Seems to me that they immigrated to another country because of a specific type of cultural phenomenon that was happening in their country of origin resulting from immigration. Maybe the same type of phenomenon is not happening in their country of choice? Doesn't seem sarcastic at all.
Sure. The thread is about how immigration is beneficial to countries in long term.
It was the OP who came up with the example of France to say that is not true.
> It’s the reverse, the burden is definitive and ever growing.
So there are two possibilities
* The French example is one of the very few exceptions -> This means the point OP is trying to make is kind of useless. Exceptions are present in almost all the theories.
* French example is what will happen in all most all the countries -> In that case OP's point becomes just ironic.
India is actually being quite slow in their response. The general feeling seems to be that India doesn't want escalation, but also do not want to be seen as being bullied by China.
The situation right now is being described as 'tense but calm'.
China changed all of the nation's maps to now include an added claim on a new piece of land in Ladakh. China also works very closely with their new proxy Govt (Oli's Nepal). So, at the same time Nepal is also changing their maps and laying claim on new land that they did not previously stake claim to.
So now technically India is occupying Chinese property, and they China been clear in wanting to use force to claim it.
We are still in a semi-lockdown and daily cases are still increasing. It's definitely a bad time to go for a war and the government knows that. More efforts are being put into decreasing the nation's reliance on Chinese imports. Previous tresspasses by the PLA were addressed through diplomacy and the results were good. Same approach is being tried now too.
That's fair. For decades we did not have enough will to retaliate against our adversaries. The result was there were terror attacks in almost every major Indian city. It's only in the last five years that the leadership has shown some resolve to irradiate terrorism. The perception of India being soft will take some time to wear off.
>He explicitly reused a racist phrase to suggest the black protesters should be shot down.
I thought the consensus was that the looters were mostly young out-of-states whites? And to insinuate that the President had read some 1940s Florida mayor's (sorry, I can't remember who the saying is originally attributed to) speeches and knew the connotations of that phrase is ridiculous.
if he doesn’t know the connotations of the words he employs, he should finally learn that the white house would be happy to proof read his tweets (or any person he would like to choose) in case he makes a mistake.
This is easy and standard procedure for talks, ... of big company leaders, politicians, ...
I'd add that if you think that "looters are going to get shot" is code for "black people are going to get shot", you're implying that only black people can be looters. Who's the racist?
"When the looting starts, the shooting starts" is a phrase by Walter E. Headley, the police chief of Miami, Florida, who said it in response to an outbreak of violent crime during the 1967 Christmas holiday season.
Donald Trump was already an adult in 1967 and even if he didn't know this was a dog-whistle for white supremacists.... Facebook doesn't have to amplify destructive ideologies just because the ones who relay it are ignorant.
Otherwise everyone would invoke that excuse.
When people loot, other people will shoot them to prevent their livelihood from being destroyed. It’s a good phrase to sum up that there is going to be a violent reaction to looting.
Oh, please. Walter Headley is so obscure he doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. The closest he's got is a page for the phrase "when the looting starts, the shooting starts", which wasn't created until after Trump had made his Tweet.
The idea that this is a well-known racist catchphrase which anybody had heard of a month ago is absurd, and you know it.
(For the record, I despise Trump. All I ask is that we keep our criticism of him tethered to reality - it's not like we don't have enough non-fictional reasons to oppose him.)
I would tend to agree but him retweeting a video of someone yelling "White power", clearly and distinctively multiple times does tend to lower the tolerance for any type of catchphrase that has a racist past.
But surely it can be harmful? Perhaps women aren't encouraged to get into racing sports and get potentially lucrative careers out of it. Imagine the same sentence with computers - or programming! - replacing driving. Many a heated discussion has been had on these forums about a certain man and his memo.
Somehow I hadn't really thought about whether the discrimination in university admissions against Asian Americans in general affects all sub-groups, like Japanese Americans for example. Is this the case?
Would you say this is true outside of the US as well? Does the moral hazard get introduced with lobbying, or do you find it to be problematic on its own?
My family watches CinemaSins. Instances of racial depictions are often tagged with a verbal, "That's racist!" when, sometimes, it's "race-ial" content or even the mere mention of race. "-ist/-ism" usually connotes negative orientations, or heavily biased presentations.
Can't imagine how to navigate this these days, but maybe there's a layer between.
When Germans elect a Chancellor who doesn't make sure that Germany meet their NATO commitments are they being disrespectful to their allies? I understand that the comment may come off a bit incendiary, but I'm genuinely asking.
In as much as the other members of NATO (particularly the US, who is the primary funder of NATO) care about those commitments, yes. Which is to say, I’m not sure how much it maters historically when the US did not seem to particularly care. Now that the US has brought up the matter, to not make an effort to spend more is disrespectful to me.
(But the concept of disrespect aside, I would consider allies not fulfilling the agreements of a treaty made to lower my trust in them to fulfill the obligations of current and future agreements. And that trust is also quite important.)
Black households have about $5000 in wealth. When considering the fact that they are owed 40 acres and a mule in reparations, remember that each black household should be worth upwards of $800,000 (~$20k per acre).
Ask yourself if education, poverty, healthcare, loans, housing, etc... would be an issue if they were actually paid what we all collectively owed them. I expect some portions of the racism would still exist but economic empowerment is always a potential gamechanger.
Seems uber is trying to help fix that gap themselves. I commend them for at least trying something novel.
Being a person of color in the US absolutely means you are confronting systemic racism throughout your life. So absolutely, yes, compared to white restaurant owners. Example: If you are black, you are less likely to get a small business loan, and if so you are likely to get worse rates [1]. They also are encountering more resistance to accessing COVID-19 bailout funds [2]. These are just two examples specific to being a business owner, not to mention the systemic racism they face as individuals.
Black people are the least rewarded early investors in the startup we call the USA.
They have more right to be in this country than any group other than Native Americans, a large % are in fact descendants of native Americans but are not recognized as such due to a paper genocide and deportation program carried out by the govt of the US in the early 20th century.
No other minority group is in this position. Anyone who has studied the history knows the country still owes a tremendous outstanding debt to this group of people.
People still seem unaware of these basic facts... And we've had black history month for how many years?
The education system in America is truly lacking and it shows when it comes to the topic of race/racism which is a key part of our economic history and inextricably tied to the history and development of US capitalism.
