural Sciences @ Cambridge, rather than each science individually? Cause I'd have thougt they'd be a little more open to the others, given that you have to study them. :P
@Jai: Thanks for the page link! :)
@Taia: Yeah, they only offer natural sciences.
You'd think so, but that lecturer was DEFINITELY physicist, and she wasn't quiet about it either. XD
Michael: Ughn
*shoves past Tresha, storming down the corridor*
Tresha: *sighs*
Send Dustin after him..
Dustin: *steps infront of Michael* I heard the screaming.. better stop before the baby cries
Michael: Tell Flauros that, he's the one shouting.
*shoves past Dustin*
@Star: But then, where's the equality coming into it? By this logic, the person with the speech impediment can't get a stable job involving speaking because somebody else gets it each time. Can't work in an office because of the phones, can't get a job involving meetings, can't teach or lecture. Hell, even being a bin-man requires communication with your colleagues. Doesn't seem very equal if somebody with a stutter struggles to get even a minimum wage job. ^^
Dustin: *grabs his shoulder*
Michael: Let. Go.
*glares at Dustin*
Dustin: Youre going to leave
@Taia: Well, they um, thing, stuff, sorry too tired. Um . . .
Um . . .
If it's . . . interfering with everyday . . . communication . . . then . . . different. Um . . . thing . . . tackling . . . different.
XD I might be a bit too out of it to talk to this with discussion today.
Michael: Yes, I am. Now let go.
As someone who studies biology... not all sciences are created equal. >.>
And social sciences are... a lot less scientific. For obvious reasons - you're bound by ethics, big time. If you want to learn about humans, but experiments are not an option, then yeah.
Dustin: Alys is a fine catch, you know. *chuckles evily* I would go for her myself if I wasn't already completely in love with someone else
That was an awesome definition of feminism, Flora. Thank you
Tresha: *frowns*
Michael: *growls, shoving him into the wall*
She in not a "catch". Show some damn respect you weasel.
(PSYCHOLOGY IS A SCIENCE IN SOME ASPECTS BUT IN OTHERS IT ISNT
IT SHOULDNT BE THOUGH
I HAD TO WRITE A BLOODY ESSAY ON IT AND ITS CONFUSING)
@Aquila: Yeah. No, IMO, biology is not inferior. I just have to pretend it is because banter. XD
And true about social sciences. Unfortunately. I mean not really but. You know. Maybe.
@Chloe: Oh cool. :) Sounds interesting.
Dustin: *holds hands up defensively* whatever.. not as if I'm helping a recovering drug addict or whatever. But I would consider staying *smirks* there are guys here who are dying to get their hands on her
Psychology will never be a science like the natural sciences are.
Because you can't measure someone's mind.
And at the point where you CAN measure someone's mind? It's not psychology, but behavioral biology, biochemistry, chemistry, physics.
The things that are scientific?
ALL things that are scientific?
We have it covered, and we ain't gonna share that cake. ;P
Michael: *grits his teeth*
Well I wish those guys luck, Alys is smart enough to avoid them.
*lets Dustin go*
Just because they like her doesn't mean they get her.
*Is an Anthropology major, so*
Thanks for all the positive responses everyone :) sorry for it being so long - I didn't realise how many comments it would be! Haha but I figured I'd give my two cents on the matter
And I'm great thanks Taia, how're you? How's everything in your life? (That goes to everyone here btw :) )
What Flora said.
(to be a 'science' there is what ou call a 'core' criteria that needs to be met
Control- lab experiments in psychology have control over the variabes
Objectivity- lab experiments are objective
Reliability - many lab experiments in psychology can be repeated to ensure this
Empiricism- psychology lab studies involve direct methods to falsify theories
so in that aspect it is
but a science must also have a shared set of assumptions
the different approaches have the same set of beliefs but these conflict with the beliefs of other approaches
so it isn't
but psychology should not be a science because behaviour is so so complex it needs diversity in explanations of behaviour)
@Aquila: Good point.
I tend to think chemistry is mostly atoms abd biology is mostly cells abd physics is like . . .everything else. Like Hufflepuff.
Right I'm really too tired to communicate well so I might just go to sleep. XD
But my phone needs to charge.
Argh.
But if I'm awake I wibt charge it because I'll be in it.
<looks confused abd tired and conflicted[
Dustin: who says they'll listn to her? what if she gets raped again?
Michael: *narrows his eyes at Dustin*
Tresha, Archer and Flauros won't let that happen again.
(I don't want to be seen as putting down physics but I learned that it may not be as scientific as other science
there are some theories that cannot be tested so therefore cannot be falsified)
Science is all around us... Science is life, one could possibly argue, because it's all around us.
Psychology and other topics may be subjective, but they are scientific in that they are bound by method theory.
Most of the "hard sciences" (chemistry, physics, biology, anatomy, etc) deal with tangible things.
But the mind can't be seen. The brain can, but consciousness can't.
I mean, psychology is analyzing who we are- consciousness and thought can't be denied. Just because we can't see it, or touch it, doesn't mean that the study of it makes it unworthy (regardless of how it /is/ studied, because there are a shit ton of fruit cases out there *cough* Freud and Skinner *cough*)
Personally, I don't think that that makes psychology any less of a science
Control - meaning a control group. An untreated comparison.
Objectivity - nothing is objective if you can't measure it. Because where does 'sad' for example start, and where does it end? And how much 'sad' is this compared to that?
Reliability - can they be repeated with the same people, too? And do you have large enough sample sets? How do you correct for individual differences? And you only ever get volunteers, so your samples are never entirely representative, either...
EMPIRIC things are NOT scientific. Medicine is empiric. Medicine is not a science.
If something is empiric, it just means 'we noticed that it always works like that'.
And THEN you have the 'problem' that you can't apply, let's say, some standared traumatising experience to some healthy people to see what happens next. Cause er... that'd be a horrible thing to do.
Dustin: *shrugs* why don't you protect her?
Right I'm sorry but my own internal definition of science is just "the scientific method." Finding ohtabouf the world by testing stuff and reducing what doesn't work. I would give a really nice definition here but I'm too tired so I hope you kind of get what I'm on about.
So in my mind, a science is just a subject that applies said scientific method to a particular area. However over years abd years people have found out so much shit&stuff that people have to, when teaching in schools, teach all the stuff that everyone else has sound out first which really tends to end up distracting from the actual science bit because you just end up telling people a load of knowledge without proving it.
Um, I'm sure there was some point I was making here. Yeah um. Maybe. Idk maybe it meant something.
Michael: Because as cruel as this sounds my life does not revolve around her. I have my own life, I'm not her body guard and I know Flauros and Archer will protect her.
@Chloe: YES I need to grab you and like take you around to show you tobphysixsists so you can tell them. XD or I can just tel l them. Yeah physics does lose itself a bit because we get distracted by all the pretty stuff.
So in some ways biology is more of a science than physics. XD as far as I'm aware biologists rarely get lost.
Ah, guys, don't get me wrong. I do think psychology and social sciences matter.
But you're, to me, saying 'estimating is the same as calculating'.
Star: The thing biologists get lost in is ethics.
We have a hard time doing what we need to learn without becoming some horrible monsters. ;P
I have more than one example that most of you guys would consider horrible to do, but that we do to learn.
*tries to pay attention to what Aquila is saying but it's too intelligent and I'm too tired XD* *tries my best*
No problem, Star. xD Was just interested, I don't need an answer or anything. :)
"Mathematics is not a science from our point of view, in the sense that it is not a natural science. The test of its validity is not experiment. We must, incidentally, make it clear from the beginning that if a thing is not a science, it is not necessarily bad. For example, love is not a science. So, if something is said not to be a science, it does not mean that there is something wrong with it; it just means that it is not a science"
Everytime people talk about how sciences relate to each other I just think of this one chapter in Feynman's lectures about how physics relates to each of the sciences and he's such a good exception to the physicists like physics rule and :)
I think my brain works differently..
I just see the world around me as science.
Literally the only thing that removes psychology from being a "hard" science is the fact that it isn't tangible.
Molecules? Biology.
Muscles? Anatomy.
Rocks? Geology.
Asteroids? Astronomy.
Atoms? Physics.
Behavior? Thought? Actions? Beliefs? Culture? Reactions? Psychology.
And, when done properly (and not like the idiots who make up the "reports" about how "climate change doesn't exist"), psychology uses methodology. My mom is a transpersonal psychologist. There are so, SO many rules and pathways that must be gone through in order for something to be published, let alone accepted (just like every other field).
But because psychology is fluid, and changes with culture and age and gender and status and biology, it isn't a "real science". It frustrates me so much.
Alys; *has walked in to the scene unnoticed* w well.. I can c care for myself
(hehehe Star xd At least then I can meet you!
Sorry Aq, I get a bit defensive as some of my friends doing sciences mock me cause psychology apparently isn't a science
There are scientific studies in psychology when you look, I did my own this year and I had to do stat tests and everything)
@Aquila: I would call that less "lost" abd more "trapped." Like we're all walking along a yellow brick road, and psychology gets tangled in a load of underhangibg tree branches, and then biology gets stuck a bit further down, and then physics sees a load of lights through the trees and is like "ooh pretty" and wanders off the road, and chemistry . . . chemistry is the most reliable. XD
"Social Science" is separate academic definition to "Science" as it is more theoretical due to its lack of definite facts. Things like Sociology and Psychology take influence from scientific observation and analysis but throws in human influences and consideration (hence the term "Social Science"). They never fully identify as "Science" but as a branch of the definition. Just wanted to clear up the meaning of the name for people! :)
Michael: *flinches upon hearing Alys, turning to look at her*
Alys..
(*high fives Noelle*)
Psychology isn't a science.
Psychology is still interesting, it still matters, and I'm willing to praise every single psychologist out there trying to standardise it.
But in the end, it stays subjective.
Just look at the amount of mentally healthy people ending up in asylums. For years. Pyschology still messes up big time, whenever one of the psychologists messes up.
And that poor guy tried to appeal to more psychologists, tried to force people to get more opinions on him, all of it. And what happened? The other psychologists looking at his case just looked at what the first one wrote.
They did not speak to the guy.
Psychology is important, but psychology is also dangerous. And psychiatry even more so. You have to be truely desperate to trust a psychiatrist or psychologist with your life. =P
Just... gah. Sorry, but the case of that man? Hit me hard when I heard about it.
Alys: *turns away* m my world doesn't r revolve around you either.. It r revolves around C Charlotte and o only her
I'm good, thanks Flora. Uh, not too confident about how my exams went this year, but I have until mid-August before I have to worry about that again, and it's summer, so *shrugs*. I'm good. :) Thanks for asking. ^^
I just want people who I can be like "your science isn't a proper science!" and they can be like "but your science is stupid and irrelevant abd makes no sense!" and I can be like "yeah true XD".
I think psychology is, at my level,more dismissed as not being proper because it isn't hard. Personally I think ANY subject is hard if you study it properly, but I think that's often the argument.
Just pointing out women can now serve in all British army roles and I'm so pleased but I'm so disappointed that it's only happened now. :(
Sorry that was just on the news.
Michael: *winces very very slightly at that*
Good.. She deserves a mum who is fully devoted to her and not to some guy.
Thank you Flora. :)
Idk I think if you study psychology like a science then it's a science.
I guess I'm truly desparate then.
... Star, if you study psychology like a science, then you ought to be treated by a psychologist. Cause you'll be harming people. Many, many people over and over.
*desperate
(you have to be desparate to trust a psychologist with your life?
wow)
Adra, that, or you have a very trustworthy one at your hands.
I know it sounds harsh, but I... do not trust them. I still like psychologists better than psychiatrists, because if they make a mistake diagnosing you, then at least they won't drug you.
Just a personal opinion, though.
(I think ill be off
I need to reconsider a few things)
Post a Comment