• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NY Times Newest Editor Hates White People

Perhaps, but hoping for 50% (or less) republicant voter turnout, and a 90% (or more) demorat voter turnout to create a (nationwide?) tsunami is not likely.

But, as you know, that very thing is being relied on for a bunch of House races this November.
Not sure why Party enthusiasm usually works that way but it has.
These times certainly don't feel very "usual".
We'll have to wait and see.
 
I'm glad they hired this racist. It shows the NYT for what it is now. A biased, liberal rag with no credibility. At least they're not trying to hide who they are.
 
I'm glad they hired this racist. It shows the NYT for what it is now. A biased, liberal rag with no credibility. At least they're not trying to hide who they are.

This was already know to people with a shred of intelligence. I will restate that it allows people with lower intelligence to see the facts.
 

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

I admit to enjoying "non-academia" definition of words, because by now most definitions have been so overused that they tend to become boring and turn people off, so when speakers such as Judith Curry and others can make a point by using humor, it's appreciated, plus it takes nothing away from the "seriousness" of the subject matter being discussed, IMO! :roll:
 
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

I admit to enjoying "non-academia" definition of words, because by now most definitions have been so overused that they tend to become boring and turn people off, so when speakers such as Judith Curry and others can make a point by using humor, it's appreciated, plus it takes nothing away from the "seriousness" of the subject matter being discussed, IMO! :roll:

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

You are not alone.:mrgreen:
 
Interesting. OED was the first place I looked when I verified the definition of the word and the online version that I looked at didn't list simple prejudice. Neither did Cambridge or Black's law dictionary for that matter. Odd.

Anyway the redefinition makes no sense to me. Simply prejudice is a different animal from racism as the term was originally defined. Disliking a group of people and believing them to be genetically inferior are two very different things. Extending the word racism to include prejudice or discrimination waters down the term racism and is wholly inappropriate in my view. It simply becomes a rhetorical tool to demonize people because they don't like a group of people. Nazis were racists. Slave holders were racists. They are different beasts from a guy who simply doesn't like b black people (or white people or whatever).
Like I said; Personally I am of the opinion you have espoused, but under the above accepted definitions, she was being racist.

As for the rest of your position, good luck with that.
Maybe you should complain to Webster's and point out how they are differing from all the others and explain how they are actually diluting the word.
I am sure they will tell you something along the lines of usage also determining what a word means when it comes to defining it, and since we all know a bunch of idiots have been using it wrongly for some time, an exception was made.





For what it is worth there's no scientific basis for race—it's a made-up label.

nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2018/04/race-genetics-science-africa/[/URL

In many ways, genetics makes a mockery of race. The characteristics of normal human variation we use to determine broad social categories of race—such as black, Asian, or white—are mostly things like skin color, morphological features, or hair texture, and those are all biologically encoded.

But when we look at the full genomes from people all over the world, those differences represent a tiny fraction of the differences between people. There is, for instance, more genetic diversity within Africa than in the rest of the world put together. If you take someone from Ethiopia and someone from the Sudan, they are more likely to be more genetically different from each other than either one of those people is to anyone else on the planet!

news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/10/genetics-history-race-neanderthal-rutherford

Yes, race is a word made up to distinguish between actual observed differences. That is what humans do. Use words to describe things.
Those differences of race are of course real and not made up, and those differences do have a basis in science.


That the difference between individuals is minute does not negate the real difference we observe and attribute as race.
 
If by "the people" you mean "hyper-sensitive white folks who spend all their time waiting to be outraged by something some random individual does" then yes, the press is probably the enemy of those pathetic souls.

Warning projection levels critical...
 
Like I said; Personally I am of the opinion you have espoused, but under the above accepted definitions, she was being racist.

As for the rest of your position, good luck with that.
Maybe you should complain to Webster's and point out how they are differing from all the others and explain how they are actually diluting the word.
I am sure they will tell you something along the lines of usage also determining what a word means when it comes to defining it, and since we all know a bunch of idiots have been using it wrongly for some time, an exception was made.




Does feel like I'm banging my head against a wall. Usage does determine what a word means. I just don't care for politically motivated changes in usage. The only reason, as I'm guessing you know, the usage has changed is to be able to brand more people as racist and force them to change views that are really just prejudiced.
 
Gentlemen: I've known John for many years. He is not a communist or, in fact, an ideologue of any persuasion. John is a man of, shall we say, flexible political opinions.

Interesting 'flexibility' portrayed in this instance.

Inquiry by C.I.A. Affirms It Spied on Senate Panel
By Mark Mazzetti and Carl Hulse, July 31, 2014
https://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/01/world/senate-intelligence-commitee-cia-interrogation-report.html
WASHINGTON — An internal investigation by the C.I.A. has found that its officers penetrated a computer network used by the Senate Intelligence Committee in preparing its damning report on the C.I.A.’s detention and interrogation program.

The report by the agency’s inspector general also found that C.I.A. officers read the emails of the Senate investigators and sent a criminal referral to the Justice Department based on false information, according to a summary of findings made public on Thursday. One official with knowledge of the report’s conclusions said the investigation also discovered that the officers created a false online identity to gain access on more than one occasion to computers used by the committee staff.

The inspector general’s account of how the C.I.A. secretly monitored a congressional committee charged with supervising its activities touched off angry criticism from members of the Senate and amounted to vindication for Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, the committee’s Democratic chairwoman, who excoriated the C.I.A. in March when the agency’s monitoring of committee investigators became public.

A statement issued Thursday morning by a C.I.A. spokesman said that John O. Brennan, the agency’s director, had apologized to Ms. Feinstein and the committee’s ranking Republican, Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia, and would set up an internal accountability board to review the issue. The statement said that the board, which will be led by a former Democratic senator, Evan Bayh of Indiana, could recommend “potential disciplinary measures” and “steps to address systemic issues.”

On two points.

I don't believe for a moment that this spying on congress during Brennan's watch was done without his knowledge and consent. Even if it wasn't, isn't the standards that a leader is responsible for the organization that he's leading? Then this still is Brennan's responsibility to which he needs to be held accountable for.

Second, it is yet another egregious example of the Obama administration weaponizing the government and intel agencies in particular, this time against another co-equal branch of government. Astounding, really.

Given that Obama would do this to the congress, any other person is a far lesser risk target, such as journalists and presidential candidate and their campaigns.
 
Interesting 'flexibility' portrayed in this instance.



On two points.

I don't believe for a moment that this spying on congress during Brennan's watch was done without his knowledge and consent. Even if it wasn't, isn't the standards that a leader is responsible for the organization that he's leading? Then this still is Brennan's responsibility to which he needs to be held accountable for.

Second, it is yet another egregious example of the Obama administration weaponizing the government and intel agencies in particular, this time against another co-equal branch of government. Astounding, really.

Given that Obama would do this to the congress, any other person is a far lesser risk target, such as journalists and presidential candidate and their campaigns.

The account is totally upside down. This affair began with a theft of documents by Senate staffers, followed by a CIA investigation to identify the thieves. The CIA's IG office, long an opponent of the enhanced interrogation program, took advantage of the opportunity to side with the program's Senate enemies. It was disgusting dishonesty.
 
The account is totally upside down. This affair began with a theft of documents by Senate staffers, followed by a CIA investigation to identify the thieves. The CIA's IG office, long an opponent of the enhanced interrogation program, took advantage of the opportunity to side with the program's Senate enemies. It was disgusting dishonesty.

I thought the CIA and NSA weren't allowed to operate on US soil?
Why wouldn't the FBI be responsible for this investigation? Was the FBI part of the pool of suspects?
 
I thought the CIA and NSA weren't allowed to operate on US soil?
Why wouldn't the FBI be responsible for this investigation? Was the FBI part of the pool of suspects?

Senate staff had space allocated within CIA Hqs. Theft was conducted from there and investigation focused there.
 
Back
Top Bottom