Total Posts:460|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Female Quality of Life in G20 Countries

royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 11:46:20 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Most people ask me why I have no pride in being born into an Indian family. This is one of the reasons why.

India Declared Worst G20 Country To Be A Woman

KATHERINE BALDWIN

London, England

Policies that promote gender equality, safeguards against violence and exploitation and access to healthcare make Canada the best place to be a woman among the world's biggest economies, a global poll of experts showed on Wednesday.

Infanticide, child marriage and slavery make India the worst, the same poll concluded.

Germany, Britain, Australia and France rounded out the top five countries out of the Group of 20 in a perceptions poll of 370 gender specialists conducted by TrustLaw, a legal news service run by the Thomson Reuters Foundation.

The United States came in sixth but polarized opinion due to concerns about reproductive rights and affordable healthcare.

At the other end of the scale, Saudi Arabia - where women are well educated but are banned from driving and only won the right to vote in 2011 - polled second-worst after India, followed by Indonesia, South Africa and Mexico.

"India is incredibly poor, Saudi Arabia is very rich. But there is a commonality and that is that unless you have some special access to privilege, you have a very different future, depending on whether you have an extra X chromosome, or a Y chromosome," said Nicholas Kristof, journalist and co-author of "Half the Sky: Turning Oppression into Opportunity for Women Worldwide," commenting on the poll results.

The poll, released ahead of a summit of G20 heads of state to be held in Mexico June 18-19, showed the reality for many women in many countries remains grim despite the introduction of laws and treaties on women's rights, experts said.

"In India, women and girls continue to be sold as chattels, married off as young as 10, burned alive as a result of dowry-related disputes and young girls exploited and abused as domestic slave labour," said Gulshun Rehman, health programme development adviser at Save the Children UK, who was one of those polled.

"This is despite a groundbreakingly progressive Domestic Violence Act enacted in 2005 outlawing all forms of violence against women and girls."

TrustLaw asked aid professionals, academics, health workers, policymakers, journalists and development specialists with expertise in gender issues to rank the 19 countries of the G20 in terms of the overall best and worst to be a woman.

They also ranked countries in six categories: quality of health, freedom from violence, participation in politics, work place opportunities, access to resources such as education and property rights and freedom from trafficking and slavery.

Respondents came from 63 countries on five continents and included experts from United Nations Women, the International Rescue Committee, Plan International, Amnesty USA and Oxfam International, as well as prominent academic institutions and campaigning organizations. Representatives of faith-based organizations were also surveyed.

The EU, which is a member of the G20 as an economic grouping along with several of its constituent countries, was not included in the survey.

Canada was perceived to be getting most things right in protecting women's well-being and basic freedoms.

"While we have much more to do, women have access to healthcare, we place a premium on education, which is the first step toward economic independence and we have laws that protect girls and women and don't allow for child marriage," said Farah Mohamed, president and CEO of the Canada-based G(irls) 20 Summit, which organized a youth gathering that took place in Mexico in May, ahead of the G20 leaders' meeting.

Experts were divided on the situation in the United States.

Civil rights and domestic violence laws, access to education, workplace opportunities and freedom of movement and speech were positive. But access to contraception and abortion were being curtailed and women suffered disproportionately from a lack of access to affordable healthcare, some experts said.

"Many of the gains of the last 100 years are under attack and the most overt and vicious attack is on reproductive rights," said Marsha Freeman, director of International Women's Rights Action Watch.

BARRIERS TO DEVELOPMENT

It is more vital than ever to protect women's freedoms at a time of political upheaval in several parts of the world, some experts said.

"Times of political transition, we've learned the hard way, can also be times of fragility, and when rights for women and girls can be rolled back instead of advanced," said Minky Worden, director of global initiatives at Human Rights Watch.

Women's rights are particularly under attack in G20 host country Mexico, which ranked 15th in the survey. Mexico has a culture of male chauvinism, high rates of physical and sexual violence and pockets of poverty where healthcare and other services are no better than in some of the most marginalized communities of Africa, experts said.

Women are also victims of drug-related crime. Some 300 women were killed in 2011 in the violent border town of Ciudad Juarez with almost total impunity, said Amnesty USA.

"The violence affects men and women but often women disproportionately," added Worden. "Mexico is a place where law enforcement remains a challenge, and the government has an obligation to protect women, but often fails in that obligation, as it does to protect men."

Putting women's rights on the global agenda is the key to progress and to effective development, said Kristof. Countries that restrict women's rights and freedoms or fail to protect them from injustices will suffer long-term, socially and economically, he added.

While the poll was based on perceptions and not statistics, U.N. data supports the experts' views.

The Gender Inequality Index (GII), which looks at reproductive health, the labour market and empowerment of women through education and politics, named the same three countries as the worst places for women, although Saudi Arabia ranked the absolute worst in the GII, followed by India.

The GII, however, does not include gender-based violence or other elements such as the fact that many women carry additional burdens of caregiving and housekeeping.

When it came to what country was best, the expert perception did not match U.N. data. The GII ranked Germany, France and South Korea as the top three countries, in that order. Canada came seventh and the United States was in tenth place.

Activists were not surprised by the experts' favourable view of Canada, however.

"Having an understanding of Canadian culture and tracking the work they're doing around violence against women and gender equality, I believe that Canada really has been emerging as a model for what most countries should aspire to for a long time," said Jimmie Briggs, journalist, author and founder of the Man Up Campaign that works to engage youth to stop violence against women and girls.

HOW THEY RANK 1. Canada 2. Germany 3. Britain 4. Australia 5. France 6. United States 7. Japan 8. Italy 9. Argentina 10. South Korea 11. Brazil 12. Turkey 13. Russia 14. China 15. Mexico 16. South Africa 17. Indonesia 18. Saudi Arabia 19. India
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:40:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.

I agree that a double standard exists, and I condemn all ethnic pride. I think it's just pseudo-collectivism that makes people feel better about their failures because someone like them did well. It's a means of attaching oneself to the triumphs of another.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:46:39 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:40:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.

I agree that a double standard exists, and I condemn all ethnic pride. I think it's just pseudo-collectivism that makes people feel better about their failures because someone like them did well. It's a means of attaching oneself to the triumphs of another.

Well people can take prides in accomplishments that are not their own. If one of your friends achieved something significant, you would feel proud for her or him.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:48:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:46:39 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:40:12 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.

I agree that a double standard exists, and I condemn all ethnic pride. I think it's just pseudo-collectivism that makes people feel better about their failures because someone like them did well. It's a means of attaching oneself to the triumphs of another.

Well people can take prides in accomplishments that are not their own. If one of your friends achieved something significant, you would feel proud for her or him.

Actually, I never have.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:49:43 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I've never been proud of anybody else. Even when my siblings when awards or do something noteworthy, I don't really have any emotions. It's not my concern; it's their concern.

Anyways, people aren't proud of the other people. They're leeching off of the other people by claiming association.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:54:12 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.

Its not that weird. The sociological basis for "x pride" where x is in the majority in terms of perceived or real power tends to emphasize a status quo relative to minorities that keep them out of power, focusing efforts on seParation. Minority pride is usually about a community trying to fit into an already antagonistic culture. You see the same thing in nativist movements. For instance, i bet there are very different sentiment to "indian pride" groups in india versus pakistan.

Because of historical perception of these dynamics, ironically "white pride" will continue to be demonized even after whites become a minority.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:56:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Being proud of group accomplishments you have nothing to do with is no less logical than being proud when your favorite sports team wins a nig game.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 12:58:23 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:49:43 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I've never been proud of anybody else. Even when my siblings when awards or do something noteworthy, I don't really have any emotions. It's not my concern; it's their concern.

Anyways, people aren't proud of the other people. They're leeching off of the other people by claiming association.

I find it strange that you think that way, when you yourself are a collectivist (at least philosphically).

Human beings are collectivist beings so they are not just concerned about their own well-beings. If someone close to them accomplishes something, they feel joy just like he/she would feel for his/herself. People that we are close to are almost like extensions of ourselves in a sense. One feel pain when they feel pain. It's just basic empathy. It's not really leaching off someone else. If my father or mother wasn't proud of my accomplishments, I would feel more dissapointed. If they were proud, I wouldn't feel like they were leaching off me.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:04:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:54:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.

Its not that weird. The sociological basis for "x pride" where x is in the majority in terms of perceived or real power tends to emphasize a status quo relative to minorities that keep them out of power, focusing efforts on seParation. Minority pride is usually about a community trying to fit into an already antagonistic culture. You see the same thing in nativist movements. For instance, i bet there are very different sentiment to "indian pride" groups in india versus pakistan.

Because of historical perception of these dynamics, ironically "white pride" will continue to be demonized even after whites become a minority.

Exactly. "White pride" emphasizes the status quo.

And not only that but "white pride" doesn't exactly have a positive historical connotation. The last times it was socially acceptable for white people to have "white pride," they did so at the blatant expense of other races. You seriously can't be shocked that "white pride" is unacceptable. Maybe if white people had a better track record with their "pride," it would be socially acceptable for them to advertise it.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:05:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:56:35 PM, Wnope wrote:
Being proud of group accomplishments you have nothing to do with is no less logical than being proud when your favorite sports team wins a nig game.

I agree with that too. That's why I don't have a favorite sports team :p
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:06:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:54:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.

Its not that weird. The sociological basis for "x pride" where x is in the majority in terms of perceived or real power tends to emphasize a status quo relative to minorities that keep them out of power, focusing efforts on seParation.

A) There are plenty of black seperatists as well.
B) Not necessarily true. Perhaps a preference for race "x" over race "y", but I'd say most people have a social preference for their own ethnicity anyways. You see races mixing with their own race much more then interracial mixing.

Why can't bigons be bigons? If a minority group can have an organizaiton that excludes certain races, why can't a majority group have an organization that excludes certain races as well? There are plenty of other of organizations that the minorities can join, but just not organizaiton "Y".

Of course there are some districts as well in which whites are a minority, but it would still be seen as socially unacceptable.

Minority pride is usually about a community trying to fit into an already antagonistic culture. You see the same thing in nativist movements. For instance, i bet there are very different sentiment to "indian pride" groups in india versus pakistan.

Because of historical perception of these dynamics, ironically "white pride" will continue to be demonized even after whites become a minority.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:07:16 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:58:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:49:43 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I've never been proud of anybody else. Even when my siblings when awards or do something noteworthy, I don't really have any emotions. It's not my concern; it's their concern.

Anyways, people aren't proud of the other people. They're leeching off of the other people by claiming association.

I find it strange that you think that way, when you yourself are a collectivist (at least philosphically).

Human beings are collectivist beings so they are not just concerned about their own well-beings. If someone close to them accomplishes something, they feel joy just like he/she would feel for his/herself. People that we are close to are almost like extensions of ourselves in a sense. One feel pain when they feel pain. It's just basic empathy. It's not really leaching off someone else. If my father or mother wasn't proud of my accomplishments, I would feel more dissapointed. If they were proud, I wouldn't feel like they were leaching off me.

That's what you are supposed to feel, but I've never felt that way.
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:08:34 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Yay! Go India! We're #1! We're #1! We're #1!...in hating women! :D
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:08:36 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:04:13 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:54:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.

Its not that weird. The sociological basis for "x pride" where x is in the majority in terms of perceived or real power tends to emphasize a status quo relative to minorities that keep them out of power, focusing efforts on seParation. Minority pride is usually about a community trying to fit into an already antagonistic culture. You see the same thing in nativist movements. For instance, i bet there are very different sentiment to "indian pride" groups in india versus pakistan.

Because of historical perception of these dynamics, ironically "white pride" will continue to be demonized even after whites become a minority.

Exactly. "White pride" emphasizes the status quo.

And not only that but "white pride" doesn't exactly have a positive historical connotation. The last times it was socially acceptable for white people to have "white pride," they did so at the blatant expense of other races. You seriously can't be shocked that "white pride" is unacceptable. Maybe if white people had a better track record with their "pride," it would be socially acceptable for them to advertise it.

The original point I think Dk was trying to make was that it's no more logical to be proud of your race if you're black then if you're white. It's still collective attachment and race mentality. One could argue that Nazi and other Anglo-racist societies were showing the real consequences of these principles with the fact that they were white being a mere possibility rather than necessity.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:09:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:07:16 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:58:23 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:49:43 PM, royalpaladin wrote:
I've never been proud of anybody else. Even when my siblings when awards or do something noteworthy, I don't really have any emotions. It's not my concern; it's their concern.

Anyways, people aren't proud of the other people. They're leeching off of the other people by claiming association.

I find it strange that you think that way, when you yourself are a collectivist (at least philosphically).

Human beings are collectivist beings so they are not just concerned about their own well-beings. If someone close to them accomplishes something, they feel joy just like he/she would feel for his/herself. People that we are close to are almost like extensions of ourselves in a sense. One feel pain when they feel pain. It's just basic empathy. It's not really leaching off someone else. If my father or mother wasn't proud of my accomplishments, I would feel more dissapointed. If they were proud, I wouldn't feel like they were leaching off me.

That's what you are supposed to feel, but I've never felt that way.

That is really strange....
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:13:32 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:08:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:04:13 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:54:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.

Its not that weird. The sociological basis for "x pride" where x is in the majority in terms of perceived or real power tends to emphasize a status quo relative to minorities that keep them out of power, focusing efforts on seParation. Minority pride is usually about a community trying to fit into an already antagonistic culture. You see the same thing in nativist movements. For instance, i bet there are very different sentiment to "indian pride" groups in india versus pakistan.

Because of historical perception of these dynamics, ironically "white pride" will continue to be demonized even after whites become a minority.

Exactly. "White pride" emphasizes the status quo.

And not only that but "white pride" doesn't exactly have a positive historical connotation. The last times it was socially acceptable for white people to have "white pride," they did so at the blatant expense of other races. You seriously can't be shocked that "white pride" is unacceptable. Maybe if white people had a better track record with their "pride," it would be socially acceptable for them to advertise it.

The original point I think Dk was trying to make was that it's no more logical to be proud of your race if you're black then if you're white. It's still collective attachment and race mentality. One could argue that Nazi and other Anglo-racist societies were showing the real consequences of these principles with the fact that they were white being a mere possibility rather than necessity.

Correct.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:19:38 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:13:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:08:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:04:13 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:54:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.

Its not that weird. The sociological basis for "x pride" where x is in the majority in terms of perceived or real power tends to emphasize a status quo relative to minorities that keep them out of power, focusing efforts on seParation. Minority pride is usually about a community trying to fit into an already antagonistic culture. You see the same thing in nativist movements. For instance, i bet there are very different sentiment to "indian pride" groups in india versus pakistan.

Because of historical perception of these dynamics, ironically "white pride" will continue to be demonized even after whites become a minority.

Exactly. "White pride" emphasizes the status quo.

And not only that but "white pride" doesn't exactly have a positive historical connotation. The last times it was socially acceptable for white people to have "white pride," they did so at the blatant expense of other races. You seriously can't be shocked that "white pride" is unacceptable. Maybe if white people had a better track record with their "pride," it would be socially acceptable for them to advertise it.

The original point I think Dk was trying to make was that it's no more logical to be proud of your race if you're black then if you're white. It's still collective attachment and race mentality. One could argue that Nazi and other Anglo-racist societies were showing the real consequences of these principles with the fact that they were white being a mere possibility rather than necessity.

Correct.

Yeah, that's true. I agree race pride (like mannnnny other kinds of group pride) are silly. But you also seemed confused as to why all races can express pride except whites. I was surprised at your apparent confusion.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:22:42 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:19:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:13:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:08:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:04:13 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:54:12 PM, Wnope wrote:
At 6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.

Its not that weird. The sociological basis for "x pride" where x is in the majority in terms of perceived or real power tends to emphasize a status quo relative to minorities that keep them out of power, focusing efforts on seParation. Minority pride is usually about a community trying to fit into an already antagonistic culture. You see the same thing in nativist movements. For instance, i bet there are very different sentiment to "indian pride" groups in india versus pakistan.

Because of historical perception of these dynamics, ironically "white pride" will continue to be demonized even after whites become a minority.

Exactly. "White pride" emphasizes the status quo.

And not only that but "white pride" doesn't exactly have a positive historical connotation. The last times it was socially acceptable for white people to have "white pride," they did so at the blatant expense of other races. You seriously can't be shocked that "white pride" is unacceptable. Maybe if white people had a better track record with their "pride," it would be socially acceptable for them to advertise it.

The original point I think Dk was trying to make was that it's no more logical to be proud of your race if you're black then if you're white. It's still collective attachment and race mentality. One could argue that Nazi and other Anglo-racist societies were showing the real consequences of these principles with the fact that they were white being a mere possibility rather than necessity.

Correct.

Yeah, that's true. I agree race pride (like mannnnny other kinds of group pride) are silly. But you also seemed confused as to why all races can express pride except whites. I was surprised at your apparent confusion.

I'd say not really confused but more just find it strange. I understand the precedent behind it, but that doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:23:58 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:19:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:13:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:08:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:04:13 PM, Oryus wrote:

Exactly. "White pride" emphasizes the status quo.

And not only that but "white pride" doesn't exactly have a positive historical connotation. The last times it was socially acceptable for white people to have "white pride," they did so at the blatant expense of other races. You seriously can't be shocked that "white pride" is unacceptable. Maybe if white people had a better track record with their "pride," it would be socially acceptable for them to advertise it.

The original point I think Dk was trying to make was that it's no more logical to be proud of your race if you're black then if you're white. It's still collective attachment and race mentality. One could argue that Nazi and other Anglo-racist societies were showing the real consequences of these principles with the fact that they were white being a mere possibility rather than necessity.

Correct.

Yeah, that's true. I agree race pride (like mannnnny other kinds of group pride) are silly. But you also seemed confused as to why all races can express pride except whites. I was surprised at your apparent confusion.

Everyone knows why. Whether it makes any sense is another story. The White history with racism isn't unique to a quality of white people per se, it's simply the logical progression of collective identity. The way to solve it is for everyone to stay away from such a thing, not to prohibit just one group from doing so as if there is something inherent in their race that caused the results rather than it being caused by the principle of collective identity itself.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 1:25:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I don't think any person is capable of being racist, regardless of skin color or whether he/she is a minority or majority. although I suppose that white racist against blacks is a bigger threat then black racist against whites. But it is interesting though what would/will happen once the minority becomes the majority.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Oryus
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:01:13 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:23:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:19:38 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:13:32 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:08:36 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:04:13 PM, Oryus wrote:

Exactly. "White pride" emphasizes the status quo.

And not only that but "white pride" doesn't exactly have a positive historical connotation. The last times it was socially acceptable for white people to have "white pride," they did so at the blatant expense of other races. You seriously can't be shocked that "white pride" is unacceptable. Maybe if white people had a better track record with their "pride," it would be socially acceptable for them to advertise it.

The original point I think Dk was trying to make was that it's no more logical to be proud of your race if you're black then if you're white. It's still collective attachment and race mentality. One could argue that Nazi and other Anglo-racist societies were showing the real consequences of these principles with the fact that they were white being a mere possibility rather than necessity.

Correct.

Yeah, that's true. I agree race pride (like mannnnny other kinds of group pride) are silly. But you also seemed confused as to why all races can express pride except whites. I was surprised at your apparent confusion.

Everyone knows why. Whether it makes any sense is another story. The White history with racism isn't unique to a quality of white people per se, it's simply the logical progression of collective identity. The way to solve it is for everyone to stay away from such a thing, not to prohibit just one group from doing so as if there is something inherent in their race that caused the results rather than it being caused by the principle of collective identity itself.

Well, it's not that it is inherent to the "white race" or whatever (do people think that?). It's that there is a history of it- like you say, the logical progression of collective identity.
: : :Tulle: The fool, I purposely don't engage with you because you don't have proper command of the English language.
: :
: : The Fool: It's my English writing. Either way It's okay have a larger vocabulary then you, and a better grasp of language, and you're a woman.
:
: I'm just going to leave this precious struggle nugget right here.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:05:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 12:32:35 PM, darkkermit wrote:
ethnic pride is kind of a weird thing. Also its socially acceptable for any race to be proud of their race, except whites. If you say you have "white pride", your deemed a racist, but not if you have "asian pride", "hispanic pride", "black pride", etc.

Racial and ethnic pride are two entirely different things. Racial pride is evidentiary of
social discord. Ethnic pride is cultural.

Take, Japanese pride as opposed to Asian pride, or Puerto Rican Pride as opposed to Black pride.

Or, American pride, which we domestically term patriotism.

I'm not saying that I endorse an sort of collectivist mentality... but, that's still an equivocation.
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:06:01 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 1:25:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't think any person is capable of being racist

What do you mean by this?

You don't think that people negatively judge others based on their perceived social designation we term "race?"
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:06:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:01:13 PM, Oryus wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:23:58 PM, socialpinko wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:19:38 PM, Oryus wrote:

Everyone knows why. Whether it makes any sense is another story. The White history with racism isn't unique to a quality of white people per se, it's simply the logical progression of collective identity. The way to solve it is for everyone to stay away from such a thing, not to prohibit just one group from doing so as if there is something inherent in their race that caused the results rather than it being caused by the principle of collective identity itself.

Well, it's not that it is inherent to the "white race" or whatever (do people think that?). It's that there is a history of it- like you say, the logical progression of collective identity.

My point is that it's not only White people who are capable of basing violence, discrimination, etc. off of collective identity. I don't know why it developed that way historically but don't see anything inherent in White people (in fact I think the line is a bit too blurred to even reliably establish race in itself but whatever) to make it so that they have to be shunned from collective identity while no such treatment is given towards minorities who exhibit the same behavior. Take as an analogy murder. Let's say white people commit murder more than anyone. In order to stop murder we don't just stop white people from committing it since everyone is capable of it. It's not inherent to one race, it's a possibility in everyone and so inconsistent application just doesn't make any sense.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:07:08 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:06:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:25:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't think any person is capable of being racist

What do you mean by this?

You don't think that people negatively judge others based on their perceived social designation we term "race?"

I actually screwed it up. I meant to say "I think any person is capable of being racist".
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:09:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:07:08 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 2:06:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:25:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't think any person is capable of being racist

What do you mean by this?

You don't think that people negatively judge others based on their perceived social designation we term "race?"

I actually screwed it up. I meant to say "I think any person is capable of being racist".

???
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:14:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:09:18 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/18/2012 2:07:08 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 6/18/2012 2:06:01 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/18/2012 1:25:05 PM, darkkermit wrote:
I don't think any person is capable of being racist

What do you mean by this?

You don't think that people negatively judge others based on their perceived social designation we term "race?"

I actually screwed it up. I meant to say "I think any person is capable of being racist".

???

The common theme of society seems to be that only white people are capable of being racist, when people of all different types are capable of being racist as well. I think most people are a little bit racist, in the sense that they have a preference for their own race then others.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ren
Posts: 7,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:17:02 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:14:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:

The common theme of society seems to be that only white people are capable of being racist, when people of all different types are capable of being racist as well.

I disagree. I think it's pretty apparent to everyone that:

...most people are a little bit racist, in the sense that they have a preference for their own race then others.

That doesn't make it right on either end.

However, the reason why people are more critical of white people, is because they've acted on their negative racial perspectives the most (though not exclusively) in this society.

On a side note, did you know that it's rather common for American "black" folk and Africans to hate each other? Africans are typically very snooty, and about as dismissive of Black folk as rich white people.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2012 2:21:33 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 6/18/2012 2:17:02 PM, Ren wrote:
At 6/18/2012 2:14:33 PM, darkkermit wrote:

The common theme of society seems to be that only white people are capable of being racist, when people of all different types are capable of being racist as well.

I disagree. I think it's pretty apparent to everyone that:

...most people are a little bit racist, in the sense that they have a preference for their own race then others.

That doesn't make it right on either end.

However, the reason why people are more critical of white people, is because they've acted on their negative racial perspectives the most (though not exclusively) in this society.


On a side note, did you know that it's rather common for American "black" folk and Africans to hate each other? Africans are typically very snooty, and about as dismissive of Black folk as rich white people.

That's interesting. How did you come to that conclusion?
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...