politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Well the chances of prosecution have increased since it is now a minority on white guy crime.
Doesn’t this demonstrate how utterly ridiculous the “minority” and “majority” labels are?
Don’t get me wrong… these terms are useful in a particular context, when you’re worried about a minority of people being underrepresented, underprivileged, overly-scrutinized, etc. but let’s not forget, in these cases, it’s always relative to a “majority” who has better circumstances. That’s to say, the minority wouldn’t be underprivileged if it were not for a majority that is equally so overly privileged.
Where do these groups come from in the first place? Is there something about the blood of a Latino man that makes him fundamentally and categorically different than anyone else? What about when that Latino man legally enters the US and decides to join ICE in the process of capturing other Latino men, has his blood then been purified to another category? What if the Latino man goes to his home country, and he’s magically no longer a minority, has his blood then again changed? Obviously not.
Being minority or majority seems to have a lot to do with whatever arbitrary categories you fit into, dependent typically upon a single factor. Some big ones:
We create categories from the answers to these arbitrary facts about oneself, and we then rely on those categories to identify groups of people. But these facts don’t really tell you anything about the people they supposedly represent. Perhaps you learn one detail about an individual, such as “they’re a vegan.” Yet, you don’t know why they’re a vegan—so what good is knowing they’re a vegan at all (unless you’re catering, of course)? Yet, despite not knowing much about about these people, we use these categories as a platform to stereotype them—to reduce them into simple facts and pretend we actually do know everything about them.
Why do we have an instinctual bias toward this behavior—toward creating “in groups” and “out groups” out of thin air, and then using that logic as a gospel for ethical intervention? To me, this entire categorization thing seems as though it’s only valuable as a platform for controlling people. What’s most deceiving, though, is the fact that you must use this same platform to counter it. You have to “advocate for vegans” if you want to help out their underprivileged community — thus using the same platform for reducing people down to easily identifiable categories.
People should start saying, “I’m not vegan. I just can’t stand to eat meat given all the animal cruelty.” Or “I’m not vegan. I just have a rare allergy to protein and might die if I eat meat.” Or “I’m not Latino. I was just born in a Latin country.” … doing this might sound silly, but I think it cuts the lifeline used by oppressors here. Stop categorizing us — stop categorizing yourself. You’re a complex and highly dynamic person.
I'm not trying to start a debate on classification, I am just pointing out that the powers that be will have less inclination to protect one of their own based solely on things like skin tone. The only person prosecuted for all of the financial wrongdoing associated with the 2008 collapse was a black guy.
Maybe, tokens do get spent after all.