604
Arizona Republican refers to Black Americans as 'colored people' in House floor debate
(www.nbcnews.com)
this post was submitted on 14 Jul 2023
604 points (92.5% liked)
politics
19243 readers
3184 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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Word choices aside, the more telling quote is this, "You can keep playing around these games with diversity, equity and inclusion. But there are some real threats out there. And if we keep messing around and we keep lowering our standards..."
For those that can't read between the lines, POCs, LGBTQIA+, women, and anyone else that's not a white male, are "lowering...standards".
OK then.
Let's sit down and read the actual amendment instead of taking out of context a section of some news quote which is likeky already out of context by said news before you shortened it.
https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/118th-congress/house-report/142
At the end of subtitle G of title X, insert the following:
SEC. 5__. PROTECTION OF IDEOLOGICAL FREEDOM.
Section 2001 of title 10, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
(c) Protection of Ideological Freedom.--(1) No employee of the Department of Defense or of a military department, including any member of the armed forces, may compel, teach, instruct, or train any member of the armed forces, whether serving on active duty, serving in a reserve component, attending a military service academy, or attending a course conducted by a military department pursuant to a Reserve Officer Corps Training program, to believe any of the politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4).
(2) No employee of the Department of Defense or of a military department, including any member of the armed forces may be compelled to declare a belief in, or adherence to, or participate in training or education of any kind that promotes any of the politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4) a condition of recruitment, retention, promotion, transfer, assignment, or other favorable personnel action.
(3) The Department of Defense and the military departments may not promote race-based or ideological concepts that promote the differential treatment of any individual or groups of individuals based on race, color, sex, or national origin, including any of politically-based concepts referred to in paragraph (4).
(4) A politically-based concept referred to in this paragraph is any of the following:
(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as compelling any individual to believe or refrain from believing in any politically-based concept referred to in paragraph (4) in their private and personal capacity.''.
Or you know, he's talking about actually lowering the standards which is the policy being discussed. Whether or not you think it's worth lowering admittance standards to allow more women, LGBT, POCs to join and improve diversity, at least be honest with what's being argued.
There's been ongoing debate on lowering standards, mostly for allowing more women into combat roles. While barring these groups entirely from certain roles is obviously wrong, changing and lowering requirements doesn't seem right either.
No one is lowering standards. Affirmative action means that when all other things are equal, prefer the candidate who is underrepresented in the field.
How often do they get two candidates that are exactly equal? If they're giving a benefit to people underrepresented, it needs to be worth something.
And we've been constantly lowering standards, unrelated to affirmative action. There was a time when being a high-school graduate meant something. Now it's easy to get through college, and completely necessary because if you don't people will assume you're the sort of person who can't even get through college.
This is not about affirmative action. There are efforts to lower standards, separate from affirmative action. Maybe not for LGBT or POC but women are held to different physical standards in the military.
Edit: For Ranger School, standards were lowered so women could graduate. For some positions who cares, but pushing people through positions they aren't capable for in the name of equality is dangerous both for them and their fellow soldiers
When women can hold combat positions, that might matter.
Women have been allowed in combat positions since around 2015. It's been a slow integration and there's very few, because of the exact point I made that the physical standards and training are very difficult for most women.
So they are held to the same physical standards when it's a combat position? I'm not seeing the problem then.
As of right now they are. There are efforts to lower standards to raise numbers, and that is what I'm saying is wrong.
If they're held to the same standards, of course that's not an issue.
It's not necessarily a bad idea to lower their standards in general, but it seems unfair to reject a man on the basis that he's too weak when they would have accepted a woman that's just as strong. If strength matters, then only the few women who are strong enough should be let in. If it doesn't matter, then men shouldn't be rejected for not being strong enough.
My guy, the military is nothing but a bunch of people running around in body armor shooting people. The physical requirements for all genders are anachronistic at best.
I am in favor of US reducing their military apparatus a few hundred billions.
perhaps they can do more than that, even
If you find yourself agreeing with a bigot, maybe reexamine your rhetoric