What? You mean those people whose positions coincidentally line up against the interests of everyone but whites? Preposterous.

1/11/2011 11:56:29 AM

So... the NAACP wants to destroy white people? LOL

1/11/2011 1:23:55 PM

I can't get enough of people trying to equate the NAACP, which fights to bring a disadvantaged minority to equal footing, with groups that seek to maintain if not increase white privilege.

It's like a bunch of able-bodied patriots marching on washington because a new wheelchair ramp was appended to the Capitol but they never got the rope ladder they wanted.

[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 1:34 PM. Reason : .]

1/11/2011 1:33:02 PM

Quote :

"I can't get enough of people trying to equate the NAACP, which fights to bring a disadvantaged minority to equal footing, with groups that seek to maintain if not increase white privilege. "

That's not what the NAACP does. If that were the case, it wouldn't be the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, it'd be the National Association for the Advancement of People that Weren't Born With a Silver Spoon in their Mouth, or something similar. There already are people out there with black skin that are born with an advantage over the majority of the population, simply due to birthright and upbringing. The NAACP is an explicitly racist organization.

[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 3:44 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2011 3:44:00 PM

^the NAACP was founded 100 years ago. You know, back when black people were systemically held at a disadvantage. The name is just a holdover from a time when "Colored People" were legally limited to what they could do, and I'm positive that you knew that, so bringing that scenario up wasn't an attempt to prove a point. So don't come in here and pretend that the name of the organization is somehow indicative of some ulterior motive. If they changed the name to whatever cheesy quip you just came up, you would still try to find a way to pin them as an "explicitly racist group."

Quote :

"There already are people out there with black skin that are born with an advantage over the majority of the population, simply due to birthright and upbringing."

Ok, and? Some black people have made it up the social ladder despite institutionalized discrimination. Was this supposed to be the precursor to a larger point you forgot to make?

Look, the NAACP's mission is "to ensure the political, educational, social, and economic equality of rights of all persons and to eliminate racial hatred and racial discrimination." THOSE FUCKING RACISTS! For someone who gets his jollies by declaring other users to be intellectually lazy, you really showed your asshole on that one. Good job.

[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 5:11 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2011 4:44:44 PM

Blacks still are statistically disadvantaged and regularly discriminated against as a racial group, a few of them being successful or being born into some wealth doesn't change that. Universal approaches of "let's just try to help all poor people" explicitly ignore that discrimination exists, and equitable distribution of assistance actively prolongs racial gaps by not addressing them. As such, they are perfectly entitled to fight as a group for equal results.

Racism is a power structure, and accusing those at the bottom of that structure of "racism" for trying to get themselves on equal footing is the height of ignorance of the history, meaning, and manifestations of racism. That attitude, that racial groups united against the racism they suffer are themselves somehow equivalent to the system of white supremacy contributes to racial gaps by trivializing and dismissing injustices, and is itself part of the modern assemblage of systematic racism.


[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 5:33 PM. Reason : .]

1/11/2011 5:30:38 PM

If they were actually fighting for the rights of all people, regardless of their skin color, then I'd agree. They're not, though. They're fighting for one particular ingroup, the boundaries of which is defined by skin color. That is, right or wrong, racist. It gives credence to collectivism and the idea that we are what we look like and who our ancestors are. We should be embracing the fact that we all have common ancestry, but ultimately are individuals.

The question is not whether NAACP has ever fought and won against injustice. They undoubtedly have. I'm arguing that their singular focus on one particular race validates the ideology that they claim to be struggling against. The organization's continued existence is a hold over from a time when racism was rampant, and all black people really were held at or below a certain level due to institutional racism. We are, in my opinion, rapidly moving beyond that, and in most ways, already beyond it. Philosophies need to evolve, as well.

[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 5:35 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2011 5:34:39 PM

Actually they don't restrict themselves to blacks, and actively recruit and assist Hispanics and other minorities.

1/11/2011 5:36:46 PM

Quote :

"The organization's continued existence is a hold over from a time when racism was rampant, and all black people really were held at or below a certain level due to institutional racism. We are, in my opinion, rapidly moving beyond that, and in most ways, already beyond it."

Oh, I see, you're just ignorant about modern racism. That's understandable because the media rarely ever reports on it (it's an unpopular reminder). This blog links to a shitload (I'm talking dozens) of RECENT studies that show just how alive racism is today, I highly recommend you peruse it:

http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/black-powers-gonna-get-you-sucka-right-wing-paranoia-and-rhetoric-modern-racism

1/11/2011 5:38:21 PM

Quote :

"We are, in my opinion, rapidly moving beyond that, and in most ways, already beyond it."

Where do you live? Seriously. Discrimination is still very much rampant. In most urban cities (I live in Chicago), the racial divide is PHYSICALLY evident. Freeways isolate small pockets of poverty, and that same poverty is 95% black. High-rise low income housing is filled with 95%+ poor black people. The only way we could be rapidly moving "beyond racism" is if you actively choose to ignore it. Sorry, but you are being intentionally naive.

Oh, and the whole idea of "ignore racism and it will go away" is absurdly ideological. You have to confront and actively try to correct the problem.

1/11/2011 5:40:36 PM

Quote :

"Oh, I see, you're just ignorant about modern racism. That's understandable because the media rarely ever reports on it (it's an unpopular reminder). This blog links to a shitload (I'm talking dozens) of RECENT studies that show just how alive racism is today, I highly recommend you peruse it: http://www.redroom.com/blog/tim-wise/black-powers-gonna-get-you-sucka-right-wing-paranoia-and-rhetoric-modern-racism"

Oh, racism is alive and well. There are enough counter-examples to prove that skin color is not the primary determinant of how far someone gets in life, though. Today, there are black people at the highest levels of government and corporations. Things have changed.

Quote :

"Where do you live? Seriously. Discrimination is still very much rampant. In most urban cities (I live in Chicago), the racial divide is PHYSICALLY evident. Freeways isolate small pockets of poverty, and that same poverty is 95% black. High-rise low income housing is filled with 95%+ poor black people. The only way we could be rapidly moving "beyond racism" is if you actively choose to ignore it. Sorry, but you are being intentionally naive."

That's not what I would refer to as institutional discrimination, or even discrimination at all. Indeed, the problem you cite here is not limited to any particular race - it is rampant among the lower class. The cycle of poverty, largely a result of poor education and a botched justice system that intentionally targets the poor, is a cultural problem, not simply business owners being racist.

Quote :

"Oh, and the whole idea of "ignore racism and it will go away" is absurdly ideological. You have to confront and actively try to correct the problem."

I've never said we should ignore racism. In fact, I've repeated more times than I can count that it must be confronted, and without compromise. I'm arguing that, from a philosophical standpoint, we shouldn't be targeting one race or minority over another. Do we really want a color blind society, or is that just something we talk about? If the intellectuals in this country are still viewing themselves as members of the black/white, male/female, tall/short club, the odds of seeing any real progress in our lifetimes is actually quite slim.

[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 5:53 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2011 5:52:22 PM

Quote :

"Today, there are black people at the highest levels of government and corporations. Things have changed."

Yes, things have changed. Bravo, in over a hundred years, descendants of SLAVES have sniffed success. Awesome. Close up shop, boys. Jobs over.

Quote :

"That's not what I would refer to as institutional discrimination, or even discrimination at all. Indeed, the problem you cite here is not limited to any particular race - it is rampant among the lower class. The cycle of poverty, largely a result of poor education and a botched justice system that intentionally targets the poor, is a cultural problem, not simply business owners being racist."

Stop. Business owners? Since when are they the only people who control the strings of society? And if you don't consider political pressure isolating pockets of minorities (minorities based on skin color) to live in a predefined zones physically barricaded by urban infrastructure a form of institutionalized racism, then I don't know what is.

Quote :

"Do we really want a color blind society, or is that just something we talk about? If the intellectuals in this country are still viewing themselves as members of the black/white, male/female, tall/short club, the odds of seeing any real progress in our lifetimes is actually quite slim. "

You need to abandon this philosophy. People will always label themselves by their most distinguishable characteristics. I'm right handed, so I can be defined as being a right-handed person. The idea that people will see beyond race (or gender, or religion, or being dog lovers) is too far fetched to be a realistic goal. The goal shouldn't be to somehow elevate ourselves above noticing our differences, but to rather to intellectualize that our differences don't matter. You cannot possibly do this if you actively ignore the very characteristics that make you unique.

[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 6:05 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2011 6:02:03 PM

Quote :

"Yes, things have changed. Bravo, in over a hundred years, descendants of SLAVES have sniffed success. Awesome. Close up shop, boys. Jobs over."

Sniffed success? Really? There are black people that have made more money than any of us ever have, or ever will, over our entire lifetimes.

You make absolutely no distinction between black people and those that have descended from American slaves. Is there any distinction to be made, for you, or is it easier to lump them altogether?

Quote :

"Stop. Business owners? Since when are they the only people who control the strings of society? And if you don't consider political pressure isolating pockets of minorities (minorities based on skin color) to live in a predefined zones physically barricaded by urban infrastructure a form of institutionalized racism, then I don't know what is."

The reason poor people live in shitty areas and get a shitty education is because they are poor. Government intervention tends to make things even worse, but this is not a cut and dry problem of white city council members going through and blocking off the black people, which is how you're trying to portray it.

Quote :

"You need to abandon this philosophy. People will always label themselves by their most distinguishable characteristics. I'm right handed, so I can be defined as being right-handed. The idea that people will see beyond race (or gender, or religion, or dog lovers) is too far fetched to be a realistic goal. The goal shouldn't be to somehow elevate ourselves above noticing our differences, but to rather to intellectualize that our differences don't matter."

Outward physical appearance is what makes us recognizable. I'm not making the absurd suggestion that we actually strip ourselves of the ability to distinguish between one another, if that were even a possibility. The point is that immutable characteristics are not how we should determine who is and isn't worth fighting for. It's good that NAACP now, apparently, fights against all racial discrimination, though their name certainly suggests otherwise.

[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 6:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2011 6:15:34 PM

Quote :

"Sniffed success? Really? There are black people that have made more money than any of us ever have, or ever will, over our entire lifetimes."

Yes. Sniffed success. Just because a few people are making bank doesn't mean the entire system has been cured. They're statistical outliers.

Quote :

"You make absolutely no distinction between black people and those that have descended from American slaves. Is there any distinction to be made, for you, or is it easier to lump them altogether?"

You're right, I suppose doing a genealogy line of present day blacks from their possible slave descendants would help in discovering a direct line of discrimination. Unfortunately, a lot of that information is hard to come by, because, you know, black people were considered property. They didn't exactly have social security numbers, now did they? But we both know that's not going to satisfy you. You're still going to come back with the excuse that because a few people have overcome tremendous obstacles, that the system has somehow corrected itself and is fastly approaching perfection. And it only took over a century to get from being considered property to only getting paid less than your white counterpart! ALRIGHT!!!!

Quote :

"The reason poor people live in shitty areas and get a shitty education is because they are poor. Government intervention tends to make things even worse, but this is not a cut and dry problem of white city council members going through and blocking off the black people, which is how you're trying to portray it."

This is actually not true. Research the great migration, read up on the Richard Daley, read up on the race riots. I beg you to wikipedia the Robert Taylor Homes, and its relationship to the Dan Ryan Freeway. Or perhaps the desire to keep the white (mostly Irish) neighborhood of Bridgeport in tact at the expense of Bronzeville. White city council members actually did oppose integration even against the professional expertise of many urban planners (Robert Taylor being one of them) in an effort to protect the interests of white property and business owners. Now, you could possibly argue that the decision to oppose integration was a reactionary measure to oppose further race tensions, but I would argue that it was an incomplete and short-sighted solution that is still yielding unfavorable results today. Honestly, you are showing a great deal of ignorance on the subject, but you feel the need to argue anyways because it is just another opportunity to get on your ideological stump and listen to yourself preach to nobody.

Quote :

"It's good that NAACP now, apparently, fights against all racial discrimination, though their name certainly suggests otherwise."

Timeline shifts often outlast the name of organizations. Wake Forest university is no longer in Wake Forest. That's just a quick example off the top of my head. I'm sure there are others. This is a pointless argument to get hung up on.

I suppose you could go back to the "but some minorities have succeeded" argument to prove that we are post-racial.

[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 6:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2011 6:32:49 PM

Quote :

"Yes. Sniffed success. Just because a few people are making bank doesn't mean the entire system has been cured. They're statistical outliers."

Okay. So it's safe to say that poor black people are poor because they're black, and poor white people are poor because they're lazy, right? The system fucking blows, man. It works for the government and those that have connections within the government. I have never, ever suggested that there isn't serious disparity between the classes. In fact, one of my main points has been that such disparity is typical of our corporatist system. I don't want to look it at from a purely racial perspective though, whereas you do. It doesn't make any sense to look at it from a racial perspective, because it won't get us anywhere.

Quote :

"This is actually not true. Research the great migration, read up on the Richard Daley, read up on the race riots. I beg you to wikipedia the Robert Taylor Homes, and its relationship to the Dan Ryan Freeway. Or perhaps the desire to keep the white (mostly Irish) neighborhood of Bridgeport in tact at the expense of Bronzeville. White city council members actually did oppose integration even against the professional expertise of many urban planners (Robert Taylor being one of them) in an effort to protect the interests of white property and business owners."

This in no way contradicts anything I've said. I'm not denying that racism or institutional racism has existed and still exists, though it has clearly subsided through and since the 20th century. The problem, now, is primarily one of socioeconomic status, not race.

1/11/2011 6:52:06 PM

Quote :

"Okay. So it's safe to say that poor black people are poor because they're black, and poor white people are poor because they're lazy, right?"

Now you're just putting words into my mouth. I never once mentioned why whites might find themselves at a disadvantage. I didn't even come close to suggesting that. You just assumed I would make that connection because you have me labeled as a extreme race-sympathizer. I will totally agree with you that poor white people are at a disadvantage. But to pretend that race has somehow fallen out of the equation is absurd. And by absurd, I mean stupid. It's stupid to think the two are no longer related. People used to be slaves because of race. Now, the same race that was once subjected to slavery is held at verifiable, factually observable disadvantages. How can the two not be related? And you gave the typical, "things are changing" response and even claimed that we are "rapidly" moving away from racism and discrimination. I'm not one to get hung up on semantics, but if you consider this "rapid" progress, I would hate to know where we would be as a society if we were moving at a slow, or even moderate pace.

Now, as to your broader point that all poor people are at a disadvantage, I'll agree. But not all things are equal. Different races have assimilated into the US and experienced different forms of discrimination, but I don't have the time to address those right now. But yes, I will concede that poor white people are catching difficult times as well.

Quote :

"This in no way contradicts anything I've said. I'm not denying that racism or institutional racism has existed and still exists, though it has clearly subsided through and since the 20th century. The problem, now, is primarily one of socioeconomic status, not race."

Actually, it contradicted everything you said. You first claimed that urban infrastructure isn't a form of institutional racism. It is. But you've since backed away from that claim. Then you said that "white city council members" weren't actively opposing integration. But, as history demonstrates, they uh, they were. Pretty blatantly, in fact. That's not to vilify the political leaders. At some point, we have to acknowledge that they were responding to the political climate of the post-war era that actively resisted racial integration in a time where housing needs was at record highs. This is a complex issue, and indicative of a society that was still struggling with fierce racial tensions.

Quote :

"The problem, now, is primarily one of socioeconomic status, not race."

This is probably the only true statement you've made in a few posts. Which is a far cry from your original stance that the NAACP is an explicitly racist organization. You should really try not being so extreme with your political huffing and puffing.

[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 7:16 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2011 7:08:19 PM

I don't know how old you are, but when you actually see a few things and travel some more, you'll start to trust experience over "statistics."

What we experience here in America... is not racism. I say that in comparison to outside the U.S. Because outside the mainland is serious racism, and it's not just tolerated, it's embraced. We REALLY have come a long way.

Go to Africa and look at REAL racism over there. Where one tribe (a race of people) declares war on another tribe (another race of people) who don't share the same language or culture. Their version of a "lynch" is cutting the breasts off the women so they can't feed their children. In their mind, this will stop contamination because they can't have a next generation if they can't feed them.

Before that though, they'll rape and sodomize them.

Over here, everyone gets dealt two cards and they may or may not be the best hand, but it's a chance to do something with it. And if you fold, it's ok, you can still start over and get a new hand.

Everything I've heard about the NAACP is about slavery, affirmative action and what else the government should do to hand out more freebies using tax payer money. They aren't looking for a "leg up," they're looking for an elevator.

Booker T. Washington had it right from the beginning. W. E. B. Du Bois fucked up what was supposed to be a new world.

1/11/2011 7:48:08 PM

You just compared institutional racism to tribal warfare.

[Edited on January 11, 2011 at 8:07 PM. Reason : ]

1/11/2011 7:58:42 PM

No, I drew a line.

Tribal Warfare is a minor detail in what the big message was, but tribal warfare is in it's foundations a form of racism.

The NAACP however cries "Racism" in an environment where every governmental institution and normal social facets has already declared it an abomination that needs to be gotten rid of and has already made huge strides to do so. In fact, it's almost non-existant today in most cases.

In other words, they need to dump the petty crap. They're still complaining after an otherwise successful fix. They are coaxing racism by going on with this. Because if it really is a racist world, it's as though a middle class man is complaining about all his financial woes to the poor.

NAACP just needs to dissipate and go away... at this point, they are just annoying.

1/11/2011 8:20:18 PM

No. You just compared institutional racism to tribal warfare.




Here, let me describe what you just did. Let's pretend you overheard two people discussing the NFL trying to implement more strict penalties for helmet-to-helmet tackles in order to reduce concussions. Then, you came in and said, "Well, you know, in ancient Rome, gladiators used to be eaten by tigers. So we REALLY have come a long way."

1/11/2011 8:23:50 PM

Is that the most you can do to my argument? Pick the details apart? Not a big picture guy are you...

1/11/2011 8:27:03 PM

You're right. Sure, there are inequalities in this country and some of us are at a distinct disadvantage, but hey, at least they aren't chopping off all of our heads today.

1/11/2011 8:34:15 PM

For my next trick, I will compare the habits of white people in Russia and contrast them with white people in Garner.

1/11/2011 8:39:22 PM

NAACP has advocated or currently advocate:

Affirmative Action (because if you aren't smart enough to get into school, how black you are matters, Asians don't get Affirmative Action).

Historical elimination (Because blacks owning slaves in the south pre-Civil War should be a no-no to our children even though it really did happen)

A better welfare system (because you shouldn't have to work hard to have more)

40 acres and a mule (I don't know why they brought this up... it was just a suggestion during Reconstruction, but for some reason, they still feel blacks are owed this, this was obviously not thought through)

Better SAT scores (because if you can't answer the question right, then you need to be black to make up for it)

This really is a fucked up world we live in... but for blacks, it seems like a better-than-fair shake.

When NAACP goes away, We're that much closer to a fair hand. In a Hold'Em Table, people would say they were getting the benefit seeing the flop before the blind. Who knows, the NAACP might just try to do that because Texas shouldn't have their own poker game.

1/11/2011 8:48:54 PM

Quote :

" Booker T. Washington had it right from the beginning. W. E. B. Du Bois fucked up what was supposed to be a new world."

You're going to have to expand on this because I'm not sure what it could mean aside from you openly supporting segregation

1/12/2011 8:11:57 AM

d357r0y3r, you'll have to excuse me for focusing on Apocalypse for a bit. I want to get back to you on your posts but, compared to this guy, you're a regular John Brown, so I'm prioritizing based on that. I'll say that most of my responses to you would amount to:

A) You're uninformed about the current situation in the US, apparently, and should really, really look at that link I posted in detail. The conditions of black people are unique among the poor, and are demonstrably in a worse condition than whites to get themselves out of it. It's also demonstrable that they are still vastly discriminated against by employers, lenders, police, etc. Nobody is saying poor whites don't deserve assistance, but you're saying that we should devote resources from poor blacks to poor whites in the interest of being "equal". However, when you give equal assistance to two groups with unequal situations, that initial unequality will persist. Not all poverty is equal. Again, just look at that link.

B) Nobody's trying to prove a RULE here, so counter-examples aren't relevant. We're talking about the whole of black people, so citing a CEO here and a congressman here isn't a rebuttal, it's a distraction. The first black congressman was elected in 1870, would you go back in time and tell civil rights activists of the time that blacks didn't have it any worse than white poors and smugly present that counter-example?

C) You've demonstrated a few times (Like your belief that the NAACP only helps blacks) that you aren't just poorly informed but on a few counts are basing your beliefs on counter-factual information, but you don't seem to ever re-evaluate your position when proven wrong, you just skirt to another assertion.If a point is important enough to your position that you bring it up in order to support it, and are proven wrong, you need to reexamine your position that's based on it, not suddenly decide that point is trivial and move on to a new talking point. That kind of moving-target debating belies that you formed your conclusion (blacks are fine, racism is trivial now, it's just poverty) before you gathered facts.

D) At every stage in the history of racism in the US, there have been contingents of white people advocating against progress on the grounds that "blacks have it good enough now, they can fend for themselves" Even when slavery was in full effect, these types argued against ANY being given freedom, saying that slavery was a preferable condition for them. This line of thought lived through abolitionism, Jim Crow, desegregation, the Reagan "blacks are welfare queens" years, and to the present. At every stage, whites have said "Blacks stop whining, everything's fine now" and at every stage they have been wrong, wrong, wrong. You're part of that tradition now, and it shows a lot of hubris that you think your generation is the first generation of white people to be correct in that regard, even as your factual assertions are proven wrong.

E) You've proven you don't know shit about the NAACP except what the acronym stands for. It's a historic organization formed for reasons that persist today, and you can bitch about their name when racism is really dead. In the meantime, if you, as a white person, really want to tell blacks how to organize and what their best interests are, go back in time and buy a plantation.



Now, Apocalypse ...

Quote :

" Affirmative Action (because if you aren't smart enough to get into school, how black you are matters, Asians don't get Affirmative Action)."

This is because Affirmative Action isn't simply "All non-white gets perks", it is in fact based on correcting racial gaps. Asian Americans aren't behind in getting into college or landing jobs (Although they are still underpaid in the workforce when compared to white counterparts, but pay gaps aren't addressed by AA) and so the premise of AA (Correct racial gaps in hiring and admissions) makes inapplicable to them. This isn't racist against Asians in favor of blacks, in fact it's proof that AA isn't just a hand-outs-for-nonwhites and is based on actual statistic opportunity gaps.

Quote :

"Historical elimination (Because blacks owning slaves in the south pre-Civil War should be a no-no to our children even though it really did happen)"

Yawn another white person upset that blacks aren't getting trashed enough in textbooks. This is a common one because they feel their "race" is unfairly trashed in readings of history. This pretty obviously comes from you identifying your whiteness with slaveowners and feeling guilt or bitterness, and not identifying with the many proud white people who fought racism at every step of the way. I'm sure you have a whole arsenal of Confederate apologism ready.

Quote :

" A better welfare system (because you shouldn't have to work hard to have more)"

If this is what you believe, shouldn't you be upset that whites are still paid substantially more than blacks for the same work, all (outcome-based) qualifications being equal?

Quote :

" 40 acres and a mule (I don't know why they brought this up... it was just a suggestion during Reconstruction, but for some reason, they still feel blacks are owed this, this was obviously not thought through)"

The Homestead Act of 1862 bestowed free land exclusively to whites, much of which is still owned by descendants, and the early FHA and VA programs loans were subsidized exclusively for whites. In fact the first 100 years of the country's history was characterized by property being handed out to whites, which established the first bastions of white wealth in the country that persist today. It's a massive, massive leg-up to have property for free, that benefits many future generations, and the history of the US has been one long hand-out to white people. But you don't care about that at all, because you're a racist piece of shit who blows a fuse when a black person gets anything, brushes the US's long history of preferential treatment of whites under the rug, and are completely oblivious to all the perks and privileges you've enjoyed your entire life for whiteness.

Quote :

" This really is a fucked up world we live in... but for blacks, it seems like a better-than-fair shake. "

Yeah, I'm done, you're just a fucking idiot and completely oblivious to reality. This isn't surprising since you've already professed that you don't believe in "Statistics". I didn't cover all of your "points" because I've abandoned the notion that you're even remotely informed or interested in actually becoming informed. It takes willful ignorance or spiteful racism to believe these things, and no amount of evidence or "Statistics" to convince you, because you've made up your mind to be unconvincable.


[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 8:52 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2011 8:34:28 AM

one more thing d35toyer:

Quote :

""You make absolutely no distinction between black people and those that have descended from American slaves. Is there any distinction to be made, for you, or is it easier to lump them altogether?""

You're smarter than this. Racism is based on skin color, that means it doesn't matter whether you're a descendant or not you are still facing the exact same day to day prejudice. There are many legacy-based disadvantages faced by descendants, but if you read the link I provided you'd see that day-to-day prejudice and discrimination is VERY much alive. Likewise, even if you immigrated to America yesterday from Slovakia, you would still enjoy all the benefits and perks of whiteness in America. Blacks and fresh-off-the-boat Africans are both n*ggers to a racist employer, lender, or policeman. They suffer based on the color of their skin, and that's what anti-racists are fighting. Your criticism here is a distraction, and at worst an attempt to further divide the black community and anti-racist support for them.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 9:01 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2011 9:00:44 AM

In case you're still too lazy to click the link here's an excerpt I threw together for you:

http://www.nber.org/papers/w9873 - Simply having a "black-sounding" name makes you 50% less likely to be called back for an interview than a white person with equal qualifications. He doesn't even have to see you, the assumption of blackness alone accounts for this 50% difference.

http://www.princeton.edu/~pager/race_at_work.pdf - white job applicants with criminal records have a better chance of being called back for an interview than black applicants without one, even when all the qualifications are the same

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/us/01race.html?_r=2 - black males with college degrees are almost twice as likely as their white male counterparts to be out of work

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/11/081112101339.htm - Chinese-American professionals earn less than 60 percent as much as their white counterparts, even though the Chinese Americans, on average, have more education

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/17/AR2006101701257.html - lightest-skinned immigrants to the United States make as much as 15 percent more than the darkest, even when the immigrants in question have the same level of education, experience and measured productivity

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/06/08/systemic-racism-banking-wells-fargo/ - reports of blatant racism practiced by Wells Fargo, which was deliberately roping black borrowers into high-cost loans, targeting them for these instruments, and even falsifying credit histories to make black applicants look like greater risks than they were, so as to justify the scam

http://www.dailyestimate.com/article.asp?id=3708 - e-mail inquiries about rental property submitted by people with white sounding names were 60 percent more likely than those with black sounding names to get a positive response from a landlord (meaning an indication that a unit was available for rent), even when the housing had been previously advertised as available

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/cpp02.pdf - blacks are far more likely than whites to have their cars and persons searched after a traffic stop, even though whites, when searched, are more than four times as likely to have drugs or other illegal contraband on us

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2010/05/24/stop-frisk-collect-data/ - police in New York City are blatantly profiling blacks and Latinos, stopping and frisking them in massive numbers, even though in 90 percent of all cases, the people they stop are released without any charge because they are found to have done nothing illegal

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/03/02/decades-disparity - whites and blacks use and sell drugs at roughly the same rates, African Americans are anywhere from 2.8 to 5.5 times more likely than whites to be arrested for a drug offense, depending on the year, in nine states, blacks are arrested at more than seven times the rate of whites, and in Minnesota and Iowa at rates that are more than eleven times greater than white arrest rates for drugs. blacks are more than 10 times as likely as whites to be sent to prison for drug offenses, despite relatively equivalent rates of drug crimes.

http://www.hrw.org/en/reports/2008/05/04/targeting-blacks - a majority of persons admitted to prison for drug offenses are black, even though there are about six times more white users nationwide

http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/04/16/racism-harmful-to-healt/
http://www.racismreview.com/blog/2009/04/12/poverty-stress-and-achievement-what-role-does-racism-play/
http://www.miller-mccune.com/blogs/news-blog/evidence-links-stress-racism-3619/
http://www.cnn.com/2009/HEALTH/07/23/doctors.attitude.race.weight/index.html?iref=mpstoryview
the dozens of studies that show the cumulative health effects of racism and discrimination on people of color, and which indicate that doctors do indeed treat patients of color differently, and worse, than their white counterparts

http://www.springerlink.com/content/m1u4806148441l8x/ -black students being suspended and expelled from school at far higher rates than white students, even though there are no significant differences in the rates at which students of different races violate serious school rules


You, as a white person, need to read these. You will never catch an inkling of racism through your daily experience because, as a white person in a white-dominated nation, it's either obscured from you or in most cases simply doesn't apply to you or manifest in your daily life. If you don't go out of your way to find this information, you're left to conjecture or speculate about racism outside of your by-definition racially sheltered experience.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 9:15 AM. Reason : .]

1/12/2011 9:09:58 AM

pwnt

facts though, they are stubborn things...

1/12/2011 9:21:27 AM

Black people talk and dress funny, so they pretty much bring it on themselves.

1/12/2011 9:52:38 AM

Quote :

"You're uninformed about the current situation in the US, apparently, and should really, really look at that link I posted in detail. The conditions of black people are unique among the poor, and are demonstrably in a worse condition than whites to get themselves out of it. It's also demonstrable that they are still vastly discriminated against by employers, lenders, police, etc. Nobody is saying poor whites don't deserve assistance, but you're saying that we should devote resources from poor blacks to poor whites in the interest of being "equal". However, when you give equal assistance to two groups with unequal situations, that initial unequality will persist. Not all poverty is equal. Again, just look at that link."

I wasn't talking about diverting resources to anyone. Racism does exist; discrimination does exist. My point was never that it doesn't exist.

Poor people do get government assistance, and that's part of what continues the cycle of poverty. Dependence on government is not only encouraged, but celebrated. These pockets of poverty have no hope of ever escaping, because the problem that exists is a cultural one. Parents don't give a shit, their kids don't give a shit, and their kids don't give a shit. You can try to figure out how the cycle started, and in many cases you could probably trace it back to slavery or discrimination, but that says nothing about how we move forward. Racism is not something we're just going to outlaw - it will take a societal shift in attitude, which is not an easy thing to achieve. I'm suggesting that we look at ways to eliminate extreme poverty, without going through and saying, "Okay, you're black, we'll help you, you're white, fuck off." If it's true that poverty is primarily a "black" problem, then blacks will get a higher percentage of the assistance.

The correlation you're trying to draw between socioeconomic status and race is there, but because there are outliers, it just doesn't make sense to have a singular focus on one race, minorities, or any particular racial group. Mind you, racism and discrimination are things worth confronting, but when it comes to actual policy, I'm not going to go along with "affirmative action" style concepts, as it absolutely, undeniably gives credence to the idea that we should be looking at race specifically, and not socioeconomic status.

Quote :

"Nobody's trying to prove a RULE here, so counter-examples aren't relevant. We're talking about the whole of black people, so citing a CEO here and a congressman here isn't a rebuttal, it's a distraction. The first black congressman was elected in 1870, would you go back in time and tell civil rights activists of the time that blacks didn't have it any worse than white poors and smugly present that counter-example? "

If we're talking about the whole of black people, then counter-examples are 100% relevant. It's not just a few outliers here, though. We could find thousands of examples of adopted black people that were raised in affluent families, attended private schools, and still got minority scholarships, despite having an advantage over most white people from the beginning. A black person that was raised in the suburbs of Raleigh has seen very little, if any, discrimination.

My argument has remained the same this entire time. In a time when the law actually did discriminate against black people, women, and minorities, it really did make sense to have a singular focus on those groups. The law has been changed to not discriminate. Therefore, we must shift our focus to the living conditions that we as a society find unsatisfactory. I could easily point to trailer parks full of white people where moral bankruptcy is the norm, sex education is completely absent, and the cycle of poverty is in full effect. That's not to say that racism isn't a problem or doesn't need to be confronted, but skin color as a determinant for who gets help and who doesn't is, by definition, racism.

Quote :

"You've demonstrated a few times (Like your belief that the NAACP only helps blacks) that you aren't just poorly informed but on a few counts are basing your beliefs on counter-factual information, but you don't seem to ever re-evaluate your position when proven wrong, you just skirt to another assertion.If a point is important enough to your position that you bring it up in order to support it, and are proven wrong, you need to reexamine your position that's based on it, not suddenly decide that point is trivial and move on to a new talking point. That kind of moving-target debating belies that you formed your conclusion (blacks are fine, racism is trivial now, it's just poverty) before you gathered facts."

My underlying philosophy hasn't changed. I'm still advocating a shift in philosophy where we don't pick winners and losers based on skin color. It's an anti-racist philosophy, whether you're capable of recognizing that or not. The fact that NAACP has moved beyond its original purpose is great, but the name of the organization itself is explicitly racist, as well as some of its stated goals, and not one that I would ever associate with.

Quote :

"At every stage in the history of racism in the US, there have been contingents of white people advocating against progress on the grounds that "blacks have it good enough now, they can fend for themselves" Even when slavery was in full effect, these types argued against ANY being given freedom, saying that slavery was a preferable condition for them. This line of thought lived through abolitionism, Jim Crow, desegregation, the Reagan "blacks are welfare queens" years, and to the present. At every stage, whites have said "Blacks stop whining, everything's fine now" and at every stage they have been wrong, wrong, wrong. You're part of that tradition now, and it shows a lot of hubris that you think your generation is the first generation of white people to be correct in that regard, even as your factual assertions are proven wrong."

Nowhere does anyone say that racism is gone, or that it isn't a problem. The difference between now and then is that discrimination is no longer codified into law, and is no longer an area to be addressed by public policy. We need cultural change. How do you suggest we bring that about?

Quote :

"You're smarter than this. Racism is based on skin color, that means it doesn't matter whether you're a descendant or not you are still facing the exact same day to day prejudice. There are many legacy-based disadvantages faced by descendants, but if you read the link I provided you'd see that day-to-day prejudice and discrimination is VERY much alive. Likewise, even if you immigrated to America yesterday from Slovakia, you would still enjoy all the benefits and perks of whiteness in America. Blacks and fresh-off-the-boat Africans are both n*ggers to a racist employer, lender, or policeman. They suffer based on the color of their skin, and that's what anti-racists are fighting. Your criticism here is a distraction, and at worst an attempt to further divide the black community and anti-racist support for them."

Oh please.

This post, and your entire post after that, asserts that racism and discrimination exists, a point that was never denied by anyone. The difference between you and I our views on how we should move forward. You want to look at skin color, I want to look at socioeconomic status, while simultaneously fighting racism on a cultural level. I'm not going to make assumptions here, but go ahead and outline what your actual suggestions are for moving beyond racism. If it has anything to do with affirmative action, that's racism, pure and simple.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 12:57 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2011 12:28:21 PM

Quote :

"Chinese-American professionals earn less than 60 percent as much as their white counterparts, even though the Chinese Americans, on average, have more education"

I think there's some deeper digging to be done there. "More education" can have multiple implications, including academic type careers that may have Ph.Ds getting paid less than, say an engineer with a BS making much more in the private sector.


But, if one were to compare the same job and education, I'd hypothesize that there's a pay differential there as well, but even then it bears digging deeper. How would that breakdown look if you compared Chinese Immigrants, versus 1 or more generations of Chinese-Americans who've assimilated into American culture?

There's an important cultural distinction there. Traditional Chinese (and most asian cultures in general) holds hierarchy in great respect. It's considered a very bad thing to self-promote, "bother the boss" and otherwise cause any conflict. On the other hand, western culture places more emphasis on the individual and less on hierarchy.

I can see it with my own employees. I have a pretty ethnically diverse group of people working for me, and I have regular 1:1 meetings with them. Those that come from a western background are much more vocal about understanding where they are or what they need to do to get a promotion/raise, and generally more proactive in positioning themselves for those raises and promotions. I have two engineers that are east asian, and both of them are extremely meek, and tend to do exactly what I ask of them, but no more or less. Neither have ever asked for a raise, promotion or anything career related.

Anedcotal? Sure-- but this is consistent with empirical data and research that's out there. Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers has a section dedicated to this phenomenon.

So, I would argue that in this particular case, the existence of a salary gap may not automatically be a case of ethnic bias, but more often than note, these folks are victims of their own cultural background. You probably can't (and likely shouldn't want to) change their culture, but that gap will narrow and close within a generation or two.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 12:49 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2011 12:47:51 PM

What black man do you know that gets paid less doing the same job? And if you know one, how does he/she know they get paid less? Are they looking at pay-stubs other than theirs?

Why is racial gap a problem? You do the work and you get paid... where does race come in on that? Go to school, get the degree, get the job done and get paid... I don't see where race is a necessary part of that equation?

It's not about race, it's about getting the job done. When you get the job done and exceed the standard of that job, you will get a raise and a promotion.

Do it with a crutch and force you way through with red-tape litigation and bullshit though, and people tend to frown and not respect you as much. If enough people within a certain race do it enough, it lays the foundation of stereotype.

I don't respect an organization that says "Ebonics" should be an accepted language. That's just straight ignorance.

1/12/2011 12:51:01 PM

I'll say this too...

Facts pale in comparison to Truth. Truth is truth regardless of what facts are thrown around. Facts can be bended to one agenda or another... Truth cannot.

Want to hear the truth?

NAACP is consistently using the past 170 years prior to substantiate new rules for today. They don't want to find out how they can contribute to their societies future, they want society to contribute to them. They don't want to rise and meet the standard, they want the standard lower so that black people can meet it without too much effort.

Ask any non-black kid out there what they want to be when they grow up... a lawyer, a doctor, a super hero... All figures who contribute to society...

Now ask a few black kids what they want to be when they grow up... a basketball player, a rap-star or a drug kingpin of some sort... all roles that does not contribute... some that actually degrade society.

And when asked what the hell happened... it's because society made you this way... no dude, you made you this way.

It comes down to heart in the end.

NAACP is saying black people don't have enough heart, so everyone else should slow down and give black people a crutch.

1/12/2011 1:19:08 PM

You really can't comprehend that a world exists outside of your own personal experiences, can you?

1/12/2011 1:32:43 PM

"Let's just heal our culture to mend race relations, no need to bring the government into this. Now, moving on, what can we do about these problems that affect poor whites?" - Certain white people, from 1860 through 1965 all the way to the present


[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 1:36 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2011 1:36:00 PM

Quote :

"Ask any non-black kid out there what they want to be when they grow up... a lawyer, a doctor, a super hero... All figures who contribute to society... Now ask a few black kids what they want to be when they grow up... a basketball player, a rap-star or a drug kingpin of some sort... all roles that does not contribute... some that actually degrade society."

haha, wat?



[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 1:37 PM. Reason : non-white racists itt]

1/12/2011 1:36:17 PM

Carl Hudson: one man facepalm since 2002.

1/12/2011 1:47:27 PM

Quote :

"If it has anything to do with affirmative action, that's racism, pure and simple."

Racism is a power structure that places one ethnic group over another through prejudice and discrimination. Allowing that system, legal or social, to persist is racism, intervening is anti-racist. The whole "AA is racist" is a gross over-simplification and most reasonable people have outgrown it by age 12 or so.

Look at it this way: the entire history the US, including the present, has been characterized by AA for white people. Only recently is it not codified in law, and that's terrific, and it's where half of the "Race shouldn't be addressed in law therefor AA is racist" angle comes from. It's a well intentioned argument, but it lacks knowledge of historical context. It was originally a progressive, liberal position that was reaction to legally codified racism in favor of whites. After the Civil Rights Act was signed, conservatives jumped onto the bandwagon because they were able to transform the talking point into one that defends every other manifestation of white supremacism besides the legally-sanctioned, and they pretend this makes them principled. All that position does is defend the status quo of de facto racial segregation from any interference. Wishful thinking about cultural transformation is a joke, especially because it's nearly impossible to transform a racist culture without forcefully integrating them and exposing them to diversity. There is a wealth of literature that supports this that I can post when you're done with the prior list of links.

In short: The principle against race-attentive law was formed as an opposition to white privilege of that era, and you and others have twisted it around to defend white privilege while we are still in the process of dismantling it. The best you can do to defend this is say "Well it's not really that bad, poverty (or some other issue that also affects whites) should be our focus right now."

It's roughly equivalent to playing Monopoly, rewriting the rules so you get a shitload of money and later agreeing to stop and revert the rules, but keeping the cash. The other players think there should be a mechanism to compensate them that matches what you stole, and you say "I am principled and believe no rules shall be written that give money to those who haven't earned it." So tell me, is that a principled financier talking or a spoiled brat?



Also:

Quote :

"That's not to say that racism isn't a problem or doesn't need to be confronted, but skin color as a determinant for who gets help and who doesn't is, by definition, racism."

I address above why it's not as simple as "oh this takes skin color into account, thus it is racist" but I want to point out how especially stupid this is.

You're essentially saying that, in treating a disease that (in this society) affects black people, we should not take into account the race of a patient when administering medicine. That makes a ton of sense and sounds like a very effective means of confronting it. I'm gonna run down to the local hospital now and tell them they should stop performing these x-rays, the problem of broken arms will go away on its own if we just distribute the cast-making supplies amongst everyone regardless of the fracturedness of their arms.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 2:05 PM. Reason : .]

1/12/2011 1:49:27 PM

Cool, I’m glad we fleshed out our differences here so we can move on with the discussion. You’ve demonstrated how your viewpoint is not only antiquated, but inconsistent. The process by which you seek to achieve equality is inherently unfair, and will inevitably lead to inequality.

Quote :

" Racism is a power structure that places one ethnic group over another through prejudice and discrimination. Allowing that system, legal or social, to persist is racism, intervening is anti-racist. The whole "AA is racist" is a gross over-simplification and most reasonable people have outgrown it by age 12 or so."

Many people, reasonable or not, believe that affirmative action is acceptable, as the mainstream viewpoint accepts collectivist ideology as correct. In general, people don’t identify themselves as individuals, but as members of a race, nation, or religion. I advocate a departure from that self-destructive, humanity-crushing ideology, and replacing it with individualism.

Quote :

" Look at it this way: the entire history the US, including the present, has been characterized by AA for white people. Only recently is it not codified in law, and that's terrific, and it's where half of the "Race shouldn't be addressed in law therefor AA is racist" angle comes from. It's a well intentioned argument, but it lacks knowledge of historical context. It was originally a progressive, liberal position that was reaction to legally codified racism in favor of whites. After the Civil Rights Act was signed, conservatives jumped onto the bandwagon because they were able to transform the talking point into one that defends every other manifestation of white supremacism besides the legally-sanctioned, and they pretend this makes them principled. All that position does is defend the status quo of de facto racial segregation from any interference. Wishful thinking about cultural transformation is a joke, especially because it's nearly impossible to transform a racist culture without forcefully integrating them and exposing them to diversity. There is a wealth of literature that supports this that I can post when you're done with the prior list of links."

I’m sorry that you feel changing our culture is wishful thinking. Perhaps it is, but I have no problem working towards that goal anyway. My primary goal is to maintain liberty and equality under the law for all individuals. Our main intellectual divergence, I think, is about to come to light.

I disagree that it’s impossible to bring about change without forcing “integration.” When integration means confiscating wealth from one person, and giving it to another, all based on the litmus test of skin color, inequitable distribution is guaranteed. Indeed, if a poor white kid receives no assistance, but a rich black kid does receive government/institutional assistance, simply because he was the right skin color, an injustice has been committed. One wrong cannot be undone by another – past injustice can only be made right by the rule of law. One example of a law that punishes black people that’s still on the books is drug prohibition. The war on drugs has ravaged black communities, and decriminalization of drugs would play a huge part in helping those communities escape the cycle of poverty.

Quote :

" It's roughly equivalent to playing Monopoly, rewriting the rules so you get a shitload of money and later agreeing to stop and revert the rules, but keeping the cash. The other players think there should be a mechanism to compensate them that matches what you stole, and you say "I am principled and believe no rules shall be written that give money to those who haven't earned it." So tell me, is that a principled financier talking or a spoiled brat?"

Here, you make the mistake that almost all proponents of affirmative action make – believing that anyone that has the same color skin as past oppressors and discriminators is partially responsible for current and past injustices. In fact, I had nothing to do with slavery or discrimination. It’s a logical extension of your faulty, collectivist beliefs, and until those are addressed, you will fail to come to any greater understanding of the problem.

Your attempt to label me as the banker that stole money is offensive, but it’s what I knew you would eventually have to do to argue your point. Current white people, it’s said, have to be held responsible for past white people. My generation, you claim, has to be held responsible for past generations. I firmly reject that claim. I will promote equality, but I will not bear responsibility for what others have done before me. I’ll take responsibility for my own actions, but no one else’s, and with all due respect, you can fuck off for trying to shift the burden to those that have done no wrong. I do not participate in the racist power structure you’re referring to – my life goal is to help tear it down, along with all institutions that threaten individual rights.

Quote :

" You're essentially saying that, in treating a disease that (in this society) affects black people, we should not take into account the race of a patient when administering medicine. That makes a ton of sense and sounds like a very effective means of confronting it. I'm gonna run down to the local hospital now and tell them they should stop performing these x-rays, the problem of broken arms will go away on its own if we just distribute the cast-making supplies amongst everyone regardless of the fracturedness of their arms."

This is a superb example for my side of the argument. Race can be a great way of determining what a disease person is at risk for. For instance, African Americans tend to be at higher risk of diabetes, just as they have greater a tendency to be poor. There are a variety of reasons for this correlation – genetics, lifestyle, diet, etc. However, we don’t have a special medicine for black people. We treat them as an individual, with a whole slew of individual risks and issues, but we don’t have “black people’s insulin” and “white people’s insulin.” The same should be true when we aim to stop the cycle of poverty.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 4:41 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2011 4:29:59 PM

Seriously, The NAACP has voted and made decisions involving these topics:

Whether Obama really was black (are you blind, yeah he is)

Swimming is not a black man's sport (why do you need to vote on that?)

again... 40 acres and a mule (what are you going to do with that anyway, and that's already been paid off with welfare)

If Black people have a legitimate grievance, I'm saying the NAACP is not the direction they want to go.

And now... The Tea Party is a racist organization...

There's more...

1/12/2011 4:41:27 PM

Quote :

"The same should be true when we aim to stop the cycle of poverty."

I don't think that's relevant. We're not talking about helping the poor. We're talking about helping the "inequal".

1/12/2011 4:46:09 PM

It's a shame that Apocalypse doesn't have the humility to realize that he is drastically outmatched.

Oh, and I'm enjoying watching d23423543598whatever5747 basically acknowledge that one group has received a huge leg up for years, but still ascertain that just simply removing the advantages that whites have been receiving for over a century will fix the injustice. Like, he literally thinks that we started from scratch and that no corrective course of action is necessary. Then, when provided with evidence, he goes back to principle: "Yeah, well, that wouldn't be fair either, you know." He is completely incapable of realizing that a corrective force of action is necessary in order to heal the wounds inflicted on a group of people based on skin color. Actually, I think he knows a corrective force is necessary, but it goes against his principled libertarian views, so he would rather hope for some spontaneous cultural shift, which ain't gonna fuckin' happen.

Quote :

"My generation, you claim, has to be held responsible for past generations. I firmly reject that claim."

How do you suggest we climb out of our nations debt? Does this principle carry over to economics for you? Are we just always going to be in the red so as to not make future generations make a sacrifice to correct the mistakes our generation has made?


Oh, and you completely missed the point with the "medicine" analogy.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 5:03 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2011 4:50:49 PM

on what problem today?

What's the problem that blacks as a race face today?

Because every time I hear about the NAACP, slavery is usually thrown in the argument that somehow wants to validate a concern today or something about this is racist. Most of the time it's a blind shot in the dark and once in a while, they're right.

What are they teaching? When all else fails, use the "race card?"

And then when a black man really does suceed, "Oh, he's not black, we've voted on it." But they'll vote on whether Emenem is black or not... in which, by their definition, he is.

So what is "black" now? Is it a race? Or just a race to validate ignorance?

When I see a black man, I see a man who happens to be black and so on and so forth with other races. When they mention "black," it's some complicated definition to validate some form of ignorance or a hard life (not due to an individuals actions, but due to an oppressive government in spite of the laws passed for the pass 170 years).

At what point do they no longer want more, and at what point do they decide that it's time to earn it?

Not sure what you mean by outmatched... I have a thought and I express it.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 5:05 PM. Reason : a]

1/12/2011 5:03:40 PM

Quote :

"I don't think that's relevant. We're not talking about helping the poor. We're talking about helping the "inequal"."

We're talking about the human consequences of racism and discrimination. Michael Steele or Barack Obama don't need a leg up. They've already "worked" their way to the top. The concern is the people trapped in a life of poverty, barely making ends meet, with no light at the end of the tunnel. Racism does exist against people of all incomes, but that's not something that can be outlawed.

Quote :

"Oh, and I'm enjoying watching d23423543598whatever5747 basically acknowledge that one group has received a huge leg up for years, but still ascertain that just simply removing the advantages that whites have been receiving for over a century will fix the injustice. Like, he literally thinks that we started from scratch and that no corrective course of action is necessary."

I never claimed that it will "fix" the consequences of past injustice. Nothing is going to make up for the people that were forced to endure slavery. Nothing is going to make up for the people that had to live in a society where they were sequestered and treated as subhuman. Taking money away from people today, who only share superficial characteristics with past wrongdoers, is absolutely immoral though, and it doesn't come close to making up for what was done.

It's not satisfying to say that bad shit happened, and all we can do is be as fair as possible today. Asking the whole of society to take responsibility for something they didn't do, and quite possibly their ancestors didn't even do, is not how we should bring about permanent change, though.

Quote :

"Then, when provided with evidence, he goes back to principle: "Yeah, well, that wouldn't be fair either, you know." He is completely incapable of realizing that a corrective force of action is necessary in order to heal the wounds inflicted on a group of people based on skin color. Actually, I think he knows a corrective force is necessary, but it goes against his principled libertarian views, so he would rather hope for some spontaneous cultural shift, which ain't gonna fuckin' happen."

I want you to spell out exactly what corrective force of action entails. I mean, really. Tell us exactly what you want to do, and where you want the funding to come from. Spontaneous cultural shift does happen, and has happened.

Consider, also, the logistics of it all. How do we determine who gets aid and who doesn't? Do you have to be 100% black? 50%? 25%? One drop rule? What about a black person that immigrated from Africa one year ago? They might get discriminated against for being black. What about short people? Women? Gays? Ugly people? All of these people will be discriminated against, in some form or fashion, in their life. There are laws against discrimination, but that's not enough, you say.

Quote :

"How do you suggest we climb out of our nations debt? Does this principle carry over to economics for you? Are we just always going to be in the red so as to not make future generations make a sacrifice to correct the mistakes our generation has made?"

Yeah, it does carry over, and I even considered including it in my post, but it seemed a bit off topic. Social Security, for example, has enslaved an entire generation to pay for something that will benefit them in no way. If I could avoid paying into it, I would, but alas, I have no choice.

The debt the United States has will never be paid in full, period. It's impossible. We will either default, or de facto default by paying out treasury yields in devalued dollars. Either way, though, we've done a disservice to ourselves and our creditors. The entire global monetary system is based on debt, in fact. What will become of it is a good question, but I don't intend to put my faith in fiat currency.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 5:38 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2011 5:22:49 PM

Quote :

"What's the problem that blacks as a race face today?"

You can literally click on any link posted on this page to answer your question

Quote :

"incoherent gibberish"

What?

Quote :

"At what point do they no longer want more, and at what point do they decide that it's time to earn it?"

I don't know. Maybe they should just be happy that other tribesman in the jungle aren't lopping off their womens titties. Right?

Quote :

"Not sure what you mean by outmatched... I have a thought and I express it."

You barely have a thought. Only the most liberal definition of the word "thought" could apply to anything and everything you've ever said. I'd feel bad for you if you weren't so insistent on being heard.

1/12/2011 5:26:51 PM

d325345whatever25332, I find it odd that you have no answer to either the debt question or the equality issue and rely on spontaneous cultural shifts (when has this ever happened without political interference?) and yet you have the gall to demand that I set aside dollar amounts and iron out all of the details for my position. Which is to say nothing of the fact that I don't take my issue to the extreme of reparations. I don't know why you seem to think I do. I support Affirmative Action, and that should be enough of an answer to your question of how to correct the issue. I'll also be open to new ideas should they arise given new information. You're asking me to be specific on the ways that we can close the gap, but you'll reject any reference that I make that involves government intervention because it doesn't satisfy your libertarian sensibilities. So there's no answer I can give that will satisfy you. But in the same breath, you'd rather sit back, do nothing, and hope it works itself out. Sorry, I'm not a defeatist.


I'll close out by saying that cultural shifts of this magnitude, are by their very definition political in nature. I don't see how you can even argue that.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 5:39 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2011 5:37:45 PM

^You haven't argued anything... all you did was make fun of everything I just said and if you think that validates you, well, go you.

They are all facts, you can look them up. There's nothing wrong with the opportunities blacks face today. They are afforded, if not more than any other person, the same as everyone else. If that's still a problem well, then, the NAACP can do what they are best at... bitching and complaining. They aren't facing any more problems than the rest of us.

1/12/2011 5:44:08 PM

Quote :

"d325345whatever25332, I find it odd that you have no answer to either the debt question or the equality issue and rely on spontaneous cultural shifts (when has this ever happened without political interference?) and yet you have the gall to demand that I set aside dollar amounts and iron out all of the details for my position."

I answered the debt question as best as it can be answered. No economist can give you a plan to pay off the debt, because the math simply doesn't work out, unless it involves creating new money. The United States will never be able to pay off its debt legitimately.

A great example of "spontaneous cultural shifts" (and, thinking on it now, I hesitate to call it spontaneous, because there are real reasons behind it) is attitudes towards the LGBT community. When we were growing up, people fired off words like faggot, queer, etc, like it was nothing. And, indeed, there are people that still do. You can't deny, though, that in the past decade, awareness has increased substantially. This has largely been a result of individuals spreading the message of tolerance and calling people out for their bigotry. The government did not have to come in and make homophobia illegal. In fact, the government has resisted attempts to make laws fair to homosexuals.

More succinctly, it's not a "spontaneous" culture shift, it's people having the courage to stand up and confront what they know is wrong.

Quote :

"I set aside dollar amounts and iron out all of the details for my position. Which is to say nothing of the fact that I don't take my issue to the extreme of reparations. I don't know why you seem to think I do. I support Affirmative Action, and that should be enough of an answer to your question of how to correct the issue. I'll also be open to new ideas should they arise given new information. You're asking me to be specific on the ways that we can close the gap, but you'll reject any reference that I make that involves government intervention because it doesn't satisfy your libertarian sensibilities. So there's no answer I can give that will satisfy you. But in the same breath, you'd rather sit back, do nothing, and hope it works itself out. Sorry, I'm not a defeatist."

I'm not even looking for specifics. Do you think that all taxpayers should be forced to subsidize what you call affirmative action? If so, I think that's immoral, as it shifts the burden to those that have no moral obligation to pay.

I'm not sitting back and doing nothing. I aim to educate and raise awareness in every day life. Racism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, authoritarianism, and intolerance are all things I actively discuss and debate with friends and strangers. My goal is to influence change on a grassroots level, by changing minds. I'm not willing to cede that power to government, because government has a propensity for abusing that power in a way that will benefit the elite few.

[Edited on January 12, 2011 at 5:58 PM. Reason : ]

1/12/2011 5:53:12 PM

Quote :

"I'm not sitting back and doing nothing. I aim to educate and raise awareness in every day life. Racism, sexism, homophobia, nationalism, authoritarianism, and intolerance are all things I actively discuss and debate with friends and strangers. My goal is to influence change on a grassroots level, by changing minds. I'm not willing to cede that power to government, because government has a propensity for abusing that power in a way that will benefit the elite few."

So basically sitting back and doing nothing, but feeling good about it. What a faggot.

1/12/2011 6:29:34 PM