The word you think you're talking about is the word: prejudiced

Prejudiced Definition: - A word used in the 1980s and 1990s to describe the act of pre-judging people based on race. This word would later be replaced by "racist" so liberals could better guilt people in debate

Huh? It only makes sense to teach people not to do it. To run a media-university driven witch hunt to point out and expose and humiliate anyone who might be doing it is destructive. At the end of the day, there is a lot of opinion surrounding trying to judge the bias of another. The process is ironically bias itself. It needs to stop.

What would you call racial prejudice that falls short of actual conscious discrimination?

oh hey you answered that one already

Does 'racial prejudice' work for you? As a subset of prejudice? Prejudice itself is an extremely broad term and not exclusive to race, it's useful to be able to define the kind of prejudice that's being talked about.

So you agree with the aims but not the method?

Prejudice. I feel very confident that constantly talking about it all the time leads to more of it.

I mean I agree that removing as much racial bias from individuals as possible is good. As I just said I am very confident todays current methods create more not less. Additionally I also am willing to accept that it's going to exist and not go complete ape-**** over every potential instance of it. Human beings are so ******edly bias most we'll chase a flush draw because "spades have been coming out a lot lately".... if we can't eliminate that how are we going to completely eliminate racial bias?


Also I apologize for talking about poker in POG. This must have broken our 3 year long streak of never bringing it up.

Well if you want to use racist but don't want to call them a bad person, then racism isn't always bad - could even help inform your decisions if you are relying on a strong foundation.

But calling someone racist implies certain things about their mentality, so it seems dishonest to me to keep using 'racism' even though it's not bad behavior.

hm. everyone is biased, inevitably. can't create a world where everyone is perfectly informed about everyone, therefore teach people to think critically about their bias.

like, that phrase, 'give someone a fish and he eats for a day, or teach someone to fish and they will eat for a lifetime'? it applies here. you can teach people they're wrong or you can teach them to think for themselves, and they will correct themselves.

So Zork is backing out because one of the moderators is biased against him.

Wait...I just figured it out! Zork IS Trump!

I for one hope Zork's search for a safe space to call fellow posters fascists while not having someone he likes be called racist for saying overtly racist things goes swimmingly.

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

Isn't this the entire point about your and PS's fanaticism about all of this stuff though? Before a few years ago, there were less media outlets, less online places to express things. Exposure has increased, but that in no way means that incidents have increased. Media covers college issues because people want to read about it and are interested and are paying. Once people stop being interested, these stories will fade, just like every other ****ing time in human history where the media is involved.

Are you one of those people that thinks that because there are more autistic people today than before that there MUST be a cause? Or is it just possible that it is more diagnosed and more reported on now than before? What is the difference between that and more instances of minor stuff like this showing up in the media and being covered more today than before?

Another banner day in Trump 1st amendment policies:





Trump also said during the speech that the Washington Post was a "disgusting" newspaper and "dirty."

(he has previously complimented WaPo lol).

Conservative legal scholars think Trump presents a unique threat, teetering toward authoritarianism: http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/06/04...ion-power.html

Welcome Back MB!

Conservative weighs in on Trump's judge attacks, concludes it is obvious racism:

http://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/...sm-looks-like/

He is more than a racist, he is a fascist.
I do not use that description lightly.

i gave up on america tbh.

although i also gave up on humanity.

thanks for weighing in

So I was talking to a British woman about England leaving the UK and she used the line"the immigrants just do the jobs Englanders don't want to do anyway". Made me lol. Universal rhetoric?

to this

And the author still sounds like he's going to vote for him.

From later in the article:

yw

i don't know what americans should do. i guess if you want to get embroiled in several more wars overseas then clinton is the better choice. if not, well at least trump doesn't have a strong incentive to kill people in the middle-east.

but i mean either way you're screwed by the next depression. and even though some hate clinton, i doubt you really care if a few more hundred thousand people die because she's elected.

Hopefully the fed gets these inflation rates up to their target soon or we may be in trouble

if you elect clinton, i'm pretty sure she enables war profiteering, and gives handouts to the poor and minorities to act 'democratic' so she has a chance of getting reelected.

that's the impression i get anyway.

if you elect trump, he's a narcissist but i don't think he is malicious. he will be a populist and throw money and influence at issues he thinks are important to americans. if he has good advisors and good staff he will do well, but if not he will look like a fish on dry land.

In addition, Trump will also want to pass laws that increase his net worth. These may or may not help people who are not Trump.