edit: removed some quotes from another discussion x3
Hunchman801 wrote: ↑Fri Nov 13, 2020 3:31 pm
ScalieDan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:23 pm
how come a country was assumed that was bad and broken and how come a lot saw it as racist and the definition is prejudice on the bases of racial factors such as skin colour.
Assuming your home country is shit without knowing it, by guessing being black means you aren't born American, is a racist remark. If you want to call it xenophobic, I think it lessens what it actually was.
How come "a lot saw it as racist"? How come a lot of people are wrong all the time, you might as well ask. Appeal to the masses is a logical fallacy, and thank God popular judgment is by no means an indicator of truth. People are assuming that Trump based this remark on the race of the targeted people while he never said such a thing. Let's stick to the facts rather than attempt to impute motives that only seek to confirm our biases and opinions.
ScalieDan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:23 pm
xenophobia isn't race but nationality and ethnicity (well this can go into racism but yeah).
But like I said, the reasons for those travel bans weren't hatred for people of certain nationalities, but rather the stability, crime rates and terrorist activity of the countries in question.
ScalieDan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:23 pm
I don't think I ever talked about net worth and net worth doesn't undo the insane amount of debt. Which simply is a risk factor and isn't new as a risk factor. If he gets rid of assestd for prices, yeah he can undo this risk. Doesn't make it untrue that he has them...
Then I'm not sure why you think it's a risk. Is debt that bad if I can easily repay it?
ScalieDan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:23 pm
Well it's important to understand US job system.
A lot of states do kot require to tell why you are fired so those states won't be fixed by supreme court. However, there are states which demand a reason for firing and so a lot more people that aren't straight have it saver now as they cannot be fired for having a same sex partner for example.
There is also mare about equality act etc.
And it kinda matters that *federal law* protects them as all states have to obey them. States also had own protection laws and honestly, all you need to know is that supreme court made it way better for people not straight and this decision also impacts future as demanding reason for ban might spread more.
In the states that don't demand it, they need to hide the reason it was based on sexual orientation. Even those states a person might sue if evidence is clear it wasn't a baseless firing but against federal law.
What kind of protections are we talking about, though? Surely you can't expect the law to prevent companies from firing homosexuals for no reason when it's fine to do the same for heteros? Sorry, I'm still not sure what laws you're referring to and how the process works here.
ScalieDan wrote: ↑Tue Nov 10, 2020 6:23 pm
As said, short hand. I would encourage looking into development of biased sentencing, biased criminak reports. The video I gave just starts to mention issues. This is a lecture topic and completely breaks the scope of this forum discussion.
I understand that you're imputing some of those differences to bias. All I'm saying is there's no possible way this might result in almost an order of magnitude in difference.
Also, I noticed that the suicide rate for transgenders was brought up on multiple occasions. I think it's important to stress that correlation is not causation, and that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that they always commit suicide because they're unhappy with their bodies or the way society treats them. This might very well be a case of people with mental issues such as depression being more likely to become transgender. It's actually a pretty clear case of causal ambiguity here.
"How come "a lot saw it as racist"? How come a lot of people are wrong all the time, you might as well ask. Appeal to the masses is a logical fallacy, and thank God popular judgment is by no means an indicator of truth. People are assuming that Trump based this remark on the race of the targeted people while he never said such a thing. Let's stick to the facts rather than attempt to impute motives that only seek to confirm our biases and opinions."
this wasn't just my main point. It may went under that I used the definition of racism, which btw is defined by the masses. It's true that objective things are not defined by masses. language however is defined by humans and his action of assuming they are not from USA AND their country was bad while the only indicator seems to be the skin, makes it a very racist remark. Now you can say "you cannot possibly know if he had skin in his mind"
That goes down to being a racist and acting racist. You may argue he isn't a racist but sure as heck that action looked racist and indications say it was prejudice on the bases of a biological difference.
"But like I said, the reasons for those travel bans weren't hatred for people of certain nationalities, but rather the stability, crime rates and terrorist activity of the countries in question. "
I clarified that it's the generalisation which makes it such for me. You can say it wasn't that way, it's not ok to fo prejudice of an entire group on the bases of a certain number of them. These traits mentioned are not inherently Mexican, Inherently muslim etc. it's prejudice of an outside group on an ethnicity kind of level which makes it arguably xenophobic. You can say this is too loosely defined. I did give some links, some of which may give examples or explain in othet ways the issues of his actions.
"Then I'm not sure why you think it's a risk. Is debt that bad if I can easily repay it?"
Debts have deadlines, sometimes, mostly. He has to get rid of assets to... get the money ya know. He doesn't have the money ready. He can be pressured. It's not so easy as you might think especially when time pressure can play a role. Hence why debt is a risk factor for FBI.
"What kind of protections are we talking about, though? Surely you can't expect the law to prevent companies from firing homosexuals for no reason when it's fine to do the same for heteros? Sorry, I'm still not sure what laws you're referring to and how the process works here."
Heteros are protected by the same law by default. Also it kinda misses why these things exist.
The supreme court made clear that you can't fire on the bases of a partner. This includes heteros. In fact, most half way decent countries write "sexual orientation" which also includes heteros.
But heteros do not face these issues even remotely close like gays do.
Before supreme court if they knew you were gay, you could be fired for it straight up and list homosexuality as the reason to fire without issues. This caused several teachers their job when they got married, and other jobs.
The new ruling says that you cannot use "homosexuality" or if you care to name it too, "Heterosexuality" as a reason to fire.
It's not about anything big, these laws are in a good number of western countries and just prohibit some heavy discrimination.
There is still an issue, many states do not require to give a reason for firing a person or letting them go.
I really don't want to explain the whole thing on whole usa. Short hand is this,
Supreme court made discrimination illegal, Trump wanted discrimination to continue. idk how you are towards gays but I think we shouldn't be fired because we are gay. I hope you agree...
"I understand that you're imputing some of those differences to bias. All I'm saying is there's no possible way this might result in almost an order of magnitude in difference."
Again, this is not a topic for this website. going into details is something I really don't want and I would have to refresh on data and much more. I just encourage you to look into reasons why it may be like that. Shaun, that YT link I gave, has given some points in gis 17min video that wasn't even focused around this specific one.
"Also, I noticed that the suicide rate for transgenders was brought up on multiple occasions. I think it's important to stress that correlation is not causation, and that we shouldn't jump to the conclusion that they always commit suicide because they're unhappy with their bodies or the way society treats them. This might very well be a case of people with mental issues such as depression being more likely to become transgender. It's actually a pretty clear case of causal ambiguity here."
bullying has is related to suicide and there is some clear indication that trans is indeed the factor. I don't have have numbers right here but we talk about over 50 times more likely or I think maybe a magnitude more. This is not a joke kind of relationship. It's known as one if the biggest issues (besides social acceptance).
And linking depression with gender dysphoria is what is known as false diagnosis. Again, these can happen but psychologists do take like a very long tine before making a call. So I haven't seen a data set suggesting what you said here. At all.