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: 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.