If so, then we're not that far off from it being spun as "cats cause anti-Patriotic" beliefs, followed by a witch hunt.
547 karma · joined August 9, 2017
How so? Enlightenment values include the commitment to universal human dignity and the rejection of prejudice and discrimination. This is consistent with the goals of social justice movements.
- Adolfo López Mateos (1958-1964)
- Gustavo Díaz Ordaz (1964-1970)
- Luis Echeverría (1970-1976)
> The declassified U.S. documents reveal CIA recruitment of agents within the upper echelons of the Mexican government between 1956 and 1969. The informants used in this secret program included President Gustavo Díaz Ordaz and future President Luis Echeverría. The documents detail the relationships cultivated between senior CIA officers, such as chief of station Winston Scott, and Mexican government officials through a secret spy network code-named "LITEMPO." Operating out of the U.S. Embassy in Mexico City, Scott used the LITEMPO project to provide "an unofficial channel for the exchange of selected sensitive political information which each government wanted the other to receive but not through public protocol exchanges."
> When television is good, nothing — not the theater, not the magazines or newspapers — nothing is better.
> But when television is bad, nothing is worse. I invite each of you to sit down in front of your television set when your station goes on the air and stay there, for a day, without a book, without a magazine, without a newspaper, without a profit and loss sheet or a rating book to distract you. Keep your eyes glued to that set until the station signs off. I can assure you that what you will observe is a vast wasteland.
> You will see a procession of game shows, formula comedies about totally unbelievable families, blood and thunder, mayhem, violence, sadism, murder, western bad men, western good men, private eyes, gangsters, more violence, and cartoons. And endlessly, commercials — many screaming, cajoling, and offending. And most of all, boredom. True, you’ll see a few things you will enjoy. But they will be very, very few. And if you think I exaggerate, I only ask you to try it.
An article I enjoyed about this topic can be found here (non-paywalled): https://12ft.io/proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2F...
Quotas are the boogey/strawman that get trotted out when DEI initiatives are mentioned.
Quotas _must_ be filled, and this serves no one, not the companies doing the hiring (because there aren't enough qualified candidates, and hiring unqualified candidates is bad for business), nor the candidates themselves (because they didn't get hired on their own merits, and imposter syndrome).
Hiring _targets_, on the other hand, should be attained but can be missed due to lack of qualified candidates. When these misses occur, if the company is serious and capable about DEI initiatives, there's an investigation into why that is and if there's anything that can be done to remedy it, e.g. supporting educational/industrial pipelines, creating internship/apprenticeship programs or training opportunities for those changing careers, and so on.
In any case, the picture the data suggests is incomplete (because it is missing a crucial data point: social class), therefore the picture you're suggesting is also incomplete.
In any case, the picture you're suggesting is itself distorted given that other correlating factors such as social class, are ignored.
> I think it's fair to point out that men commit most violent crimes. That's not good/normal/expected it's just a fact.
> Again, replace “men” with “African Americans” and you also have a statistically true statement (in America at least) that would be considered taboo.
Per the FBI: "White individuals were arrested more often for violent crimes than individuals of any other race and accounted for 59.1 percent of those arrests."
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2019/crime-in-the-u.s.-...
Until then, if police forces are upholding a mainstream concept of law and order resulting in said disproportionality, BLM is countercultural.
Otherwise, if acknowledging the aims of basically what's a human rights movement via flags and spots on AP tests constitutes inclusion into mainstream culture, then the mainstream culture is absurd and perverse.
One of these is not like the others.
TikTok's availability in the US is your metric for the success of the American experiment?
Secondly, your argument that _only_ 0.15% of cops are racist is disingenuous. If you RTFA [1]:
> Obviously, only a tiny percentage of law enforcement officials are likely to be active members of white supremacist groups. But one doesn’t need access to secretive intelligence gathered in FBI terrorism investigations to find evidence of overt and explicit racism within law enforcement. Since 2000, law enforcement officials with alleged connections to white supremacist groups or far-right militant activities have been exposed in Alabama, California, Connecticut, Florida, Illinois, Louisiana, Michigan, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, Texas, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and elsewhere.
> Research organizations have uncovered hundreds of federal, state, and local law enforcement officials participating in racist, nativist, and sexist social media activity, which demonstrates that overt bias is far too common.
> These officers’ racist activities are often known within their departments, but only result in disciplinary action or termination if they trigger public scandals.
> Few law enforcement agencies have policies that specifically prohibit affiliating with white supremacist groups. Instead, these officers typically face discipline, if at all, for more generally defined prohibitions against conduct detrimental to the department or for violations of anti-discrimination regulations or social media policies. Firings often lead to prolonged litigation, with dismissed officers claiming violations of their First Amendment speech and association rights. Most courts have upheld dismissals of police officers who have affiliated with racist or militant groups, following Supreme ? Court decisions limiting free speech rights for public employees to matters of public concern.
> Courts have given law enforcement agencies even greater latitude to restrict speech and association, citing their “heightened need for order, loyalty, morale and harmony.”
It's fine if you want to bury your head in the sand and pretend the infiltration of law enforcement and military by white supremacists isn't happening, but that won't make it true. Furthermore, your argument that it's all a media conspiracy to enable the government to spy on white people is... sketchy.
[1] https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/hidd...
If white supremacist terrorist attacks are actually happening (and they are), then it's not a fictional narrative that the public is being told. Furthermore, I'm curious how that is linked to the following point.
> increases in domestic surveillance/police state infrastructure I'd like to point out that given that police [1] have been infiltrated by white supremacists and three-letter agencies are doing nothing about it [2] this would seem to disproportionately affect people of color, to say nothing about surveillance that already occurs with open-source and private data.
It seems that your fears are misplaced/misinformed at best.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/aug/27/white-suprem... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/may/20/fbi-white-su...
Slippery slope, e.g., acknowledging privilege or past wrongs leads to a dangerous path, such as the Holocaust.
False dilemma, e.g., either one must give away their wealth or not feel guilty, when there are other options.
Genetic fallacy, e.g., implying that the actions of ancestors should not be held against someone because they are not responsible for their ancestors actions. Even if someone didn't choose to have a certain privilege, that does not mean that it does not exist.
Strawman Fallacy, e.g., presenting a misrepresenation of the idea of collective guilt and suggesting that it is the same as Nazis killing Jews.
Like I said, I agree to the extent that guilt can be unproductive. If one feels that, though, about systemic injustices that allowed them to attain a privileged position in life, it could be seen as an invitation to address those and/or current injustices.
> Primarily, these involved deposits of traveller's cheques in euros. They had sequential numbers and deposited larger amounts of money than any innocent travelling person would need, with inadequate or no KYC [know your client] information on them and what seemed to a trained eye to be dubious signatures. "It was basic work," he says. "They didn't answer the obvious questions: 'Is the transaction real, or does it look synthetic? Does the traveller's cheque meet the protocols? Is it all there, and if not, why not?'"
Primacy to do what?
I mean, that particular individual is in turn weird and not okay.
But who am I to say? And what does it matter if something is weird and not okay? Lots of things fit that bill, and that doesn't mean they shouldn't exist.
Who is to say my investments are chump-change? What's with the derision? I'm under no obligation to help broker-dealers make money off of lending out my shares, especially if those shares are being used to short the companies I'm invested in.
If retail investors DRS'd more of their long-term holdings, it absolutely would matter and have an effect on shares available to hedge funds to short.
The shares you buy through a broker-dealer are held in "street name" meaning they are registered with your broker-dealer. You enjoy beneficial ownership, meaning you enjoy the benefits of ownership even though the title to the shares are in your broker's name. You have IOU's, basically.
Because the shares aren't in your name, broker-dealers can lend them out to hedge funds shorting the company you're investing in. The shares can also vanish if the brokerage goes under.
DRSing your shares at the company's transfer agent ensures that the shares are registered under your name (and not the brokerage's), and prevents your shares from being lent out and being used against your investment.
You are not on the 'right' but calling out the 'left' while omitting the GOP (Trump, MTG, et al) and associates (Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, et al) from your assertion.
If those on the right have not used Twitter for coordination and messaging, then they are far behind the zeitgeist. If they are, then you are likely not aware of that, or if you are, intentionally omitted that fact to make a point.
Targets can be missed, and reasons for the miss can be explored, e.g. were there sufficient qualified candidates in the pipeline? If not, what can be done about it. The hope is that over time, a target will be hit.
That said, I agree with you that quotas are problematic. They are the wrong solution for the problem of lack of diversity.
Imagine traveling to a destination. The way is fraught and perilous, but you reach your goal- a blissful paradise. Would you say that the whole experience was happy?
It's the same with literature: it's about the journey, not the destination.
Conversely, not all immoral acts are illegal, e.g. cheating on a spouse.