News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. 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.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
If institutional racism has gotten worse and the only things being done are performative, I stand by my claim.
Okay. I demonstrated your point was false by pointing to actual verifiable things. You're just making vague claims now. So by what metric are you judging that things have gotten worse? And how does that prove the whole government is working against them now?
Again, your "actual verifiable things" are performative and we are going backward. If none of the "actual verifiable things" help then, again, I stand by my point.
If I say I'm helping kill a mosquito on your nose by punching you in the face, I doubt you would consider me to be on your side.
You're not providing any evidence of your point. I understand that you think this has happened. I'm trying to figure out how you got to that position.
And if you're arguing the the CRA didn't actually do anything, then I would argue that you are woefully ill equipped to be having this debate.
I'm arguing that something that happened in the 1960s has absolutely no bearing on the government doing nothing to help with institutional racism in 2024 as it slides backward.
You do know that this isn't 1964 and Lyndon Johnson isn't the president anymore, right?
It's funny how much you are going out of your way and misrepresenting my position to avoid actually supporting yours. Do you not realize how transparent that is?
Your position apparently is that the entire government isn't working against people of color in 2024 because of something that happened 60 years ago. Now if you want to give an example of something the government is doing in 2024, feel free.
Wow, still refusing to provide anything to prove your point. Amazing.
You mean sort of like you haven't either other than saying a law was passed 60 years ago?
But here you go. I'm sure you'll say if you bother to read any of it that this doesn't prove my point because 60 years ago, the Civil Rights Act was passed:
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/american-racial-and-ethnic-politics-in-the-21st-century-a-cautious-look-ahead/
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systematic-inequality/
https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/11/15/black-americans-differ-from-other-u-s-adults-over-whether-individual-or-structural-racism-is-a-bigger-problem/
https://www.americanprogress.org/article/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/
But hey, Barack Obama was elected president. Institutional racism solved. The government is helping black people now.
From the second paragraph of your first link. It basically agrees with what I said. And nothing in that link about how the whole government is against them.
Did you just spam a lot of links without vetting them in a desperate attempt to make your point look valid? This is shamefully dishonest.
Holy shit you're still lying about my position. Why so grossly dishonest?
Are you okay?
Cute. You didn't read past the second paragraph.
You had a chance to actually prove me wrong. And what did you do? Nothing and then lie about what I said.
I literally gave you a whole bunch of links. You apparently only read two paragraphs of one of them. I mean the paragraph immediately after the one you read might have given you a clue. So you either didn't read the links or you did and you're being dishonest about what you read.
You, on the other hand, have brought up the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and absolutely nothing else, which you claim is proves something about the government in 2024.
By the way, I never lied about what you said, because all the times you claimed I lied about what you said, I never claimed you said it.
I admit I did not read all of your links. I read the first one, as I said none of it supported your point, and stopped there because after doing so it was apparent you did not actual read your own links to see if they supported your claim. You lied and claimed I stopped at the second paragraph. So claiming you didn't lie is hilarious.
Of course, I quoted the article to show how it did not support your point. What did you do? Oh yeah, providee zero explanation as to how it does support your point. Of course you avoid doing so because we both know it was a disingenuous gish gallop.
You read two paragraphs of the first one. You quoted the second paragraph out of context as if it did not.
And you still have yet to provide a single piece of evidence to support your claim. The Civil Rights Act being passed 60 years ago does not prove your claim about anything about the government in 2024. Because it's an entirely different government and almost everyone in the government in 1964 is dead now.
Let me know when you want to provide actual evidence about the U.S. government in 2024.
Or when you bother to actually read a single link I provided to the end. Because you sure didn't read the one you claimed you did read after paragraph 2.
And I like how you've suddenly dropped the "you're lying about what I said" accusation when I pointed out that I never claimed you said any of it. "I was wrong about that" would be the honest response. I won't be holding my breath.
No, I read the whole thing, even explicitly pointing out that there was nothing in it that supported your original claim. I just quoted the part that contradicted your claim.
You still have yet to actually explain how it supports your point.
How about this- I'll explain how it supports my point when you provide the evidence bout the U.S. governments actions on systemic racism in 2024, which I've asked for multiple times.
Again, I won't be holding my breath.
You are trying to shift the burden of proof. I didn't just point to the CRA, but even that's enough to demonstrate how your point is wrong by comparing now to when the vast majority of the government was actually working against black people. You then shifted your point, provided nothing that supports it, and now demanding that I prove you wrong.
That's not how it works, sorry.
But I would like to point out how I'm still the only one who has provided something to support my point, while also being able to explain it.
That's simply a lie. You haven't provided anything to support your point.
Yet again, a 60-year-old law proves nothing about the government in 2024.
I gave you many links. You read two paragraphs of one link and then decided none of it was evidence.
You have provided zero links to back up anything. Zero.
You are an incredibly dishonest person.
You don't think my point is very good. This is different than not providing anything. And that's fair I'm more than happy to go on, but you have to reciprocate first, which of course you refuse to do because even you realize your point is bs.
You, on the other hand, despite being told, multiple times, that I read the whole thing, continue to lie and claim I didn't read it and still haven't provided an explanation as to how it supports your point.
At least I know going forward with you that you won't be honest.
Ah, dishonesty again.
You admitted you didn't read all of my links. What I don't believe is that you read the single one you claim to have read to the end.
What is the point of this "reciprocating" when you admit you don't even look at what I provide to you?
I think what you must mean by "reciprocating" is that you want me to make up evidence-free claims like you have done so far.
I'll explain how my point is supported when you read the things I used to make my point. Which I do not believe you will ever do.
You lied when you said I was claiming you said things you didn't say. I did no such thing.
You lied when you said you presented evidence. You did no such thing.
Now you're lying when you said you read what I provided when you already admitted you didn't.
Yes, I didn't read all of your links. Openly admitted. I didn't bother after it was clear your first link didn't support your point. Already pointed out the apparent gish gallop.
But your lie is that I didn't read past the first two paragraphs of the first article, which was clearly untrue from the start and certainly after I clarified it for you.
It's amazing that you're willing to jump through all of these hoops to lie about me lying, but won't even explain your point.
Pretty transparent.
Again, I will "reciprocate" more and explain my point when you read the links I provided to make my point. Let me know when you have done so. Of course, I will expect more than just your word, just like I don't just take you at your word that you read the single one you claim to have read to the end.
Whenever you're done reading those links, tell me about them.
I'm the only one who has responded to anything in your links. The only one who has put up more than their word is me.
Once again, when you have read all of my links, tell me what you think of them. Then we can continue this discussion.
You cannot honestly address my point without reading and addressing my evidence and I'm not interested in helping you try.
Still the only person who had said anything about what's contained in your links is me. You've gone out of your way to avoid doing so.
We both know why and we're the only two here. So I'm not sure who you are trying to fool.
Which is, of course, not saying anything about the links. I don't blame you for avoiding the debate because you know you'll lose, but I can blame you for the dishonesty.
I love how I have to do something you aren't even willing to do yourself. But I get it, you're done (why you didn't realize that earlier, I don't know) but need to have the last word so I'll give it to you.