SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
White Americans may view diversity and multiculturalism more negatively as the U.S. moves toward becoming a minority-majority nation, UCLA psychologists report.
As part of their study, the researchers divided 98 white Americans from all regions of the country — half male, half female, with an average age of 37 — randomly into two groups. One group was told that whites will no longer be the majority in the U.S. by 2050; in fact, this is likely to be true as soon as 2043, according to some projections. The second group was told that whites would retain their majority status in the U.S. through at least 2050. All participants were then asked a series of questions about their views on diversity.
“Whites feel lukewarm about diversity when they are told that they are about to lose their majority status in the United States for the first time,” said Yuen Huo, UCLA professor of psychology and the study’s senior author.
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/releases/soon-to-become-a-minority-in-the-u-s-whites-express-declining-support-for-diversity-ucla-psychology-study-finds
[PAPER]: No Longer “All-American”? Whites’ Defensive Reactions to Their Numerical Decline:
http://spp.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/08/13/1948550614546355
(Score: 2, Interesting) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:47AM
They are nearly always of the variety that is about making mountains out of molehills.
You cannot just say "nearly always." Specifics are needed. I, personally, know of only one modern religious conflict in the USA: between all religions but Islam, and Islam. The "molehill" that is the cause of the conflict is simply a text in Islam's Holy Book that orders believers to conquer unbelievers and kill them if they fail to convert. Furthermore: nobody would pay any attention to this ancient phrase, which The Bible is also full of, except that believers actually do what they are commanded to do by their Book. I am not sure that unwillingness to be slaughtered by your neighbor is an entirely irrelevant feeling.
Perhaps you know of other religious conflicts? If so, they should be also reviewed. People don't hate other people for no cause whatsoever. There is always some reason for hate, even when it is not rational. That reason should be discussed, and if it is not rational then you can convince the people that they are wrong. If you have no reason in hand then you have nothing to speak of, and the situation will not be corrected.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @03:54AM
What the fuck are you talking about? "Religious conflict?"
Who said anything about that?
You seem to be on an anti-islam snit and if I cared I'd actually use your personal irrationality as an example of the following:
> That reason should be discussed, and if it is not rational then you can convince the people that they are wrong.
Yeah because people who hold irrational beliefs are totally going to change them when presented with a rational argument.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:00AM
See the original comment in the very thread you just replied to: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=4222&cid=101863 [soylentnews.org]
Let me quote from it for you, with the relevant parts emphasized:
That's why we're talking about religion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:05AM
And why are we talking about some unnamed conflict?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:10AM
Because you brought up such conflicts, but haven't yet given concrete examples. See your own comment in this thread of discussion: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=4222&cid=101881 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:18AM
> Because you brought up such conflicts, but haven't yet given concrete examples.
Perhaps you could show me your thesaurus, because none of mine have "conflict" as a synonym for rationalization.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @06:45AM
Perhaps you want to check your thesaurus for the word "sanctioning":
people come up with all kinds of rationalizations to justify sanctioning them.
Unless you are talking about a sado-masochistic relationship, to sanction == to penalize, therefore it's a conflict.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:47AM
> Unless you are talking about a sado-masochistic relationship, to sanction == to penalize, therefore it's a conflict.
Man you are really out there.
From Merriam Webster - sanction "a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society's standards"
Turns out we didn't even have to talk about islam for you to demonstrate your own brand of irrationality.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:02AM
From Merriam Webster - sanction "a mechanism of social control for enforcing a society's standards"
There are eight to ten meanings of the word. But even if we look at this one... don't you think that ENFORCING something is not going to cause a conflict? You seem to be losing this discussion if you have to resort to a debate about the meaning of the word "is." Hell, there is a trade war going on in Europe over some sanctions; millions of dollars in trade deals and relations are destroyed overnight. It's not a laughing matter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:15AM
> There are eight to ten meanings of the word.
So now you are telling me that the meaning I intended when I wrote the sentence is not the meaning I intended?
And you think you are "winning this discussion?"
Winning!
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:53AM
All common uses of the word "sanction" translate into some form of punishment, enforcement, ordering around. But... if you had something else [reference.com] in mind, please clarify what exactly it was. Here is the original statement for your convenience. Note that the word is used as an adverb from the verb "to sanction."
verb (used with object)
6. to authorize, approve, or allow: an expression now sanctioned by educated usage.
7. to ratify or confirm: to sanction a law.
8. to impose a sanction on; penalize, especially by way of discipline.
(6) and (7) are approvals, so they don't really fit until you meant to say that "when weirdos show up people come up with all kinds of ideas to justify PERMITTING their actions." But freedom of religion does that by default, and your choice of words ("weirdos") does not spell approval. So we are left with (8), which means to penalize, to discipline, to punish. Probably that's not the best word for exercising an oppressive force either, but it will do. So please let me know what exactly was intended to be said.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:00AM
> All common uses of the word "sanction" translate into some form of punishment, enforcement, ordering around.
You got it bub. Enjoy your dictionary pedancy, I hope it keeps the voices at bay because apparently your meds aren't enough.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @12:25PM
Tork, why do you always argue about well-understood definitions? Every discussion with you starts out with people using words as they're commonly defined. Then you try to redefine them mid-discussion. Then you try to repeatedly argue that your redefinition is the correct one, when it clearly isn't. You could just admit that you're wrong, you know.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @06:42PM
It must be really weird for you, reading this site or /., since you think every AC is Tork, even though Tork doesn't even post AC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:49PM
It is easier for him to think that only one person disagrees with him.
It is an internal appeal to the fallacy that if majority agrees with him, he's right.
The irony here is that since he posts as AC, he is also Tork.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:56PM
Tork does post AC. He admitted it himself recently! You do remember when you admitted that, don't you, Tork?
Here's the proof, in case you forgot already:
https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=4079&cid=100663 [soylentnews.org]
To quote you, Tork, with the relevant emphasis added:
So, Tork, you are a self-admitted anonymous shitposter.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @09:19PM
Tork, why are you fighting with yourself?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @10:16PM
I've figured it out! You are Tork, but you don't want anybody to know, so you're trying to throw everybody off by accusing everyone else of being you! Pretty sneaky, but I've seen through it. Give it up buddy, you've been found out; stop with all the logical fallacies and dumb shit, and stop trolling with that brainwashing technique, proof by repeated assertion, because nobody's dumb enough to fall for it no matter how many times you repeat it.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 05 2014, @04:20AM
the only religious conflict i know of in the US is small groups of fundamentalist christian extremists trying to force their views on everyone and turn the US into a theocracy. this "muslims vs everyone else" you speak of is nothing but bigoted, xenophobic FUD, spread by those same fundie extremists i mentioned above and others who share their bigotry and/or xenophobia.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:17AM
the only religious conflict i know of in the US is small groups of fundamentalist christian extremists trying to force their views on everyone and turn the US into a theocracy.
You are too late with that warning. In US elections candidates who declare themselves atheists have far fewer chances to win. Even Obama, who, I suspect, doesn't care about religion, had to declare himself a believer. It would be far more honest to say that he can't care less about the invisible man in the sky. In schools, reportedly, students are required to say words (allegiance pledge) that contain references to a deity. (Which one? There are many to choose from.)
You can say that religious people are exerting some pressure onto the society. But outside of those examples their pressure is largely harmless. It causes no conflicts, as long as you don't confront people in the hall and don't try to dispute their beliefs. People are free to believe, after all. What they ought not be free to do is to force others into their belief. There is only one religion in the world that gives conquered people the choice between converting or dying. Is that FUD as well? Quite a few Syrians could say that it is not; but they are dead now. Don't you think that any civilized person, of any religion or of no religion, should have some reservations about embracing the religion that approves mass murder of unbelievers? Note that these atrocities have not resulted in any rebuke from Islamic leaders, nor the killers have been ejected from the ranks of believers. Those are facts, not feelings. I don't believe in gods of any sort; however no honest person should "tolerate" a group that professes mass murder and proceeds to do just that. Tolerance of evil == evil.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:43AM
yes. despots are despots no matter what religion they claim to follow. your FUD claim that islam is a violent, oppressive religion is easily countered by countries such as turkey. there will always be people using whatever convenient excuse they can find to seize power and oppress people; the people are to blame, not the bullshit lies and excuses they use to justify their actions.
(Score: 1) by tftp on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:54AM
your FUD claim that islam is a violent, oppressive religion is easily countered by countries such as turkey
I worked with Turks for several years in mid-1990s (in construction business; did drawings for them.) You'd be amazed that most Turks are deeply secular. Nearly 100% of educated Turks are atheists. (Education is known to strip religion pretty quick.) The company imported a thousand workers (Kurds) to work on the site, and their Mullah (who was also imported) complained loudly that none of them want to come and listen to him :-)
If I were a construction worker, I'd certainly skip on Muslim religious duties, as the work day at an active construction site is often longer than 12 hours, and the last thing you want to do after the shift is to go and pray for an hour, to no benefit whatsoever.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @08:18AM
> You'd be amazed that most Turks are deeply secular.
Man you only see what you want to see.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday October 05 2014, @05:48PM
christian extremists[...]fundie extremists
There is a history to that bunch. It's not pretty:
"Kill them all, God will know his own." [google.com]
In Vietnam, (again, Christian) USA soldiers had a similar mantra:
"Kill them all; God will sort them out."
Religion is simply 1 more form of tribalism.
-- gewg_
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Sunday October 05 2014, @07:45AM
The "molehill" that is the cause of the conflict is simply a text in Islam's Holy Book that orders believers to conquer unbelievers and kill them if they fail to convert.
This is just plain wrong, according to Islam itself. You must be one of those idiot infidel muslims who base your theology on the fundamentalist Christians.