-->
@Greyparrot
That insanity about Covington was something I won't soon forget. Maybe the next time we play mafia I'll tell some of the stories of how that incident played out in my office.
Trump voters don’t even believe themselves
Posts
Total:
53
-->
@Greyparrot
I did not actually realize you were past your 40s. In any case, while I've heard that from several people and I think you're probably right, I haven't read everything he's written and my exposure to what he has written is mostly through the interpretations (or re-imaginations) of others.
I can talk about MLK because I know his writing inside and out, as well as the influences that got him where he was. I can only speak in generalities about Malcolm X because he's outside the scope of what I'm familiar with.
-->
@coal
It's worth contrasting that feedback loop with, for example, how black African immigrants to the United States typically fare (even including those for whom English is not their primary language). They out earn their American counterparts, their kids attend and graduate from college at considerably higher rates, and they often start off worse when they come to the United States than most. Nigerian immigrants in particular thrive in the United States. And if there were such a thing as systemic or institutional racism, you'd expect it to limit them far more.
There is also a cultural aspect to this that transcends mere skin color or race.
Sowell explains that the Black Redneck culture that migrated north was instantly and widely celebrated by the progressive left as endemic of the Black Race and used as a justification for all sorts of sinister policies.
What is absolutely hilarious and eye-opening is that Sowell took the time and effort to trace down the actual roots of Ebonics, and it didn't come from Africa. Ebonics came from fringe British cultures that immigrated to the American South.
-->
@Greyparrot
There is also a cultural aspect to this that transcends mere skin color or race.Sowell explains that the Black Redneck culture that migrated north was instantly and widely celebrated by the progressive left as endemic of the Black Race and used as a justification for all sorts of sinister policies.
I'm not sure I agree with everything in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, but I agree with a lot of it.
-->
@coal
I'm not sure I agree with everything in Black Rednecks and White Liberals, but I agree with a lot of it.
I grew up my 1st 30 years in New Orleans, so I can tell you from personal experience that Sowell is dead right about the cultural differences.
-->
@Greyparrot
Wow. Well, New Orleans is a place I have never had a desire to go.
I like parts of the deep south (like Savannah, GA), but New Orleans less so.
-->
@coal
If it were not for Katrina, I would not have had the opportunity to enjoy life in Boston.
-->
@Greyparrot
North shore or south shore?
-->
@coal
North
-->
@coal
Next time you have a free 11 hours to spare lol!
-->
@coal
One of the main reasons why the SEC is most probably so dominant in College Football is from the heritage of the reckless redneck Southern Culture.
Listening to the Sowell Audiobook is so enlightening.
The question relates to the starting point: if you're black, and particularly if you're a black man, do you begin from the position of "I can't succeed in the society because of how racist the system is, therefore I'm not even going to try"?
I directly addressed that. I think we agree more than we disagree, but the issue that started this conversation was when you compared the insanity of the right to the left’s fixation with systemic racism. Not saying they are on the same level, but using it to say the left has its insanity as well.
What I gather from you is that you take issue with minorities and probably more so black people using systemic racism as an excuse, but don’t seem to care much about whether it is even a real thing.
I agree with the former, my issue is the latter. Diagnosing the cause of a national reality is not useful as a guide for any individual to make their own life choices, but is very useful for us as a nation to determine what to do about it. Unfortunately because so many people conflate them we end up right where we are, one side claiming it dominates their life while the other side claims it’s not real.
-->
@Double_R
As most polls, particularly of a political relevance, are conducted so poorly, the "data" they produce is:
1. agenda-driven: such as assuming the Republican party, and Donald Trump are separate, distinct choices ["fact" not in evidence], assumes the potential of a Trump Party0 ["fact" not in evidence], assumes causes of the Jan 6 DC uprising ["fact" not in evidence] Poll question must be void of political bias to avoid invalid data
2. Derived from an insufficient sample size of alleged Trump voters [only 1,000 with an moe of ±3.1%, when for that alleged population size, [74M] the minimum responses should have been 1,068, or, for a more accurate moe of ±2%, the sample size should have been 2,401
-->
@Double_R
What one believes:
1. Do you believe the 1619 project and BLM claims that racism has a constitutional basis [i.e., that racism is found as an element within the language of the U.S Constitution in any one or several of its Articles, or Amendments]?
2. Do you believe "systemic racism" is defined as the existence of current federal, state, or municiple legal statutes, or any government agency policy, or any private industry policy that specifically documents acceptable racial discrimination?
3. Or is it something else? If the latter, what is your definition?
My personal answers:
1. No, no constitutional basis
2. Yes, that is the proper definition
3. No, not something else.
-->
@fauxlaw
1. Do you believe the 1619 project and BLM claims that racism has a constitutional basis [i.e., that racism is found as an element within the language of the U.S Constitution in any one or several of its Articles, or Amendments]?
The constitution counts black people as 3/5ths of a person, so I’d call that a yes.
2. Do you believe "systemic racism" is defined as the existence of current federal, state, or municiple legal statutes, or any government agency policy, or any private industry policy that specifically documents acceptable racial discrimination?
No. Whether these statues are still in existence is irrelevant to whether their impacts are still ongoing.
We live in a society where wealth equals power, and power makes it easier to attain more wealth. So when you take a segment of the population, enslave them for 400 years, then unleash them into society with nothing while making it harder for them to get an education, own property, or start their own businesses and keep those policies in effect for another hundred years or so, then fix those laws but do little to nothing to fix the gap, the fact that this group ends up in the bottom of nearly every wealth and societal health indicator is not an accident.
Everyone faces challenges. A person of any skin color can be born into poverty with no access to a quality education or a role model in their life to teach them how to succeed into this world. The difference is that no white person can legitimately claim their disadvantage as a direct result of US policy targeted at their skin color.
-->
@Double_R
but don’t seem to care much about whether it is even a real thing
Maybe you missed the part above where I said:
As evidence of this, they cite misleading figures that suggest that non-congruent outcomes among particular (and largely non-representative) samples of non-majority ethnic groups have it worse than equally non-representative samples of majority ethnic groups.In reality, to the extent that any such differences appear in the data (and they do in certain aspects, like criminal sentencing for example); there is essentially no evidence that could even be misinterpreted to support the proposition that race (or ethnicity) explains these differences, much less causes them. Further, once you broaden the scope of whatever you're looking at (basically no matter what it is that you're focusing on), at least before 2020 things tended to be looking better compared to, for example, criminal sentencing disparities in the 1930s-1970s. This should be unsurprising, given that as a society racism is regarded as intolerable by basically everyone with any sense, and the cultural norms associated with discriminating based on race have shifted....I am not saying that there were never systemic issues that disproportionately adversely affected black people, if there was any question. Three strikes laws absolutely did, drug sentencing practices relevant to crack certainly did and so called crime reform at the behest of the 1990s democrats did more damage than anything else. But to call these evidence of systemic racism is stupid and myopic. What it suggests is that whenever the government tries to implement policies like this, it makes things far worse than better. Also, sentencing disparities increased after the 94 crime bill.
See post 20.
I am not disputing outcome inequity; I literally said it was reflected in the data, and provided several examples of where in particular it is found. You will be hard pressed to find a single axiom on which "equity" is demonstrated between any majority and non-majority group in any context, anywhere in the United States or the world in general.
What we are talking about is what non-equitable outcomes actually mean; how do we explain them? Are they evidence of "institutional racism" and "white privilege" or are they something else? See what I said in post 26:
What we are really talking about here is how inequality of outcome can be normatively explained. So, what's the story we're telling ourselves to explain why some groups seem to succeed while other groups do not. It's also worth considering whether the black-white duality is really the best. Because no matter how you shake the data, there is always at least one (and often three or more) groups that out-perform whites as a group (and have for decades).
Again, so there is absolutely no room for either miscommunication or any further misinterpretation:
I am not saying that there aren't differences across racial groups with respect to outcomes in myriad factors. There is no possible way that what I am saying here can be misinterpreted unless you are engaged in some kind of bad faith here, which I don't think you are.
What I am saying is that those data points do not establish "white privilege" or "institutional racism." So we are talking about what inequitable outcome means, rather than whether there is inequitable outcome.
Do you understand the difference, conceptually, between (1) arguing about the meaning of inequitable outcomes (which assumes, as I have here, that inequitable outcomes exist and can be demonstrated with evidence); and (2) arguing that there are no inequitable outcomes?
Further, do you understand that we are talking about (and I am specifically addressing) the former, rather than the latter?
Having now had at least a second opportunity to review what I said, do you now still hold the position that "but don’t seem to care much about whether [outcome inequity] is even a real thing?
-->
@coal
Having now had at least a second opportunity to review what I said, do you now still hold the position that "but don’t seem to care much about whether [outcome inequity] is even a real thing?
When I said you don’t seem to care much about whether it was real, I was referring to what you were insinuating with the following:
But to call these evidence of systemic racism is stupid and myopic. What it suggests is that whenever the government tries to implement policies like this, it makes things far worse than better.
Immediately after listing examples of black people being disproportionately affected by government policy you call it “stupid” to suggest it as evidence of systemic racism. That’s literally what systemic racism means.
You also question whether black white duality is the best way to look at this, I find that baffling. Black vs White is the easiest difference to spot amongst us, lead to the most overt targeting of an ethnic group in our country’s history, and took place far longer than any other example you could list. What alternative means of categorization could one possibly suggest?
But that aside, yes of course I understand the difference in arguing the meaning vs the existence of inequitable outcomes, and I never suggested that you don’t acknowledge the reality of inequitable outcomes. The question regarding systemic racism is whether those outcomes are a directly result of government policy. You sound like you acknowledge it is, but then go on to blame it on the democrats and government intervention, but neither of those are relevant to the question.
Because no matter how you shake the data, there is always at least one (and often three or more) groups that out-perform whites as a group (and have for decades)...What I am saying is that those data points do not establish "white privilege" or "institutional racism."
The question of systemic racism has nothing to do with who is at the top with respects to the beneficiaries of government policy, it’s about who is at the bottom.
Can we make this really simple?...
Do you believe that the disadvantages ingrained in government policy in this country throughout its history have directly lead to the phenomenon we see today; that black people are at or near the bottom in nearly every societal health indicator? Yes or No?
-->
@Double_R
Immediately after listing examples of black people being disproportionately affected by government policy you call it “stupid” to suggest it as evidence of systemic racism.
You're very close to what I was saying. The issue is with your use of the word "disproportionately," as if to imply that there was an "appropriate" portion of woe that might be visited upon people based on their belonging or not belonging to certain groups, whatever they may be.
We could explore, further, the absurdity of the socially constructed "black" identity; as if all black people unidimensional and monolithically are "the same," and that the only indicia of "diversity" is predicated upon the level of melanin in one's skin; but that's a much more complicated subject. We'll keep our eyes on the ball, for now.
It seems to me that you think I think that inequity isn't a problem. And that is wrong. It's a terrible problem. The question is what is to be done about it. And I object to beginning that discussion from the perspective that black people in general are nothing more than the product of their history, when history is replete with exceptionalism within the context of black Americans at virtually every level (obviating the "white privilege" or "institutional racism" or other collectivist explanations as to how we got where we are).
You sound like you acknowledge it is, but then go on to blame it on the democrats and government intervention, but neither of those are relevant to the question.
Actually what I said was that if the "white privilege" or "institutional racism" conspiracy theory was true, then we'd have to assume that society got vastly more racist after the Johnson administration and the end of Jim Crow --- which is completely absurd.
The question of systemic racism has nothing to do with who is at the top with respects to the beneficiaries of government policy, it’s about who is at the bottom.
On a fundamental level I agree that inequality is a problem; but the problem that *can* be addressed is inequality of opportunity, not inequality of outcome (which is a problem that, to the extent it is addressed, will only make things worse). And that is why, in particular, I object to even use of the language of "systemic racism" because the problem of inequitable outcome cannot be solved at that same level of analysis that it's identified --- which is the beginning and end of what the so-called progressive left endeavors to offer.
Do you believe that the disadvantages ingrained in government policy in this country throughout its history have directly lead to the phenomenon we see today; that black people are at or near the bottom in nearly every societal health indicator? Yes or No?
Yes, although your question should not have been limited to "government policy" --- that is a part of it, but it's not just "the government" that's implicated in why sociocultural and socioeconomic factors explain inequitable outcomes.
You should have asked:
Do you believe that the disadvantages ingrained in the society in this country throughout its history have directly lead to the phenomenon we see today; that black people are at or near the bottom in nearly every societal health indicator? Yes or No?
The answer doesn't change. It's still a "yes."
-->
@coal
Since we can't build a time machine and go back to 1867 and force the Southern Culture to become more in line with Hard working and virtuous Northern Culture.
And we also can't go back to 1997 when California embraced Ebonics as a genetic language based on skin color, discouraging people with Black skin and Southern Culture from integrating into the majority and objectively better Northern Culture as evidenced by the outcomes of the Civil War.
What would you suggest today as a means to gradually eliminate Southern Culture from people of all skin colors beyond just toppling a few statues?
How would you distribute these changes to tackle the pervasive Southern Culture ghettos entrenched in Northern urban centers and no longer confined to the geography south of the Mason-Dixon?
-->
@coal
Actually what I said was that if the "white privilege" or "institutional racism" conspiracy theory was true, then we'd have to assume that society got vastly more racist after the Johnson administration and the end of Jim Crow --- which is completely absurd.
Institutional racism is not a conspiracy theory. It doesn’t allege that society is conspiring against them, even if there are concrete examples of this. The charge is that the laws and policies themselves have played a large role in the black community being where they are. It’s just that simple. Whether it was done on purpose or not is a separate issue filled with varying answers. The idea that society got more racist, whoever might believe this, has nothing to do with it.
Do you believe that the disadvantages ingrained in government policy in this country throughout its history have directly lead to the phenomenon we see today; that black people are at or near the bottom in nearly every societal health indicator? Yes or No?Yes,...
Then it appears we believe largely the same thing but are calling it something different.
I also agree with your expansion, I was just trying to keep it simple. One step at a time.
I object to even use of the language of "systemic racism" because the problem of inequitable outcome cannot be solved at that same level of analysis that it's identified
That’s understandable, and I would say I mostly agree. I think the problem however is that we live in a society where solving problems require us to have a dialog. That can’t happen if we refuse to acknowledge the plight of others, especially while acting like the things they are pointing to aren’t real. We need to begin with a shared sense of reality, only then can we move on to discussing what to do about it.
It seems to me that you think I think that inequity isn't a problem.
I never thought that, I only responded because you appeared to be equating, at least in some level, belief in systemic racism with belief that the election was stolen. At least now it seems clear that whatever you were referring to doesn’t appear to be the same thing I heard.
-->
@Greyparrot
Since we can't build a time machine and go back to 1867 and force the Southern Culture to become more in line with Hard working and virtuous Northern Culture.And we also can't go back to 1997 when California embraced Ebonics as a genetic language based on skin color, discouraging people with Black skin and Southern Culture from integrating into the majority and objectively better Northern Culture as evidenced by the outcomes of the Civil War.What would you suggest today as a means to gradually eliminate Southern Culture from people of all skin colors beyond just toppling a few statues?How would you distribute these changes to tackle the pervasive Southern Culture ghettos entrenched in Northern urban centers and no longer confined to the geography south of the Mason-Dixon?
So that everyone is on the same page, Grayparrot is referring to Thomas Sowell's argument that much of what is regarded as "black culture" is the product of "cracker culture" inherited from Scottish highlanders in the northern part of the country.
I do not agree with Sowell's argument, there. I do not think that eliminating any culture is an appropriate response to the challenges faced by certain groups. I will think more about this and may post something further later on.
-->
@coal
I do not think that eliminating any culture is an appropriate response to the challenges faced by certain groups.
Maybe eliminate is too harsh of a word. How about encouraging assimilation?
the product of "cracker culture"
I knew about Cracker Culture long before I knew of Sowell. It was evidenced in various heritage stories passed down from my family and a driving reason why I left New Orleans.
Thomas Sowell on White Liberals Aiding and Abetting worst aspects of black culture (which white liberals themselves defined)