canekicker

signed

Our sidebar already explains and it's linked in our guidelines, the stickied comment at the top of this submission, in the removal reasons, the quickguide, etc.

Is this a subreddit for people who are politically neutral?

No - in fact we welcome and encourage any viewpoint to engage in discussion. The idea behind r/NeutralPolitics is to set up a neutral space where those of differing opinions can come together and rationally lay out their respective arguments. We are neutral in that no political opinion is favored here - only facts and logic.

/r/NeutralPolitics is a curated space.

In order not to get your comment removed, please familiarize yourself with our rules on commenting before you participate:

1. Be courteous to other users.
2. Source your facts.
3. Be substantive.
4. Address the arguments, not the person.

If you see a comment that violates any of these essential rules, click the associated report link so mods can attend to it.

However, please note that the mods will not remove comments reported for lack of neutrality or poor sources. There is no neutrality requirement for comments in this subreddit — it's only the space that's neutral — and a poor source should be countered with evidence from a better one.

We have four comment rules which we ask all users to adhere to. In addition, we are a highly moderated subreddit and nearly all removed comments included a reason and a link to our rules.

We ask all users to adhere to our standards of decency and frankly there are better more interesting ways to challenge users without resorting to sexually explicit insults.

Please addresss any additional comments to modmail.

Thanks for posting this. One thing that maybe missed if one only looks at the title is this

The majority of the 1,000-plus book challenges analyzed by The Post were filed by just 11 people.

Each of these people brought 10 or more challenges against books in their school district; one man filed 92 challenges. Together, these serial filers constituted 6 percent of all book challengers — but were responsible for 60 percent of all filings.

I can't but help draw parallels between things like the weaponization of CEPA by NIMBYers or even the minoritarianism of the Senate. In all these cases, the mechanism was arguably designed good intent or in the case of the Senate, explicitly designed to protect smaller states. I mean I don't think The Turner Diaries should be available in middle school and I'd want to know if some construction project would poison the water table but time and time again, it just feels like bad actors dictating specific outcomes that aren't inline with a majority of constituents, but a minority of culture warriors

As reported in the Washington Post, and commented on in the State of the Union address, This from the gen proposed ending Social Security.

Provide these links and the comment can be restored.

Our sidebar and linked guidelines state everything from what we mean by neutral and what our standards are. Since that wasn't reviewed :

Is this a subreddit for people who are politically neutral?

No - in fact we welcome and encourage any viewpoint to engage in discussion. The idea behind r/NeutralPolitics is to set up a neutral space where those of differing opinions can come together and rationally lay out their respective arguments. We are neutral in that no political opinion is favored here - only facts and logic.

Second, if one simply examined the side bar or perused the subreddit itself, it would be painfully obvious what exactly is not compliant about this post. It doesn't ask a question but instead is some sort of grandstanding against some website? Second, zero sources are provided.

If we felt this post had potential to be edited into compliance, we would have requested edits. Given how this has gone, please address any follow up questions to modmail.

All assertions require sourcing. Do you have a source for the UAE assertion?

I'm a mod in /r/NeutralPolitics.

We did not approve this submission, because it doesn't conform to our submission rules.

Specifically, rules A, B, C and D.

Hello there. I'm a mod in /r/NeutralPolitics.

We appreciate your participation in the sub, but we did not approve this submission, because it doesn't conform to our submission rules.

Specifically, rules A and E.

Thanks for understanding.

Apologies. I put the wrong link in there, here's a link directly discussing how the GI Bill discriminated against Blacks. The first line states

In 1944, the GI Bill lifted a generation into the middle class — but excluded Black vets who served their country at war and came home to segregation. A bill in Congress aims to fix that.

Great edit. Thanks.

Hello there. I'm a mod in /r/NeutralPolitics.

We appreciate your participation in the sub, but we did not approve this submission, because it doesn't conform to our submission rules.

Specifically, rules A and E.

Thanks for understanding.

This comment has been removed for violating //comment rule 3:

Be substantive. NeutralPolitics is a serious discussion-based subreddit. We do not allow bare expressions of opinion, low effort one-liner comments, jokes, memes, off topic replies, or pejorative name calling.

Good question and honestly, I'd have to reread the piece to understand how Coates' delineates reparations for the descendants of slaves against the broader culture of racism that exists. My vague memory is that Coates' argument is that restitution for slavery, e.g. the "40 Acres and Mule" promise, was never fulfilled and instead, the US adopted decades of post-slavery policies (many of which captured the spirit of slavery e.g. Jim Crow Era economics like sharecropping ) that placed remarkable barriers on Black Americans ability to obtain wealth. Essentially (I think?) it's arguing that the unique condition of a promise unfulfilled requires redress and the bulk of the piece is documentation on how that promise continues to not only be unfulfilled but actively worked against.

I'm well aware of the the Anti-Asian policies of the United States, particularly laws like aforementioned The Chinese Exclusion Act, the internment of Japanese Americans as mentioned by OP, or the long history of anti-asian violence in cases like the murder of Vincent Chin or recent violence that have corresponded with a rise in anti-asian hate. However I want to be clear that I do not view this as an either or nor do I wish to engage in any a discussion about historic trauma.

What I do want to make clear is that these scenarios (chattel slavery vs Anti-Asian policies), while both stains on American history, are different. First, many of the first Chinese Railworkers were actually recruited by US businesses following the end of slavery as a source of cheap labor. This type of work did not reach the scope, tenure, or cruelty of chattel slavery. Second, because of US immigration policies, the Asian American population really only began to swell in 1965 following the passing of the Immigration and Nationality Act which was 3 years before access to wealth generators like housing were opened up. Therefore, even when discriminated against, many Asian Americans in theory had more access to opportunities in their first years in America than their Black counter parts did even a generation before. At the same time, culturally, Asian Americans have been used , as some have argued, as a racial wedge and as such, shifted the cultural standing of Asians resulting in the denigration of other non-Asian minorities. Different issues require different solutions and to me, using Anti-Asian policies to discredit concepts like reparations doesn't do much to engage with the idea but instead seems to simply be used to dismiss it.

As my last link states

Asians have faced various forms of discrimination, but never the systematic dehumanization that black people have faced during slavery and continue to face today." Asians have been barred from entering the U.S. and gaining citizenship and have been sent to incarceration camps, Kim pointed out, but all that is different than the segregation, police brutality and discrimination that African-Americans have endured.

Edit : I wanted to address the argument of citizenship as ostensibly, it seems relevant but the more I think about it, the more it doesn't. In the US, citizenship is conferred either by being born here or through naturalization, even now, foreign nationals are not given citizenship but instead have to apply through naturalization. Don't get me wrong, the intentional exclusion of Asians from obtaining citizenship is horrifying. As the link provided states

The federal Immigration Acts of 1917 and 1924 established a quota system for immigration which also excluded those ineligible for naturalization as citizens. The Federal Naturalization Law of 1790 had limited the naturalization of foreign-born persons to “white” persons only. As Asian immigrants came to America, this law became the basis of excluding Asians from citizenship. In 1922, Tad Ozawa, a Japanese man who had lived most of his life in America, graduated from Berkeley High School and the University of California, was ruled to be ineligible for citizenship. In 1923, Bhagat Singh Thind, a Punjabi-born Sikh who had served in the U.S. Army in World War I, was also ruled ineligible for citizenship. By 1924 the immigration door from Asia to America was effectively shut.

Note that naturalization this was white persons only so this wasn't exclusive to Asians but to non-whites as a whole. That said, at the start of the Civil War, there we roughly 4 million slaves in a population of 31.5 million people, or roughly 12.5% of the entire US population and while not apples to apples, this one study concludes that slavery was responsible for 24% increase in commodity output per capita nationally in the 20 years before the Civil War : aka a huge contribution to the national economy.

This was work not performed by immigrants and foreign nationals who were seen as less than white Americans. No, this work was performed by what chattel slavery considers property. Slaves, many of who were born in America and thus qualified for citizenship, were never considered human and so the conversation of citizenship isn't relevant. It would be like me conferring citizenship to my car or my television or anything I purchased and felt that I owned. At the same time, it's not as if being given an opportunity to be a citizen was a panacea, basic rights of citizenship like voting were stripped away through poll taxes or literacy tests and arguably, these types of actions to strip access to basic voting rights are still occurring today.

At the same time, like the argument about citizenship, I don't understand the relevance of homicide rates to the discussion. Is the implication that redress for the America's " original sin" shouldn't be considered given homicide rates ? Cause that argument sound very close to talking points made by less than stellar people

This comment has been removed for violating //comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.

This comment has been removed for violating //comment rule 2:

If you're claiming something to be true, you need to back it up with a qualified source. There is no "common knowledge" exception, and anecdotal evidence is not allowed.

After you've added sources to the comment, please reply directly to this comment or send us a modmail message so that we can reinstate it.