161
Why are Black rappers aligning themselves with the right? | Tayo Bero
(www.theguardian.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2023
161 points (94.5% liked)
politics
19148 readers
1914 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
I didn't say that. I said 58% of masters graduates here last year were women, yet the gender bonus points that favour women remain. I didn't even say that I disagreed with that policy. But if we are going have such policies I don't think we get to stand around and act confused when some men don't feel welcomed by the left.
What? What are "gender bonus points?" What masters degree program is even based on points?
They make it easier to get into university for certain genders where there is a historical imbalance of students in the subject. Men here get them for a couple of courses too: vets and nursing for example. But the vast majority of the bonuses are for women. The point wasn't to debate this system, it was just to say that we shouldn't be surprised that men feel alienated by such policies. (edit: especially in light of the recent graduate data)
Why do people get hung up on academia when it's statically likely you will make more money than women doing the same work?
'The thing that gives grades that don't ultimately matter may be treating women better, we must fix it now!' But you're utterly silent about the pay gap, the all male presidential line up, the mostly male scotus, the mostly male ceo and government makeup.
To me it feels like such a bullshit argument? Why does it resonate? Is it just that these guys are super young and basically don't get that previous generation of women were sexually harassed out of all the profitable professions, so now academia is trying to backfill?
Dude what? This is a thread about why some people are joining the right. I provided a single non controversial data point for an issue i wasn't even trying to argue.
If you cant see why a policy that has seen graduate rates rise for one gender to 58%, yet still pushes for more inequality, is going to turn off some members of the 42% then you need a kind of assistance I am not qualified to offer.
So you're saying addressing historical imbalances is a bad thing? Keep the white guys on top where they belong?
Wow that's not what I wrote - I can see now you're just going to deliberately misinterpret and misrepresent anything I write.
But you are making my point for me, so thanks I guess. If you don't see a problem with one gender of masters graduates being at 42%, then you sure aren't interested in equality. That such a position is not universally appealing should mystify nobody.
What evidence do you have that this disparity is due to trying to level the admissions playing field and not, say, the dropout rate? Lots of people never finish their graduate degree. Maybe women are better at finishing it than men? Do you have actual evidence to back up your claims?
Of course. None of this data is in dispute, I just use it as an example of how it makes perfect sense that these policies are gonna alienate some men. It's not a difficult concept - I don't see the controversy.
Imagine for a moment that the gender data was reversed. There is zero chance you'd be speculating on alternative explanations.
https://www.ssb.no/utdanning/hoyere-utdanning/statistikk/studiepoeng-og-fullfort-universitets-og-hogskoleutdanning
I don't speak Norwegian. Do you have this data in English? And does this only apply to Norway?
Also, it's interesting that you got upset about my making assumptions about the things you said and then decided you knew what I would say if the data were reversed. Seems like a double-standard. A bit on the ironic side really.
That's the evidence you demanded. For a point i wasn't trying to debate. But of course you never wanted the evidence and were just acting in bad faith the whole time.
Your behaviour is incredibly hostile and alienating. Which is the whole point I've been trying to make. Don't be shocked when some guys have had enough of this stuff and decide to join the anti-science anti-progress team.
I demanded nothing, I requested. And, again, I don't know Norwegian, so I can't read the evidence. Your getting upset about that seems... hostile. And alienating, since it suggests it's my fault that I don't know Norwegian. Which, again, seems like double-standards. Seems like you need to work on those to me.
Supposedly they did. In Norwegian. And then berated me for not accepting their evidence after I told them I don't understand Norwegian. Of course, for all I know, it could be toaster sale statistics.