More Race Hysteria from SJW's

[Thumpalumpacus]

Obviously not based on population. But the HoR is, and that renders your concern nugatory. Laws are already subject to the large HoR delegations of populous states.

You had written, "At least with the electoral college the states with the biggest population won't be dictating policy for the rest of the country", but the EC (which determines the Presidential voting) and the HoR are apportioned by population. That means two out of the three elements are in fact subject to the control of states with high populations.

No, a state's electors in the EC are based on its number of representatives plus senators, so it's skewed in favor of smaller states.

---

https://www.archives.gov/federal-registe...about.html

Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators.

And because the # of Representatives varies by population, your "point" (which is simply a weak attempt at an "aha!" moment) does nothing to change my point, that the EC equalizes the influence of small and large states.

[Edwardo Piet]

Well I did say "generally".

Of course, but that doesn't really save the thought from the criticism.

Well right-wing views do generally fit well with bigotry. As both being ringt-wing and being bigoted is all about limiting people's freedom, self-expression and individuality. The more right-wing a view is the closer you get to totalitarianism.

[John V]

And because the # of Representatives varies by population, your "point" (which is simply a weak attempt at an "aha!" moment) does nothing to change my point, that the EC equalizes the influence of small and large states.

You're paranoid. I'm just being informative.

No, the EC does not equalize the states. It favors small states. It was designed to do so.

https://law.marquette.edu/facultyblog/20...nt-page-1/

One of the many unusual features of the Electoral College established by Article II, Section 1, of the United States Constitution is the provision that specifies that each state shall have “a Number of Electors equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress.”

The one obvious consequence of this provision is to enhance the influence of the smaller states in the selection of the president.   Because of this provision, smaller states are disproportionately represented in the Electoral College.  For example, the 12 smallest states today—Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming together account for only 17 (of 435) representatives in the House, or 3.9% of the total.  However, in the Electoral College, thanks to the “Senate bump,” the same states account for 41 electoral votes, or 7.6% of the total of 538.

Here's a book you can read:
https://www.amazon.ca/Summer-1787-Men-In...0743286936

[Neo-Scholastic]

I don't think pointing out false racism means a person is racist. Unless they start undermining REAL racism, then that's a problem.

His motives are what are questionable.

Now you can read minds?

---

Oh the horror a statue with paint on it !. Because this is only about identity politics and not actual history . Because who on earth would have a problem with Columbus ?

The Aztecs probably had a problem with Columbus. Without him their empire might still be intact. Actual history...

[The Grand Nudger]

If you stopped sharing your thoughts it might require a mind reader, but since you're eager to share them..it doesn't.  It was Cortes (with the help of the state of Tlaxcallan), btw, that fucked the Aztecs.  Columbus was too busy going full douche-mode on the Caribbean.

[Neo-Scholastic]

The OP just looked like (snarky) criticism of the regressive left's tendency to overblown literally everything and in turn unintentionally downplay actual racism to me.

That is exactly right. The left is cheapening the import of real racism and real violence by comparing 'disproportionate impacts' with Jim Crow era laws explicitly targeting racial differences and comparing vile, offensive speech with actual physical violence.

Two years ago no one, literally, no one was making accusations of 'white supremacy'. Now all of a sudden, after being just fine for 8 years, the Left would have us believe it's everywhere ever since Trump won the presidency. What has actually happened is their cries of racism and bigotry became so ubiquitous over what were obviously race neutral policy disputes that no one took those charges seriously anymore. The game was up. So the left doubled down and became even more hyperbolic. Only people who have drank the Kool-Aid seriously believe that 21st Century America is even remotely based on 'white supremacy'.

I challenge anyone to show me one law, still on the books today, that specifically targets African-Americans, Asian-Americans, etc or any other minority precisely because they are African-American, Asian-American, etc. Or show me one single law that explicitly reserves some public benefit for Americans of European ancestry. And quoting statistics doesn't count. I want to see an actual law.

[The Grand Nudger]

-but it's the leftists cheapening the import of real racism.  

[bennyboy]

(responding to OP and first couple pages)

When certain ideas become so entrenched that they are dogma, then there's always danger. It seems to me that the SJW culture is not well-meaning: it's yet another example of assholes using popular ideas to piggyback themselves into a position of un-earned power over others. Some douches have realized that if you go around accusing everyone of racism, or cultural appropriation, or "micro-aggressions," then they have to stand there and take it, no matter how obviously against the truth your claims might be.

I've seen plenty of this in these forums. In particular, there's the idea that once someone has been branded an undesirable (a racist, a theist, whatever), the torches must come out.

Well, what's important, is that you found a way to excuse your own bigotry by reference to someone else's stupidity.  Talk about extending the shelf life of rancid human behavior.

This is very much the language of social exclusion, and has literally nothing to do with the OP. So why is it here, and why did it get so many kudos? The fact is that this community has decided that Neo is an undesirable, and that anything he posts or wants to discuss is irrelevant and must instantly be brought down.

My problem with this is that if you take out words "bigot" or "racist" from many of these sentences and replace them with "witch," "nigger," "faggot" or "heretic," it should instantly be obvious that the group is using language not to express or encourage liberty, but to establish which ideas are to be taken as dogma, and which as heresy. That's why the OP news stories are important-- they show how easily race ideas may be dogmatized and used by douche-bags to make obvious truths unspoken evils.

I find it deeply ironic that members of a mostly atheistic community go to such great degrees to define sin, and to police its application. It is sad and hypocritical that you (collectively) don't realize you are calling Neo a heretic, and showing up with torches rather than rational arguments. You've largely become that which you claim to hate.

[The Grand Nudger]

The "sjw culture" is a boogeyman Benny. MLK was an sjw. Not that this will change a bigots view of social justice...we all know what they think of him, lol.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Obviously not based on population. But the HoR is, and that renders your concern nugatory. Laws are already subject to the large HoR delegations of populous states.

You had written, "At least with the electoral college the states with the biggest population won't be dictating policy for the rest of the country", but the EC (which determines the Presidential voting) and the HoR are apportioned by population. That means two out of the three elements are in fact subject to the control of states with high populations.

No, a state's electors in the EC are based on its number of representatives plus senators, so it's skewed in favor of smaller states.

---

https://www.archives.gov/federal-registe...about.html

Your state’s entitled allotment of electors equals the number of members in its Congressional delegation: one for each member in the House of Representatives plus two for your Senators.

And because the # of Representatives varies by population, your "point" (which is simply a weak attempt at an "aha!" moment) does nothing to change my point, that the EC doesn't equalize the influence of small and large states.