6848
6849

Panama Papers reveal London as centre of 'spider's web' (yahoo.com)

ClosingDownSummer が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Johnny_Stargos 108ポイント109ポイント  (29子コメント)

That's called Minority Majority which is something we're still getting used to in California.

[–]popisfizzy 82ポイント83ポイント  (28子コメント)

I've never heard that term, only plurality.

[–]buildabeast 3ポイント4ポイント  (27子コメント)

It's basically just an awkward term that we use in the US because we don't know what else to call it. Plurality works but it's not specific enough to the situation.

[–]Actinism 8ポイント9ポイント  (23子コメント)

Yes it is?

[–]wsdmskr 1ポイント2ポイント  (17子コメント)

It is, but keep in mind our American preference for us vs. them.

[–]buildabeast -3ポイント-2ポイント  (16子コメント)

It isn't. It refers to a specific situation. Where no ethnicity has a majority of people. Being more precise isn't a bad thing. I'll quote another comment. "White Britons have a plurality in London. London is a minority majority city." They don't mean the same thing.

[–]wsdmskr 1ポイント2ポイント  (13子コメント)

Minority majority or the inverse, both represent a line of thinking demarcating the "us" (the majority) from "them" (the minorites). It presupposes a superiority of the (former) majority.

Plurality describes the situation as it is.

[–]buildabeast -4ポイント-3ポイント  (12子コメント)

Lol no it doesn't in fact by just saying "white britons are a plurality" you are putting the weight on a minority of people. When you say majority minority you are talking about the majority of people. In fact I would say using the plurality is more 'us v them' then majority minority. It is basically saying 'oh well white people are the most important so let's base our language around them'.

[–]wsdmskr 2ポイント3ポイント  (11子コメント)

You've got that backwards, my friend. Plurality gives no primacy. There is no more or less of a specific; there's just the plural.

By referring to White Britons as the majority, even when they no longer are (especially when they no longer are), you're still assigning them a base supremacy. Same with White Americans in California. There's no minority "majority" because the majority no longer exists. To push for its existence in the face of its absence maintains a form of power it no longer deserves.

Edit No one is saying, "White Britons have a plurality in London." They're saying, "There is a plurality in London, and White Britons are among them."

[–]buildabeast -3ポイント-2ポイント  (10子コメント)

Don't call me 'friend' you condescending asshole. Your argument makes literally no sense.

How am I assigning "base supremacy" by referencing the majority, which is a group of different minorities. You say that I am referencing white people, when that term specifically doesn't mention them on purpose. Your argument also ignores the historical reality that California used to have a white majority. Which is just a fact. You say you want to just say things like they are but you have to bend over backwards and use roundabout descriptions just to keep the white people as the focus. Also your definition of plurality isn't really the definition that I am familiar with. When I think of plurality I think of a section of a larger whole that is the largest part but is less than 50% not just there is no majority. That is a huge difference.

[–]Actinism 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

Using two individual words together to express something isn't being precise.

[–]buildabeast 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Ok no more two word phrases to describe anything precisely! Take-out? Fuck that get rid of it. Male heir? Fuck that too long. Best intentions? Are you a moron?!?! Get rid of it!

[–]buildabeast 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

No it isn't. They are describing something that is a unique phenomenon: that is a country not having any ethnicity in a majority. That is specific enough to need its own word/phrase IMO.

[–]Lion_LXIV 4ポイント5ポイント  (3子コメント)

Therefore, the ethnicity which has the largest proportion of the population is a plurality.

[–]buildabeast 1ポイント2ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yeah. The term is describing that specific situation though, if we can have a term for something as specific as an eldest male inheriting property (primogeniture) then I fail to see why this situation is any different.

[–]diet_shasta_orange 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

But the specific situation, where the largest single group of people are not a majority, they are a plurality.

[–]PersikovsLizard 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

That is not what the term means. The term "Majority minority" refers a place where groups that are minorities in the country at large are, in aggregate, the majority in a place. In the US, Asians, Latinos, and Blacks are all minorities, but in Hawai'i and California, adding them together, they are more than non-Hispanic Whites.

[–]HoneyD 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

How is it not specific enough for the situation? White Britons having a plurality means that they are the largest ethnic group but they do not make up a majority (>50%). It means the exact same thing has "minority majority", I just don't understand why the Californian experience merits new terminology.

[–]PersikovsLizard 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

White Britons have a plurality in London. London is a minority majority city. See, they are not the same?

[–]buildabeast 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Yeah I don't get why this is so hard to understand.