General Diversity vs. Minority friendly (companies, Virginia, patriot, female)

[BigCityDreamer]

Originally Posted by Ralph_Kirk

So the people who are racists today have accepted about as much as liberals in the 50s were working to achieve at the time.

There is no racism to speak of in America today. For all practical purposes, racism ended in the 1960s.

Everything since then has been nothing but shouting in the wind.

[Ralph_Kirk]

Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer

There is no racism to speak of in America today. For all practical purposes, racism ended in the 1960s.

Everything since then has been nothing but shouting in the wind.

Keep dreaming, BigCityDreamer.

[ansible90]

Originally Posted by Oldglory

A nationalist can be of any race. I made my case by providing you with the definition of a nationalist. What word game? Clever about what?

You say no, even though I provided you with the definition of a nationalist? Boy, that's some deep denial there.

Learn what terms mean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

White nationalism is a type of racial nationalism or pan-nationalism which espouses the belief that white people are a race[1] and seeks to develop and maintain a white racial and national identity.[2][3][4] Many of its proponents identify with and are attached to the concept of a white nation, or a "white ethnostate".[5]

Analysts describe white nationalism as overlapping with white supremacism and white separatism.[6][4][7][8][9][10]

White nationalism is sometimes described as a euphemism for, or subset of, white supremacism and the two have been used interchangeably by journalists and analysts.[8][11] White separatism is the pursuit of a "white-only state" while supremacism is the belief that white people are superior to nonwhites and should dominate them,[7][8][9] taking ideas from social Darwinism and Nazism.[12] White nationalists generally avoid the term "supremacy" because it has negative connotations.[13]

[Frostnip]

Originally Posted by ansible90

Learn what terms mean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_nationalism

He knows perfectly well what they mean.

[ansible90]

Originally Posted by Frostnip

He knows perfectly well what they mean.

I know. I get annoyed anyway. Ruins every thread.

I have enjoyed reading this thread. Except for a few posters who popped in the middle, it has been a very respectful sharing of ideas and experiences on a difficult subject.

[Atari2600]

Originally Posted by arr430

These two concepts seem to be at odds. First, striving for a goal of a nation in which all communities have good representation of all identifiable minorities, such as Muslim, LGBTQ, mixed-race couples, etc.. But then, members of those same minorities are asking in a relocation forum, where can they settle in communities friendly to their particular persuasion.

How can it be both? (Please don't answer if all you want to do is cut-paste your usual mindless political-labeled bashing. There is no agenda here -- just wondering if anybody has any thoughtful ideas of how these two trends might play out.)

"striving for a goal of a nation in which all communities have good representation of all identifiable minorities"


This absolutely does not make sense to me. The country is like 60% white, 20% Hispanic (non-white), 13% black, and then everything else. How are you going to have "good representation" of all identifiable minorities? And what exactly does that mean? What exactly does "good representation" even mean?


What exactly does a U.S. citizen, who's parents were born in say.. Laos, not have that I have, who's parents were born in Argentina and Netherlands? And why does it become my problem?




There aren't enough cast of characters that you could fit into a commercial to show equal representation to every identifiable minority. The whole concept is stupid. Do you think they care about this in Japan? How about in China? Or maybe in Egypt? Do you think in Egypt they work hard to make sure that they incorporate the equal number of Asians and Hispanics in their commercials? Or how about in literally any country in South America.


Now, I recognize that the Democrat party is responsible for:
- Eugenics / Margaret Sanger / putting abortion clinics in predominantly black neighborhoods
- Jim Crowe laws
- Forming and maintaining the KKK
- Internment camps
- Dropping not 1, but the only 2 nuclear weapons, ever, in time of war, on civilians, killing 380k people.
- Jim Jones (yep... him too)
- Trail of Tears
- Starting the civil war

- You get the point...


... so maybe this explains the reason for needing to be so apologetic. But it really, really, gets tiring trying to figure out who or what group is the more desirable victim at the time.

[Frostnip]

Originally Posted by The Philosopher

As a white man I don't want to live somewhere where I'll be denied employment or promotion because somebody wants to hire a less qualified woman or non-white person and call it "diversity and inclusion" or "affirmative action" to make it sound like they are doing society a favor when in reality they're just practicing discrimination.

Meh. It seems like every time a white guy gets passed over in a favor of a woman and/or or a person of color, it must be a "diversity hire." Sometimes the gay black disabled lady really is just better for the position than you, sorry. Speaking as a woman in a male-dominated workplace, I learned early on that I had to perform better than the men to be considered equal to the men. That kind of hustle sometimes does get noticed and rewarded.

White men en masse are doing just fine at getting jobs compared to other demographics ( https://www.bls.gov/web/empsit/cpsee_e16.htm ) so if an individual white man is having trouble getting a job he probably needs to consider factors other than melanin level to explain why.

[Frostnip]

Originally Posted by green_mariner

I think some of the stuff my generation is seeing takes on more passive-aggressive forms, at least compared to the 1950s.

I come from a blended family and my sister is black while I'm white. We're pretty close in age so we have a lot of shared experiences and spent a lot of time together as kids. I saw firsthand the differences in how I'd be treated if I went somewhere just me, versus the way we'd be treated if we went together. Not always, but stuff like getting followed around in stores, our school enforcing rules more sternly for her, bad service at restaurants, suspicious nervous nellies eyeballing us when we were out riding bikes, that kind of thing, was a regular pattern. Back then if you complained about it, people who understood would just be like "yeah, no kidding" while people who didn't understand would say you were manufacturing drama.

Nowadays when folks start up that plausibly deniable aggro routine, someone's liable to whip out a cell phone and record it, which I think has curbed a significant amount of it. Low-key racists hate being confronted with their own racism.

[b29510]

only government discrimnates

[jbgusa]

I have a question and this may be the best place to ask it; why do we take "nion-violence" for granted, say, at a Ron DeSantis rally? He addressed about 1000 mostly Jewish conservatives back in June at New York's Chelsea Piers. It was not necessary to ask for abstention from violence.