General CE Chat
- Thread starter Raoul
- Start date
Russia tried to stage coup in Armenia, prosecutors allege
https://www.politico.eu/article/russia-stage-violent-coup-armenia-investigation-allegiation/
The polls are less relevant than actual turnout this late in the game given that people in various states have already voted. Therefore a poll done two weeks before 5 November, would be less meaningful than one done before early voting starts. The metrics to look for over the next month are how many people by party are actually early voting, how many have requested ballots etc in the seven key swing states. National and state polls then become a coincident indicator for people who actually take the time to show up and vote.
No comment on you, I know it’s an Americanism, but the use of ‘Blacks’ on an international forum feels so out of place. Like, properly racist. It’s a holdover from slavery in the country and y’all just kept it. So weird.
Is it used in real American society? Would people just say ‘Blacks are going to vote for Harris in record numbers’, out loud, in a crowded bar?
Yes, and its largely considered the most acceptable term for black Americans. Linguistically, its not a holdover term from slavery at all (that would be the N-word). Other terms that went through phases of being the acceptable term and now are not considered acceptable were "negro", "darky", and "colored person/people". Black didn't come into use until the 1950s-60s and IIRC it coincided with the Civil Rights Movement and positive associations as opposed to those earlier terms.
https://www.archives.gov/research/catalog/lcdrg/appendix/black-person
There are some that prefer "African-American" but there are also many, including all my friends, that prefer black American to "African-American". Neither term is currently considered unacceptable in any way. I've actually never heard people internationally complain about this term either and definitely haven't heard someone call it "properly racist". What term is considered acceptable in the UK today?
Yes very common. Unfortunately. You’ll also hear “whites” occasionally. I find it quite cringey, sounds way worse than simply saying “black/white people” I think
Thanks for the detail, I’m fairly across it.
Also not being edgy or confrontational, it reads abhorrent though.
You’d get your head kicked in in London if you used ‘blacks’ the way Americans do. The worst of our society will use ‘Muslims’ as a sweeping generalisation, wrapping everyone into an ugly label.
‘Blacks’ just scans as so racist. The treatment of black people as a monoculture is odd from the outside looking in. Just as ‘African American’ is. Y’all use that to mean black, even for someone with the thickest Jamaican accent.
You can freely say ‘Were they white/black’ in England, but we’d never say ‘A group of blacks’. Even writing it feels atrocious.
So is it just the shorthand? A "group of black people" would be okay (and what you'd say in England) but not "a group of blacks"?
I mean I am black yes I would say that as a descriptor. It depends how you use it I guess. I mean in everyday usage I wouldn't say or write African-American etc. I think in maybe news reports or more formal usage you would likely see something like African-American male or something in descriptors possibly but it isn't racist unless you are yelling it at someone in a racist way, i.e. "Hey you ____!" You wouldn't use the most formal version of the racial descriptor in an "attack". Well decent people obviously wouldn't be using any racist language but I digress.
We’d say ‘a group of people’…
All sensibilities aside, if pushed to use the terms in your context; you’d hear people say ‘Some black lads stopped to help a woman who got knocked off her bike’. ‘Some blacks stopped to help a woman’ would send a room silent.
It’s absolute and outright racism when communicated like that. It’s a derogatory term that kind of stopped being used in the late 80’s or early 90’s. You’d get sent to HR if you used it in the workplace and an American using it in an interview, wouldn’t get a job.
None of this to say that racists in this country wouldn’t use it.
So it sounds like it's just using "black" that you think is derogatory? "black lads" is okay but "blacks" is not? Because in that case it's definitely true that just "blacks" is not the most respectful way of referring to someone but "you blacks", "you Asians" "You Irish" would all be considered equally sloppy in the way of social graces (and may hide some racist attitudes because of the phrasing). But they wouldn't be outright racism. Also using that in front of "people" or "lads" wouldn't be offensive at all. "Black people" would not offend anyone just like "Asian people", "Irish people" wouldn't offend anyone. I get that just saying "people" might be better in some contexts but in context of demographic voting blocks its unavoidable to subdivide on race in addition to income, age and a half dozen other factors.
Sorry, I’m derailing a thread mate.
It’s not that I think it’s derogatory and racist. It IS in England. No ifs, buts or coconuts. In England, ‘blacks’ would be an article of the lesser. Only racists would use it.
I was just wondering if people actually used the term freely in America, or whether it was only written down. Evidently they do.
Isn't coconut's a racist term? Generally used to say white on the inside. I think in many countries it is often aimed at Asian people but in the UK it is a more general white on the inside/Uncle Tom type insult. In Australia it is usually aimed at Aboriginal/Indigenous Australians, most often by other Aboriginal/Indigenous Australians. Obviously not at all how you were using it of course. One thing I remember from various diversity type trainings over the years is that if you start with people who are black/Muslim/have a disability then it is harder to be interpreted as insulting as the people thing is always first.
Aye to the coconut lines. We just had a mad court case here over it. Guardian article on it
The American use of ‘blacks’ will be forever galling to me for all the reasons listed. But it’s unconsciously racist even at its best reading.
‘Trump is seeing growing in popularity with blacks and Hispanic’s’. Oh yeah? The entirety of society with a certain melanin level is a monuculture?
Yet we’ll say;
“Trump is struggling with white women with college degrees”
“Harris is struggling with white males aged 25-45”
I think the acceptance of an othering term just allows historic racism to continue unabashed.
The Uk does it with Muslim folks. ‘Starmer is struggling with the Muslim vote’. Oh yeah? Do you mean Muslims living below the poverty line in Tower Hamlets? Or Muslim Dentists and Doctors that are thriving in suburbs of Leicester?
Aren't americans less fit than ever, so much so that the military is struggling to replace troops?
Civil War threats sounds overblown, besides, people at large may say things are horrible, but i reckon most have it way too good to really go through with something as extreme as risking their lives in a war.
Civil War threats sounds overblown, besides, people at large may say things are horrible, but i reckon most have it way too good to really go through with something as extreme as risking their lives in a war.
I like the idea of Americans being too fat to engage in civil war
There is an enlistment problem, but it has nothing to do with fitness.
It's becoming a somewhat top heavy organization.
Really? You can find plenty of articles citing lack of fitness as part of the reason for poor recruitment numbers. Here's one.
And another based on a DOD study.
This is a classic example of survivorship bias - and ultimately looking at the wrong thing.
This looks at reasons for ineligibility for service, for people who applied, not people who did not apply at all.
Unfitness in the US has been a problem for decades and decades, and it's only now that recruiting numbers are seriously starting to plummet.
The biggest self-imposed blocker is drugs. People who have smoked weed cannot join, that's a huge self imposed problem that there is already talks to change.
The ultimate reason why there are recruiting shortages is simply because the benefits/pay has not increased/scaled as time has gone by. Twenty years ago it was more than viable to serve for half a decade, or a decade and then get your college education funded by the various programs. People who apply for enlisted positions tend to be of lower socio-economic class or background, with higher prevalence of drug/weight problems statistically. If you upped the benefits/advantages of joining the military, the problem of those two decrease as the socioeconomic enlistment percentiles increase.
Now, it's far less incentivizing and the simple mathematics of it doesn't add up anymore.
It's not that the same amount of people are applying, but more and more are getting rejected, it's that less and less people are applying.
The DoD has started huge marketing programs to target this shortfall, such as sponsoring E-sports events like Call of Duty, PUGB and Starcraft.
11% of people who were rejected due to obesity is a tiny proportion of the problem. If the applicant pool increased by 20% and the drug ban was lifted to some degrees, then ultimately the obesity issue is negligible.
This is classic media misinterpreting the problem.
Also, please never cite Vox for anything military related, they're incredibly, notoriously, wrong on everything related to this topic.
The fitness angle is also a bit of a fallacy, because as you said, obesity has been a thing for decades during an era when an increasing number of DoD jobs involve sitting in cubicles. The real reason is that less younger Americans view being in the military as a desirable profession because the very concept of national service is in decline. You get paid less and could very well find yourself in the middle of needless conflict because incompetent politicians couldn't get their foreign policy right.
People don't realize that about 1/8 members of the DoD will ever find themselves in an actual combat situation.
Look at the air force. 12,000 pilots. About half of which will fly combat missions.
Then hundreds of thousands of planners, mechanics, controllers, managers, Intelligence, MPs, cooks/chefs, grunts whose sole job is arming and rearming a plane, HGV/Forklift drivers, communications guys, radar operators etc etc.
Yes, I think the problem is most who haven't served in a military often have their perceptions of it framed through movies and tv. Also, the future of warfare is going to be largely driven by data superiority, which means far more people sitting behind desks than actually fighting or even in fight support roles.
I actually looked at the US military weight maximums and it's hilarious.
I technically wouldn't be able to join right now due to being overweight.
for 6ft 1, aged 28-39, the max weight requirement is 205lbs, and I currently stand at 207lbs.
But I do about 10 hours of gym a week and can run a 10k with a 4:45/km pace.
No, that's not actually the case, since they base the number on CDC data not applications. It's not rejection numbers, but an estimate of the entire population aged 17-24, so you can't reasonably call it survivorship bias. And while obesity has been a problem for decades, the study states that the largest increase in their disqualification estimates comes from mental health and overweight (2013 to 2020).
I don't understand, is the "11% disqualification rate" not from active applications, but a projection of the entire population?
It doesn't make sense either way -
Having 35 BMI doesn't stop you from sitting at a FOB listening in to radio traffic. I have never heard from my American friends that "Yeah people are too fat" as to why they're not hitting their recruitment numbers.
Everyone talks about the pay problems and the erosion of benefits.
The 11% number is the DOD's estimate of the share of the population disqualified for service, because of being overweight. This is an estimate based on CDC numbers for the entire population aged 17-24. Similarly, their estimate on disqualification through drug use comes from HHS data. I should add the 11% are people whose sole reason for disqualification is being overweight. 44% of the population of the population disqualify for more than one reason (my guess is that a large share has being overweight as one of them).
Should try the Royal Navy mate, 19 significant ships and 41 admirals. There are some additional patrol vessels and minesweepers etc, but whether you actually need admirals for them I don't know.
To be fair they are responsible for the nuclear deterrent which makes a bit more sense of the seniority I suppose.
Hitler didn't come in to power because he was a murderous racist cnut
No one is saying racism isn't a big and important issue, but it's not the number one issue for a large portion of the population
Tbf they didn't know for sure about his murderous streak, but he wasn't exactly shy with his racism, and they liked it.
Let's not pretend the Trump voters are just lost lambs who cant think or reason for themselves, if after 9 years of him having a megaphone in the public square they are still going to vote for him, then racism isn't any kind of issue to them.
The racism was not incidental, it was pretty much a core part of the message. Actually it was the message.
But Versailles treaty! Economic hardships!
That's why he got elected, unless you'd read his book you probably would have known little about his other views until it was too late