Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

Not necessarily, it depends on context, and "racist" can be used as literal, "cancer" is figurative, and not literal.

So I'm not sure I would ever say everyone in the DNC is racist because I doubt that they all are. But I would say I think the DNC is cancer or preaches racism and is the party of race hate etc.

To help know where I come from and how to interpret what I say; first, I'm Aussie and we are prone to hyperbole. I'll try to tone it down from now on though
I think we are all capable of good and bad - even Hillary Clinton
I hate people abusing power to hurt others or using power to benefit themselves at the expense of others. When I perceive someone as doing that it gets my hackles raised. We should protect the weak, not hurt, exploit or manipulate them.

As I see it, a lot of the contemporary, cultural left (SJW types) are purely selfish and/or delusional. The DNC seems to have invented a history that never was, and the left generally has a capacity to destroy historic fact in the pursuit of power, and use it to justify hate. The gender BS, the misogyny bs, the white privilege bS etc. This crap hurts people and ultimately hurts all of us.

Yes, anti-trust laws are essential. My guiding principle is that all policy should be aimed at being the least restricting as possible, but also achieving the greatest good by the greatest number (although there will always be arguments about how that can be achieved. I don't believe just letting the mega rich keep more money is the answer, but I don't think governments uselessly throwing more money around is the answer either).

Regulation should block predatory practices and environmental vandalism, but be as limited in scope as possible.

Too much regulation hurts little guys as their costs are harder to absorb.



Agreed.

Although I have no problem with tax incentives that are predicated on a company meeting certain targets around job numbers, wages or community development programs.




Agreed. Australia has welfare for life. My job has been dealing with the devastation that causes for kids. However, in my tees I was on welfare while I sorted out my own issues. We need welfare, but we need to help people live without it imho.

Lol would it shock you to know I’m one of those you categorize as an SJW types?
I mean I don’t have a YouTube and rant about s*** daily, but seriously part of my job and profession is pretty focused on social justice and dealing with diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). Which as I work with it, you and I agree on the specifics. It’s not right for someone in power to use that to hurt others or benefit themselves over others. Which sadly goes on a lot, in ways that really f*** people up. So I’d like that to stop, so I try to make it better without making it ridiculous.


I mean it’s easy enough to say some people on the internet that the SJW trope is built on, are bats***. I agree some are bats*** and vocal about their batshattery. They rant on and don’t know their a** from a hole in the ground. Just because they are annoying, melodramatic, and overexaggerating doesn’t take away for the need to examine business and education practices for DEI.

And no, I don’t take your dislike of the policies personally, I’m not butthurt, I just see it as clumping and entire side of the political arena in together.

I am not a fan of corporate donations to politicians. I would like it banned.

See we agree about something else.
come with us to the left, bob... you'll like it. We have weed and cookies. You can even have your opium plants.

Yes and no, there are degrees of SJW, from the 'wanting a better world' idealist to the 'rampaging cancerous, violent hater claiming their hate is love' activist. I know things you have said fall in the SJW category at times, but I've never sensed that cancerous form, you seem far more in the "make a better world" idealist area with all the normal people.

I don't consider that being SJW though.

It's not as if all SJW ideas are based on 100% lies. In some areas there's a hint of truth. Men have done bad things. White men have done bad things. There is inequality - but it's not race based, it's individual. And the most "privileged" people in the west by the false metrics of race tend to be Asians anyway - Korean, Chinese etc. In fact I think in the US the top Asian female demographic earns more than white men on average (although less than men from their own race... is it Korean, maybe? Can't remember now ). The point is that the SJW narrative based on race and white racism is not truthful, but it is dangerous. Blaming a race for all the bad stuff can't end well.

But that is different to opposing prejudiced practices, or fighting for equality of opportunity. I do that, and I'm not an SJW.




My issue with SJW type stuff is not the goal of equality of opportunity. I 100% support that. It's the method and the desire for equality of outcome I oppose.

Any attempt to categorise by race (as victim or oppressor) is evil to me. I could claim to be Indigenous Australian if I wanted, and bang on about how oppressed I am. It would have helped me out a lot at times. I don't though because it's wrong. It would be better for me to claim to be from the oppressed race because I'd have more opportunities than I do now as a member of the race that is "privileged." That is absurd Orwellianism at its finest.

But why would I claim to be oppressed? I don't want to be a victim, even if being a "victim" would help me.



Understood. You have always been fair and reasonable. I've never had a sense that you're attacking me personally, and hopefully I've clarified that last point a bit more now.

Sure, start with a few poppies for a few people, and before you know it you have

Opium addicted parrots

maybe it just comes down to different ways to deal with an issue.

I understand what you are saying about think privileged and racism as academic talking points are crap. (dont agree, but understand your argument)
it just comes to the point, of how to make something better without identifying the problem first.

Im pretty certain most people don't want to be victims or oppressed. That deosn't stop it from happening to some. IN a way it calls out someone for being responsible for someone else's s***ty actions. the problem is the s***ty action, not the person it is being done to.

demographics about privileged are also more nuanced. Because a few Asian women are doing really well, doesn't make up for the ones that arn't. Nor does doing well economically make up for some of the s***ty things said to them, because they are the "right kind of minority."

I will also say that things are different in each county, and not everyone has the same history. so who is considered more or less oppressed varies. Actually I done even like the word oppressed in the sentence. but my brain is failing to come up with another...
which I think is the key problem in the debate your side sees privilege and oppression as stupid terms. like you said who wants that...

so the whole discussion gets shut down, without addressing the actual problem--biases, prejudices, and discrimination happen. no matter how you break up groups of people, there is always the "us vs them" and that causes conflict. Conflict is not always evil, it can be a catalysis for great things, but sometimes it does damage. damage that could have been avoided.

I don't necessarily like categorizing by race either. It is an arbitrary determination of pigment display based on genetics. We are all human. Skin tone shouldn't mean anything. It doesnt stop some people saying. believing and acting like more pigment makes you less than human. the problem is how do you address people treating others poorly by "race" if you can't point out the characteristics that makes a person fall in that race category/

I don't expect you to have answers.
it goes beyond our conversation, except to say the two different sides of the spectrum are not hacing the same conversation, they are bickering over the definitions, and things barely change. Wash, rinse, repeat. We have been here before.

Thanks, but I'm happy where I am. I've had my share of weed in the past. I'm too old for it now. A joint would just put me to sleep for a few hours I think

I think this is the crux of the thing, really. It comes down to how people decide what the issue is and how to address it. I see social disadvantage as complex and individual, rather than systemic. If you give people the tools to succeed, they can. If they believe they can't, they won't.

From what I see in my experience most people are not racist in any active sense. Certainly not here anyway. You always get your muppets and bigots in all groups, but it's not the rule.

We have our horrible issue with indigenous communities that's too complex to sum up, but even there, the problem is often that no one knows how to fix a generational problem, but the people desperately need help (I can clarify if you want, but it is probably similar to issues on reservations in the US); Loss of self esteem, don't belong in white culture, lost their own culture, etc. It's pretty crappy. And there is certainly racial tension there, due to crime and other issues.



No, I get that. But at the same time, the homeless unemployed mentally ill white guy doesn't benefit from the wealthy white elite either, and Obama probably has more power than millions of white people in the US combined. That's why I think race is significantly less of an issue than the individual. It's too broad of a brush to paint with.

Yes, some people suffer some s***ty stuff, but I think that's true for most people really. Very few people get through life without s***ty stuff happening at some point. And the s***ty stuff happening to my ethnic group is irrelevant to me if I'm not a victim of it (if that makes sense).

When I first taught I worked at a school that cost as much to send a child to as I was earning. I saw some extremely unhappy, unloved and unwanted kids there. And I worked in a poor school and saw loved, happy kids.



Not stupid so much as not really valid, and not useful when used to characterise races. I also believe it is horrible to make someone think they are a victim. Learned helplessness is about the most s***ty place a human being can be. It's like being a slave, except you are your own violent, hateful slave master.

And I really think it's not valid. Again, Obama has more power and influence than millions of white people. A system that would give his kids preferential entrance to university over the kids from the family where dad is working a factory job while mum cleans and they struggle to make ends meet and scrape to get their kids into university, is a flawed system.

I understand the intent was good. And in the case of black America it made sense. Many of them were starting a long way behind through no fault of their own. Doing something to redress that seems right to me, but it's what to do that is the issue.

Sadly, solutions often generate problems. For example, welfare can and often does actually make things worse; ie., higher rates of single parent families creates problems for kids who are more likely to leave school early, use drugs and have legal and health problems. They're the kids I've worked with most of the last 15 years.



True, but they seem to be a minority, here anyway. And you get racist and bigoted people in all groups. Sadly, we can't fix stupid.



I don't have a problem with calling out racists. A racist a** is a racist ass, no matter their colour or gender or income levels etc.



I only have answers in the sense of having strategies I use in working with disadvantaged kids.

First and foremost I don't care about creed/colour etc., or what they've done or their life experience, I care about what they tell themselves about themselves and about other people, and about their future potential. My first rule is that I will not accept any negative self talk. Telling yourself you're a failure is infinitely worse than someone else saying it to you. The words of others are meaningless and irrelevant if we do not accept them.

And that is where I formulated my ideas on how to make a better world. I don't believe in or want a world where everyone has the same outcome, but I want a world where everyone has the realistic hope of defining and achieving their idea of success.

A lot of people who are struggling have internal reasons for the struggle. Leaving aside the cause for a moment, it is dealing with that that I see as being of primary importance. Teaching people to have self belief and resilience seems better to me than giving them an advantage through 'positive discrimination.' I really think that is a bad idea, as it doesn't address the underlying problem. To me it's like putting a bandaid on someone's wounds while they keep stabbing themselves.

Sometimes life is unfair, and some people can be asses. We can't change that, but we can help people not to let that effect them.

yes, this is an excellent example of both "sides" viewing different ways to address the same "problem". Honestly, I like that there are two sided if they are actually doing something. different approaches help different people, and more "ideas" at the brainstorming level, make for better programs and "solutions" in the end. I do get frustrated when one side refuses to even acknowledge an issue. that does happen with both sides, depending on the issue, and I also am guilty of finding something stupid and not a big deal.



I also don't think a majority of people are bigoted against other races, even here in the US. Yes, openly bigoted groups exist, they are a very vocal minority, but it is not everyone. Oh speaking of language... I have tended to move away from using the word "racist" and bigoted against other races" instead. minor detail, but i think it is more inclusive of the possibility of everyone being either the aggressor or the target. Technically being Caucasian, doesn't make you immune from being targeted by bigots. racism, as a word has a bunch of baggage, and sometimes implies Caucasians are always in power, that is not true either here in the US or globally.
I also think we as all humans, are more vulnerable now to implicit biases, which many times are driven by social norms and unconscious. so people aren't trying to be biased, it just happens...So maybe more awareness will help with those people that are really trying.



I totally understand that. my state has about 20ish different tribes. And all vary. We do have legalized indian gaming, so many tribes have casinos. Some of the 20 are very well off, like upper middle class well off, they have no trouble affording tuition for their children, operate successful business, can easily afford designer clothing and handbags, drive new fancy cars, everything you can think of as "begin well off". There are others live in a level of poverty, not everyone has running water and electricity and they struggle for everything, alcoholism, crime, and poor health is rampant. There are tribal elders and governmental leaders that truly care for their community and give back and help everyone, there are others that our out to enrich themselves, and f*** anyone that gets in their way. Then there is the cultural "otherness" as well.

And that is just the native american group, there are several other minority groups here too, with their own economic and cultural struggles that also cover the entire spectrum. It's complicated as f***.



I like to think of privileged more as having the benefit of the doubt before your own circumstances are known. it comes down to those judgements that every human makes. Does the homeless mental ill white guy, get the sympathy of the library worker, and they let him sit in the warm/cool library depending on season and just be as long as his behavior does not disturb others. Where the dark-skin dude gets the side eye, or "watched" to see if he is going to start trouble..when he just wants to do his homework. watched like he is demographic that causes the most incident reports. And face it, now a days a lot of college kids dress like the homeless, or look like they just got out bed, clothing and appearance don't mean much. We need to beware of our brushes, and not let bad stereotypes of groups, impact our behavior towards others.



yes that makes sense. having money, or the preferred skin tone, or the right sexuality, religion, or abilities does not stop person tragedy. The world is a cruel place and some people have s***ty things happen to them. Some families pull together and shower love, others no so much



success later in life, and even in college is more determined by your socioeconomic status than skin tone, the only correlation is minorities are a larger population of the poor or the working poor. That is probably more an issue of our job structures and beliefs around minimum wage and welfare than a race issue now. That is why Obama's kids hare in a better position than a white student from the Appalachia mountains who is the first in the family in college. First generation college kids all struggle, race and ethnicity doesn't matter. at my school, we try to frame programs for the first generation kids to help everyone, not just outreach to each minority. There are so many we'd never get them all. Demographically we can get the indigenous kids as a whole, but not by tribe and we can get the Hispanic/Latino kids because they are a significant members of the local population. Our black and Asian populations are small, then you start breaking into ethnicity and it's impossible



yup, no one solution is perfect, and sometimes has unintended consequences. And then there is always the budget constraints, of where to allocate funds, and when it becomes an issue of throwing good money after bad. Not everything can be fixed by throwing money at the problem.



I agree on a personal level, you and i don't approach things that differently. I may be a little more touchy-feely, in that i do acknowledge that word of others may hurt, but you have to find ways to cope and get past that and not accept it.

I agree wanting the same outcome is not realistic or even desirble, same opportunity is a better goal. Everyone has to make decisions that impact their life, and that is solely on them.


I'm assuming the "positive discrimination" is about the way that minorities are given jobs and places in higher education. It varies by country and i think we often call it affirmative action.

I can't speak in specifics about enrollment, because that is not my part of the school, but I can talk about how we "hire for diversity". There are not quotas, when a position opens up we don't do the math and think the best candidate has to be a (woman, African american, native, Asian, or Caucasian. We do know what groups are "underrepresented in our population". Which for our large department is: men, African Americans, native Americans, Asian, Disabled, and Veterans. We hire by committee, so that means our committees have to be diverse, to counteract the idea that we identify ourselves in potential candidates and tend to hire who we have in common. (think old boys club). so by having the committee pretty diverse, who we identify with at a subconscious level will also be diverse. We also decide the rubric by which everyone is "scored" is decided before the posting is even publicized, so we decided how to rank certain skills before we see the pool, so it feels more fair, (if you score is high you get an interview, if it isn't you dont.)
We use our advertising dollars to get a more "diverse pool" So placing help wanted ads cost money, we hit all the standard places. Local papers, big databases like monster and indeed, and national and state library orgs and publications. so to encourage that qualified African Americans see the posting, (since they are underrepresented) we also buy ad space in the black targeted spaces, so the black caucus of the ALA newsletter, the Asian librarian group (that I have forgotten the name of) or any other places like those publications directed at veterans, etc.
Since we are a Hispanic/Latino serving institution with a large Native American population, we usually have a place in the rubric to assign an "extra point" to people bilingual in Spanish or one of the indigenous languages. That rewards a skill, not a skin color/ethnicity-- sure being raised in that ethnicity might give your an advantage, but not necessarily. I'm Hispanic, for generations my family lived here and spoke Spanish. around my parents generation, we stopped speaking it daily in the home, I understand a lot, but am no where near fluent. We had a white woman, born and raised on the east coast. She learned Spanish (and Portuguese) and her fluency blows my understanding out of the water...she should score higher than me. The native Puerto Rican, also scores higher than me and slightly less than the white woman. (she doesn't know Portuguese) but if a native american was in the pool, that knew English, Spanish, Portuguese, and Dine,) then they would score the highest on that skill.

So it is trying to be more inclusive, without just giving positions to minorities, just to say we don't discriminate. so...basically trying to do better without making it worse for some.


Anyway good discussion, and i hope to god I don't break the thread...i usually don't do this many direct response to quotes. But we are a lot more closer than it seems at first glance. and like i said before disagreement on the particulars is a good thing

Jesus f***ing christ i broke that so bad. how the f*** did i quote eaglebaur?
I only thought of him.

Working on fixing it.


ETA: ok its not perfect, but at least its not broken... and it was my signature, i forget it was there, it doesn't always show on my phone

The old girl has talent.

She probably does. Maybe I have to do more research. I am making the obvious mistakes of listening to the media, knowing the media tends to maintain biases in various areas.

"At 1st I thought of saying, “Imagine being told your house of faith isn’t safe anymore.”

But I couldn’t say “imagine.”

Because of Charleston.
Pittsburgh.
Sutherland Springs.

What good are your thoughts & prayers when they don’t even keep the pews safe?"


Hey lady!! Prayer was important to the victims.

How about not being such an opportunist and allowing the families to grieve, mkay?