The transport board is appointed so no need to worry about people getting fired! I'm assuming he will appoint new people once the previous people's terms are up.
Ah yes, I'm going to guess they will be using those lovely quotas to that end. Good good.
I'm guessing people of color (and white people!) do care since they elected Khan. :) Again, the board is appointed so... he would just appoint different people... and the next mayor would appoint different people.. etc.
Of course they did, doesn't matter whether he will do a good job or anything, he brings up some race relations things and the election is his.
We should encourage and promote different people to run for positions, in whichever way a country deems appropriate. :) Maybe its limiting how much $ a person can use in an election campaign.
Sure, I agree that we need to encourage a climate where skin color and gender are entirely irrelevant, something that does start in education but also at home where parents make sure their children are blind to these differences (even though kids actually ARE blind to these things until overly sensitive parents start pointing things out 24/7). But again, there should never be quotas that discriminate or disable the best person for the job to get the job.
As for the corruption in an election campaign, that does seem to be a significant issue in the US, for example, where I sometimes fall off my chair when I see how much they spend on just getting their faces put on billboards...
I completely disagree re: "Western Modern social justice" You should look into the matter more in depth avoiding university or internet activism.
You assume I haven't just because you disagree. I have yet to find meaningful, substantial movements in the West that are getting the sort of attention social activists at university are. If you can give me examples to the contrary, please do, but otherwise don't just make the claim I can't be bothered to look these things up when you're the one passing judgement on someone on YouTube based on fragments of one video and say you can't be bothered to look at more before making a judgement call.
Because the race of a person affects what opportunities/jobs/education they can receive and race can show life expectancy/wages/health outcomes etc. We can change it by funding education for everyone. In the US there are several places where funding for schools is tied to property tax, which has been found unconstitutional on a state level in Ohio, which means schools in poor neighborhoods get less funding. Those poor neighborhoods end up overrepresented by people of color. We could change how that funding system works, but yet people don't.
That's not race, that's their situation, which used to have race as a larger factor due to things such as segregation, but are now much more heavily tied to local economy. Race also does not change wages, it changes income based on the jobs they receive. Unless they're working illegally (an issue over here in Belgium) they'll get whatever wage is appropriate for a given job. Same for the wage gap myth related to women.
As for funding for schools being tied to property tax, I agree, that's a horrible system that will keep poor neighborhoods poor, but again, this has nothing to do with race and more just stupidity or callousness on the part of politicians; a universal theme. Don't assume people don't because "dem black", they don't because it would take money out of their or their friends' pockets. It's greed. It's almost always greed.
Your understanding of racism is very flawed. It's not about individual people being racist. While that is hurtful it does not explain racism. Racism is the embedded structure where one race benefits. It works with classism a lot of the times. :) So, in the state of funding schools, people who are wealthier (and more likely to be white) are benefiting from a system where funding flows to wealthier (and more likely to be white) schools. Where as the poor (who are both white and not white) are hurt by this situation. I hope this explains some things.
I did not say it was about individual people being racist. Groups of people can be racist. But it has nothing to do with it being an embedded structure where one race benefits. It can be part of the government's policy, sure, but you cannot make that claim without some serious evidence backing it up. Apartheid is a good example of institutional racism as it involved actual laws based on race. A parallel can also be drawn to custody or rape laws that are heavily based on gender; these are institutional. It's purely about deeming one ethnicity or race (both terms are a bit muddy) inferior based completely on arbitrary, meaningless features such as the color of their skin, the shape of their eyes or any other common, identifying trait of that race. You are still just describing a system that benefits the wealthy with the motivation of greed and not bigotry towards other races. You even say so yourself that the poor are hurt by this situation and that they are both white and not white. So how exactly does that define racism in the US?
What should happen when the land was owned by people indigenous to the land but then that land was taken and redistributed to corporations or wealthy foreigners or the elites of the country? Should it just remain in the hands of the few? Or should it be split up and given to people who can then sustain themselves on the land and no longer be in poverty?
Just because you give land back to people doesn't mean poverty magically goes away. Plenty of poor people manage to own a house or even a small business. Was it wrong for people in the past to take land away aggressively as they did in the US? Of course, but I fail to see why current day people need to be punished for the sins of their forefathers. If that were the case, we should all pay everyone else reparations because someone, somewhere, will have caused someone somewhere, indirectly or directly, grievances through an ancestor. Most African-Americans would need to go to Africa and demand local figures of authority to pay them reparations for their ancestors selling them to Western slavers en mass in exchange for weapons and other tools they needed to install lasting dictatorships. Doesn't make a lick of sense.
anyway this is very off topic! Back to the point, no one needs to worry about being fired since the london transport board is appointed which means people on it serve terms and then are either reappointed or replaced by new appointees
Actually, this is still off-topic, my initial question was: how many people do you think prescribe to the SJW mindset, and is it really a danger on campus that is having far-reaching consequences like Sargon describes.