| |
| ▲ | e40 a day ago | parent | next [-] | | There is always nuance, but that never matters because the headline is all people see and that makes them angry. “Help for 1% of minority farmers” isn’t as juicy and doesn’t further an agenda. | | |
| ▲ | like_any_other 17 hours ago | parent [-] | | There's a million other similar incidents: The city is training white municipal employees to overcome their “internalized racial superiority.” - https://www.city-journal.org/seattle-interrupting-whiteness-... Pennsylvania launched business grants that excluded white-owned businesses* - https://web.archive.org/web/20241218025310/https://dced.pa.g... FAA turned away applicants based on (white) race - https://www.wsj.com/articles/affirmative-action-lands-in-the... Illinois runs a scholarship that excludes white applicants - https://www.ibhe.org/dfiapplicant.html Biden calls white supremacy ‘most dangerous terrorist threat’ in speech at Howard - https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/13/biden-howard-univer... And while government excludes and demonizes them, whites are not even allowed to leave without condemnation and legal threats (only threats so far) - https://www.tmz.com/2025/07/24/arkansas-attorney-general-sla... At some point you just have to believe them when they tell you who they are. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 14 hours ago | parent [-] | | 1. Seattle: The training was optional. Seems not that crazy to offer? 2. Pennsylvania: There are all sorts of programs designed to combat specific problems -- in this case the program was designed to counteract the fact that certain racial groups have been excluded from financial services for a long time. Would you characterize an aid program that only serves veterans to be discriminatory against non-veterans? 3. FAA: You should probably not cite an op-ed as a source, let me know if you'd like to provide another 4. See point (2) 5. Biden was citing the FBI itself, which at the time was led by Trump appointee Chris Wray [https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-12-05_-_...] 6. You're lamenting that people get legal threats for creating obviously discriminatory white-only towns? Welp, thanks for outing yourself. Indeed, at some point you just have to believe them when they tell you who they are. | | |
| ▲ | like_any_other 11 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The training was optional. Seems not that crazy to offer? Crazy or not, if someone starts giving training on how you, specifically can try to be less of a monster, it's reasonable to assume that someone doesn't like you very much. > You should probably not cite an op-ed as a source Here's another source, if the Wall Street Journal is too unreliable for you: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42944203 > creating obviously discriminatory white-only towns Oh, this doesn't count as "combating a specific problem"? Diversity is so great it must be mandatory? Anyway sure you can keep trying to explain this obvious trend away with sophistry, but don't be surprised when others don't stick their heads in the sand with the same enthusiasm as you. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | You don't know what an op-ed is, do you? Look it up! Here, you can type this into your favorite LLM: "what's the difference between an article published by Wall Street Journal and an op-ed published by Wall Street Journal in terms of their expected journalistic quality?" Re the training: did it have anything to do with being a monster, or was it about identifying and counteracting subconscious biases? Do you think subconscious biases don't exist? Do you think having them intrinsically makes you a monster? Re the white-only towns: nobody said diversity is mandatory. Where are you getting that idea? Don't worry, despite the political climate today, people bummed out about the difficulty of creating whites-only towns are few and far between. In a few years you'll be ashamed of your views just like you were a few years ago, and as you should be. |
| |
| ▲ | like_any_other 7 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Biden was citing the FBI itself He chose what to cite, and there's a reason he chose the figure that can most easily be massaged by picking and choosing what counts as terrorism and what doesn't, vs. something objective, like homicide rates. | | |
| ▲ | estearum 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Probably because homicide rates have been going down for decades (with a slight COVID bump which has since diminished) while domestic terrorism rates have been going up for the last several years. I think it's clear based on your advocacy for a whites-only town what you're trying to get at here, but the data doesn't bear it out. Homicide isn't a growing emergency. Domestic terrorism is. That's why the FBI focused on it. |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | like_any_other a day ago | parent | prev [-] | | Oh they could probably swallow one specific program. The problem is that entire side of the political spectrum (not just the Democratic party itself) considers them somewhere between second-class citizen or outright enemy. Another example: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Gz4GMoOW0AAC5M5.jpg | | |
| ▲ | estearum a day ago | parent [-] | | As a straight, white, male I don't really feel that I'm a second-class citizen nor the enemy. Have you considered getting off Twitter for a while? It's not clear to me the federal judiciary should match the composition of the population of lawyers as opposed to the composition of the people whom they judge. In fact as you can see here, Obama appointed people largely similar to what you'd expect to see in the population (without bothering to look into specific geographies). It was Trump who was wildly aberrational. In fact even more aberrational than Biden, who at least has the believable rationale of trying to rebalance the courts after Trump took such a pro-male (76%!!) and pro-white (85%!!) approach. For context, the US is <50% male, and about 60% white. https://www.acslaw.org/judicial-nominations/diversity-of-the... |
|
|
