Senate The US Politics discussion

I don't really see where there's daylight between the two statements. The "extreme circumstance" he describes in his initial remarks turns out to be active engagement in combat against the US.

 

Not February.

 

I am surprised that people would feel okay even with that...

 

I'm not okay with it, but then I'm not okay with drones at all. Take what you can get, I suppose - there's no undoing this ratchet.

 

It seems silly to complain about drones. The medium of the violence is a red herring - it should be the violence itself that is objectionable.

Although Obama's smug joke about coming after the boy band his daughters like with a drone was a bit tasteless.

 

Conventional violence at least creates a human cost that can resonate with the public and hold the government to account - in theory, anyway. Though I'm not a fan of conventional violence either; I was horrified at both Afghanistan and Iraq even as a little kid with an Islamophobic mother. The problem with drones is that it removes the consequences of violence both from the home front public and from the person piloting/controlling the drones.

 

Which is what makes them inevitable.

 

My point was that it's possible to be a minority even if you're white.

The governor of this state is a hispanic woman. My medical school class is about 55% female and 45% male. Interviewers here have been known to tell white students that they're the wrong ethnicity during their interview.

"Let's make fun of the white male! He thinks he's so oppressed!"

Yeah it's fun for you guys, but you're also being, for one, ridiculous, and second, sophist. Rogue_Ten is being (being a white makes what I have said invalid how? That's racist.)

Also, the term minority on its face means the groups which are not the majority. Trying to redefine it to mean "disadvantaged group" is, well, ridiculous. Especially the term "ethnic minority". Where I am from, I am an a member of an ethnic minority group regardless of the unearned status or privilege I may have. The question of disadvantaged status on account of race or ethnic origin is an entirely different question than sheer numbers. Your attempt at sophistry demeans the meaning of the word minority. Sunni Muslims were a minority in pre-war Iraq, but had advantaged status. However their demographical status as a minority became apparent after Hussein's regime fell.

Ethnic minorities very frequently have disadvantaged status. Often they don't. In the United States, for example, while there is anti-semitism, Jews are overrepresented in higher education, politics, media, and many other avenues were there is quite a bit of power. Their average median income is some 30% higher than average Americans. I doubt you would claim Jews are not an ethnic minority because of the relatively advantaged social status that the ethnic group, on average, holds.

Are there also ways in which being Jewish in the United States put you at a disadvantage? Of course, I am not denying that.

Ethnic minorities are often disadvantaged, so there is an association between ethnic minority status and disadvantaged status, but saying that because someone has advantaged status they're also not an ethnic minority . . . You've basically removed the real meaning of "minority" from the term.

 

Actually, drone operators get PTSD. As for the consequences of violence being removed from the home front public, that's been happening ever since we switched to an all-volunteer military.

 

yeah no the power differentials in the united states in the past, present and foreseeable future are such that its "sophistic" to suggest you can even be meaningfully "racist" "against" "whites" in the same way that whites are racist against blacks and other minorities. there isnt the force, the weight of history and ossified institution there to draw on.

sorry, habibi, you're not being oppressed, by me or by mean old "hispanics" who want to create opportunities and maintain the small concessions they've managed to wring by sheer force of numbers out of white hegemony in your tiny corner of the country. i guarantee you even despite the horrible oppression they've inflicted on your white brethren with their overwhelming numbers, they're still underrepresented relative to their proportion of the overall population in things like grad programs.

 

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/

This website is like the Pravda of the Obama administration

 

You obviously didn't listen to anything I said. I acknowledged my advantaged status in New Mexican society because of my non-Hispanic whiteness. I also acknowledged that ethnic majorities or pluralities can have disadvantaged status.

I am merely arguing that complaining that I call myself an ethnic minority in a state, where demographically, I am an ethnic minority, is ridiculous. To claim that the term "ethnic minority" in fact means "member of a disadvantaged group" is sophistic. Yes, ethnic minorities are often disadvantaged, but are not always disadvantaged. Carmen (that was Carmen, right? She always confuses me with the name switches) was saying that the term ethnic minority inherently has a connotation of disadvantaged status, which I acknowledge, I am not disadvantaged.

In the context of New Mexico, non-Hispanic whites are an advantaged ethnic minority. This is something which I made painfully clear in my last post. I merely claim to be a member of an ethnic minority within the state of New Mexico. I am not claiming an overall disadvantaged status because of my race and ethnicity.

 

As W. Kamau Bell noted, it depends on how you look at it.

 

im afraid it is you who are not reading my post. you accused me of being racist towards you. i explained why that is cheapening of the term. you were also complaining about your white friends being reverse discriminated against or whatever, appropos of nothing. you also chose to claim ethnic minority status out of the blue when nobody even included you in the conversation previously. this is the behaviour of a whiny white boy trying to erase his privilege and have people feel sorry for him. there's really no other reason for it, as im sure most people itt can see clearly even if you cant

 

It is, but drones allow the President to strike where he would or could not send warplanes, soldiers, or assassins on the ground (Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan most of the time). He wouldn't be so wanton if it weren't for the flying death robots.

 

[citation needed]

 

You really need evidence as to why larger or more official military action in Pakistan or Somalia would be something the Obama administration would avoid?

 

Well uhh...I don't think we can un-invent drones any more than we can un-invent nuclear weapons.

 

No ****. But that doesn't mean scaling back their use (or in the case of nukes, total disarmament) is anywhere near impossible.

 

Forget it.

 

id rather not

 

I was going to say something but I decided not to. That's what I meant. Forget that I was going to say something in response to your last post.

 

naw i take too much satisfaction in you backing out to forget it. that's what i meant

 

The President signs the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act.