Total posts: 35
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
There is also too much money circulation lost with decriminalization.
Idk what this means. Are you talking about taxes compared to black market revenue?
No fees going to the government, less arrests and fines by officers, money lost in jailing people, some lawyers would have to find new types of cases to take on. It would be a major shift and many people would be hurt if this was enacted.
Legalization = taxes for the gov. The only people who are hurt are only people in the legal sense. I have no sympathy for corporate quasi citizens like those in the Prison Industrial Complex. Besides if general market theory is to be believed any jobs effected will be absorbed by the increase of other industries positively effected. We really do need more lawyers and public defenders on cases more important than simple drug possession cases. Fines from police, and the abusive act of civil forfeiture needs to stop.
Just like I don't believe free universal healthcare would work in the US. It may work for the time being in some Northern European Countries with supplemental wealth and revenue being generated from other sources by the Government. But I think we will soon bare witness to the system failing once the money runs out and it backfires. Only time will tell.
If by 'time' you mean "enough time for conservatives to murder any potential chance of European welfare style policy, and even if passed they'll sabotage it so they can justify killing it later like they did with the ACA" - then yea we'll see. But the youth, and Bernie Sanders, are fed up with the current market oriented society. The conservatives can complain all the want while their elected politicians pilfer SS and Medicare
It is tough to integrate an experiment and change our whole way of life... what if it doesn't work? We would be back to square one after a huge shift.
Cultures do not shift all at once. The US is a large place, some regions are tolerant, and there are pockets of radicals. It's not like the US can get cultural whiplash - despite how schizophrenic US policy is with Trump. I think we all know the US is generally trending left even under Trump. Even after the Bill Clinton impeachment scandal the next election was so close it had to be decided by SCOTUS. 9/11 and the wars pretty much made Bush a guarantee 2 termer - but he was so unpopular he set the stage for the first Black President. 2 terms despite being called the anti-christ secret Muslim who wears a tan suit and likes mustard. The GOP turned to Russia for money and internet propaganda. Trump especially guilty of this. Trump/GOP need help to win, otherwise when high numbers turn out to vote is usually swing left - Bernie Sanders is a prime example of the power of that kind of position in the US. Even Jeff Bezos has stepped towards the light and made their all workers at least have $15/hour.
There will be no cultural shift fatigue. The US has already had one Progressive shift forward 100 years ago. We are now in the 2nd Progressive age - and age first marred by the ugly visage and evil right wing populism can do - but hark the left is growing. Mitch McConell is a crafty man though, he might win out over real humans/people.
Created:
Posted in:
That's not how debt-to-income ratio works. It involves *pre-existing* debt -- debt the loan applicant already had prior to applying for the loan.
If we assume that minorities are more likely to be in debt that merely is just a retelling of problems involved in the cycle of poverty.
There's nothing racially biased about that metric. It's an accurate reflection of how financially responsible a person is, and the reality is that Blacks tend to be less financially responsible than Whites -- regardless of income level.
Don't be so confident your viewpoint on credit scoring is so superior and final. If you read the Forbes Article: "African Americans and Latinos, for example, are less likely to have traditional sources of credit, such as credit cards or mainstream consumer or business loans, all of which constitute the basis of older scoring models. A recent credit scoring forum sponsored by the National Association of Realtors highlighted the fact that we can have safe and sound lending if we use more accurate tools to determine the credit worthiness of borrowers, such as such as timely utility or rent payments."
And your claim about Black tendency is based on statistical relations to cyclical poverty. Being poor doesn't offer many options, even whites get caught in the same thing. The motive doesn't need to be purely racist to be so - greed for example is not inherently racist - but given that minorities make the easiest targets to abuse and cajole as minorities they are targeted more often - it's functionally racist.
.. . which explains why they face higher interest rates
A difference of 30-60 point doesn't explain why the difference in rates are so drastically higher.
Right now we're debating the purely factual question of whether or not racial discrimination is a significant force in modern American society.
It's a compounding factor combined with poverty. The is a general correlation between race and wealth in the US, as Mr Atwater pointed out something abstract like states rights and tax cuts for the rich/middle class have plausible deniability while carrying out a function that harms one group and helps another - correlated by race. Today we see in states like Texas and S Carolina evidence of racial gerrymandering, that's pretty significant.
I do acknowledge the immensely negative effect the slavery and segregation have had on the socioeconomic stature of the African American community. But that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not present-day racial discrimination is widespread.
It clearly does when blacks themselves are still saying it's an issue. Colin Kappernick isn't kneeling for nothing.
I'll admit that I'm heavily biased against the "racism is everywhere" narrative, but that bias is rooted in the empirical evidence
People lie on those things all time to appear better. How can the mid 90's be over 90% pro-same schools when that same period we saw the height of the anti-busing cause? You should see the thing anti-busing parents said at meets. It's on youtube. And clearly given the amount of racism thrown at Obama there's no way in 1997 95% said they approved of a black president. All your survey data shows is a change in open racism. Just as Atwater noted - the culture changes you can't be blatant anymore but the goal remains.
Partisanship fully explains all of those conspiracy theories (along with most of what's wrong with modern politics). Why assume that some sort of secret underlying racism is also involved?
Just because something is partisan doesn't mean it can't be further exacerbated by race. People will always insult the president, but when the President became black suddenly there were racist insults against the president. Despite all the crazy conspiracies about Hillary none of them involve her not being a citizen and secretly born in Europe or some other white country. People believed Trump, no one seriously questioned the citizenship of Ted Cruz or John McCain not like they did Obama.
Ans because Trump himself is a racist and his message appeals to literal white supremacist who openly supported him more than any other GOP candidate. I could go on all day about how terrible his cabinet, Jeff Sessions is so racist they wouldn't let him be a judge in Alabama.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Vortex86
"illegals" and "muslims" are not races.
And? Is there any confusion on what an 'ethnicity' is and why discriminating based on ethnicity is morally equivalent to discrimination based on race?
Even the touted "birtherism" premise is not racist in nature. It's more ignorance or partisanship than racism. There was a similar argument made against Ted Cruz and John McCain.
Not in nature but in modern usage it's most notably used/believed against Obama, so it's functionally racist. Kinda like how a gun isn't inherently racist, but when it's used by a cop to kill an unarmed black man maybe the guy holding the gun might be racist.
I'm glad you brought up McCain and Cruz. Yes we have 3 recent examples, but in terms of investigation and widespread care let alone belief about the legitimacy of McCain or Cruz was more a meme than an impediment to their campaign. Trump gained political notoriety bashing Obama and claiming he had proof from a private investigator (never released). They made him President. They didn't want McCain who snatched the microphone away from a woman calling Obama "an arab". And Senor Rafael Cruz anglicized (white washed) his name to Ted, and being light skinned seem to have helped compared to Obama's pigment. The 2 white guys get a pass but the black one from Hawaii who's mother is a citizen (thus the child is a citizen even if born in Kenya) must be the anti-Christ secret Muslim aided by foreign terrorists. Do you not see why one would suspect racism? Trump claims Obama/Hillary literally created ISIS, and that Obama was spying on him and his base just eats it up. There is significant population that is under is spell, and racism is just one of many tool to use to keep conservatives afraid of a "socially" Marxist takeover a la Fox News/infowars/breitbart.
As a side note Cruz is a slime ball. He had the nerve to criticize O'Rouke for using the Hispanic nickname 'Beto' despite him doing the same. The GOP is riddled with this kind of projection. Trump is the epitome of it backed by Russian propagandists.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
That subset of dregs will exist regardless of the legality of drugs - clearly the threat of jail time for possession isn't enough to deter. I've said b4 the demand will continue to exist in our society so long as the roots aren't addressed. Your charity is the best solution - but most will not be as generous as you. That's why we use the collective will of the People aka the Government to enact such programs of social welfare. Again the Nordic rehabilitation system instead of a mismatched psych ward or jail. But many lobbyists are against it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
It's a bit of a work around but if you have the income, and the loan (debt) you can see there's a perception of income to debt. As for the importance of credit score there is plenty of research on that which goes to show correlate effect that is clearly a reverberation of the past system of loans which favored whites [2]. Even today PoC with good credit scores are saddled with higher rates compared to whites [3].
As for the importance of credit it seems to be a non factor. And even if you argue that we should abandon any notions of racism and look at this through a purely economic lens you're just playing into what Mr. Atwater was saying, to take the issues into the abstract knowing ultimately policy crafted in such a way will hurt minorities more than whites. You claim to acknowledge the past yet you don't seem to appreciate the economic board was set by white hands with inevitable socio economic consequences.
which would explain why we see such prominent racial disparities in mortgage lending. It's got nothing to do with racism.
You seem too eager to dismiss race as a factor despite its prominence in recent history. Trump didn't make race a polarizing issue, he capitalized on a pre-existing, one could say historical, disdain. Millions of Americans chose to believe Trump's conspiracies from birtherism "millions of illegals voting" and "Muslims celebrating 9/11" not because it was true but because it's the racist BS they've been feeling should be said aloud.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
"You clearly didn't read a single word of what I wrote."
You clearly didn't read to the 2nd paragraph of the article about home loans.
"This modern-day redlining persisted in 61 metro areas even when controlling for applicants’ income, loan amount and neighborhood, according to millions of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act records analyzed by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
He's clearly not interested in having a substantive discussion. Leave him alone!
Lul substantive - you didn't debunk any of the sources or claims, you just said that you could or just asserted it. Lee Atwater explaining what a dogwhistle is not 'new speak'. Is "Fake News" new speak? Neo-something?
Edit to include response to greyparrot: Again you use a straw man. Boring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Sounds more like ad hom and strawman rather than dealing with what's being said. And given post #14 you've already set up your own narrative. Another boring type like spacetime.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
@Plisken
I notice you respond in a way that doesn't send me a notification. And there was nothing to respond to. You merely aired your opinion. "There's no rational reason to assume the involvement of racism." is not a factual statement and clearly a hyper partisan comment. You're boring.
@plisken it's pretty obvious that "^ I already said that in another thread (in response to the same person making the same dumb argument), but it's worth repeating." is an act of spam. So report that too.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Responding to a person with the subject being about the concept of racism in a forum about Asians and blacks isn't spam.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
Someone whose reading comprehension skills are vastly superior to yours.
Yousa read good thata maka you big brain boss. Much impress, much wow. Real Trump best words!
So you don't really have an obvious answer that isn't racism. You'll say racism exists but I'm very curious what your metric takes into account.
What were those employers supposed to do? Flip a coin?
They clearly didn't otherwise results would have been even.
Obviously when everything else is equal, they'll prefer a name they're more familiar with. That isn't evidence of racism.
It's evidence of ethnocentrism - which is functionally identical to racism. And when you combine that piece with study after study (as I provided, there's way more) it becomes a mountain of evidence that points to the existence of a population that indeed consciously racist. They are aware, perhaps trained, enough to pick up on the dog whistles sent out by spin doctors like you. https://www.thenation.com/article/exclusive-lee-atwaters-infamous-1981-interview-southern-strategy/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
I never said racism doesn't exist. All I said was that it's no longer a widespread or significant problem in modern American society.
And who are you to judge that?
I don't deny that slavery and segregation have had an enormous negative effect on the current state of the African American community.
And yet you fail to seem to acknowledge it. The remainder of your post shows only seems reasonable if you ignore that negative effect. Like some alt right goon you try to reference a biological explanation for black people financial troubles? And you conveniently don't mention that cultural factor includes racism from the majority popultion.
The fact is that none of those studies come anywhere close to proving what they're intended to prove. They all conveniently fail to account for crucial external variables, defaulting to "racism" while ignoring far more obvious explanations.
Uh huh .. so for job applications when the only difference is the name on the application - what is the most obvious reason for less call backs?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
I don't really care about your opinion. You're clearly hyper-partisan and thus your evaluation is suspect and frankly just boring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
There is a reason it is against the law.
The question is are those reasons actually good? Do they actually address the problems they are suppose to or do they make them worse? The war on drugs has been going on for decades yet today they are more easy to obtain are far more potent. "Just Say No", the D.A.R.E program, mass incarceration - all massive failures to meet the goal they've set out.
You think people just arbitrarily make laws?
Arbitrary in the sense that there is literally no sense or purpose for the law to exist? No. But if by arbitrary you mean based on ones own personal whim and motivation regardless of the common good - it would be entirely ignorant to say anything other than yes, people do make arbitrary laws that only suit their interests. Bad and immoral laws can be passed, it's not that difficult. Republicans do it all the time.
We are not dogs that understand reward training more than discipline, that is why we don't get rewarded for not doing anything wrong.
This sentence does not logically follow. Humans are like any animal and are susceptible to reward training and cognitive feedback loops. In fact discipline is just a more sophisticated/mature feedback loop.
We understand the consequences of breaking the law.... if you don't want to go to jail, don't do it. It's that simple.
An unjust law is no law at all - and it is ones civic duty to protest such a law even if it means breaking it. It's obviously not that simple when you care out an exception for opinion users but condemn every other drug user - who's to say trying to medicate emotional pain with drugs is worse than trying to medicate physical pain? Clearly when one gets addicted after the pain is gone they're taking the pills for greater reasons than mere pain relief.
As for the article, you'll have to explain why certain aspects wouldn't work. So far your refutation of drug use has come down to a blind loyalty to the law and some vague appeal about divorce rates.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
Sure, a non-profit charity would due. It shouldn't be confined to churches though; and a discriminatory (with aid contributions) church shouldn't receive funds. But if there was no such charity org in an effected area - would it be wrong to fund a local initiative?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
The War on Drugs has been a failure just like Prohibition was for many the same reason - you yourself begrudge the loss on alcohol prohibition, well people have been doing heavy mind altering drugs for millennia. More ritualistically, not like today's recreation.. Demand will always exist, especially under these stressful times. Teach moderation, not abolition. I'm sorry you've lost friends and family, but to pretend the the idea of personal choice to do drugs is simply "progressive" is pointlessly derogatory - it's also a position libertarians hold.
Weed should definitely be legalized and past criminal records expunged. If we look at Portugal as a model for legalization if all drugs where legalized we'd see a brief jump in use followed by a sharp drop off at a level lower than before. www.theguardian.com/news/2017/dec/05/portugals-radical-drugs-policy-is-working-why-hasnt-the-world-copied-it
We should seek to help those that are addicted, the Nordic counties have a great rehabilitation model. Treating drug use like a criminal offense instead of a healthnoe simply criminalizes the citizen based on terrible argumentation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
Alcohol is the only existing legal drug that has effect on your judgement.
Well I mean uh .. functionally speaking pot is legal in a few states. Nullification has its place. Why should this fact matter?
Like I said, if we could go back in time, we would have made it illegal.
Your ignorance of the history of alcohol and its role in social/cultural development does not constitute an argument as to why it should be illegal. You say it's too late now because of the negatives of Prohibition - but the current war on drugs is having the same effects as the alcohol ban. The demand for drugs is as old as our species - even the Inuit today drink mushroom moose piss to hallucinate like their ancestors did. One may argue against overuse and lack of moderation, but there's no law that cant stop people in general from using recreational drugs. Even with prescription drugs we're currently in an opioid crisis. Tobacco does something worse than a temporarily alteration of the mind. If you're going to argue that pot changes people over long periods of time with overuse the said could be said of a person who has a coffee and cigarette habit. They change in behavior when they cannot get their fix.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
If you put it on a scale of pros and cons.... it is a con
Are you really giving it a fair account? Alcohol and other drugs have existed for millenia and civilization and marriage still persist.
My point is it changes who you are, your personality, just like other drugs do.... I agree with a prescription, but not full scale legality.
The same could be said about Fortnite, or really any addictive habit. Should video games be by prescription only?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
But you're not really telling us why they ought to be illegal. I've already shown why basing it on how it may effect marriages makes no sense. Lots of things can destroy marriages, but that shouldn't be the criteria for banning things.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
It is in line with the logic you're using by pending drug legality by virtue of its potential effect on a marriage. Mind altering drugs can also enhance a marriage. Does that not give reason to legalize them then?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
By the logic you're using we should make the video game Fortnite illegal because it too has contributed to divorce. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/09/18/divorce-online-survey-couples-now-blaming-fortnite-for-divorce.html
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@spacetime
There's no reason to believe that this structural denial remains in place today. I challenge you to offer any convincing evidence that present-day discrimination is primarily responsible for the socioeconomic disparities between blacks and whites.
Excellent use of wiggle words. Yea, no reason to believe if you don't pay attention - just like Dinesh D'Souza. I never claimed modern racism was "primarily" the cause of today's disparities, but it is a measurable thing. Racism still clearly exists in society when you have alt-right goons with tiki torches shouting "the jews will not replace" - or running people over with cars - oh wait we can't attribute this behavior to antisemitism or white supremacy can we? Anyway, not only can we measure things better today - if we assume society were more racist in the past that means we have to take into account the compounding aspect of disparity. The denial of generational wealth in a capitalist society. Even if those social restrictions a generation ago - that's just 1 generation. Whites have been passing down thier wealth since the Founding, who do you think runs this country? old rich families.
Here ya go, just a taste of the reality outside of your bubble:
Redlining (historical context): https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/04/how-the-fair-housing-act-failed-black-homeowners/557576/
Medical Treatment: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/12/171214140840.htm
Job Application: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/9/18/16307782/study-racism-jobs
Sentencing Disparity:https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/black-men-sentenced-time-white-men-crime-study/story?id=51203491
Police Brutality Disparity: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/02/180205134232.htm
There's no rational reason to assume the involvement of racism. This is a textbook example of the leftist obsession with blindly attributing racist motives to everything. It's factually inaccurate, socially corrosive, and morally repulsive.
I think you're the factually inaccurate, socially corrosive, and morally repulsive one around here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@DBlaze
This will just cause the divorce rate to rise even more.
Lol no need for evidence just say your BS. Correlation doesn't mean causation, but as weed becomes more legal and widespread, divorce rates are also dropping. http://time.com/4575495/divorce-rate-nearly-40-year-low/
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Plisken
If one's 'race' does not present an obstacle, which in reality it Truly can't, that is NOT a power as has been covered in this thread because "being white" cannot be demonstrated to apply force across distance over time. Obstacles with respect to race can only be presented by people who contrive them.
Racism, which is informed by race, is an obstacle for those persecuted. And it can be demonstrated over time. US history is a perfect example with the "contrivance" of racism holding much prominence with a gradual but not total decline. It's pretty obvious when a quarter of the US pop believes Obama was born in Kenya there are enough people who contrive racism to make it an effective reality, both today and historically. You can't replace theory with real world outcomes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ravensjt
There is still power in being White in America....not just for being an "Elite White" but just by being White in and of itselfI would never say that Whites dont struggle or have burdens, but I am saying that their Race is never an obstacle to their struggles..... Thats Power
It is **A** Power. Power comes in many forms both from institutions, from social etiquette/culture, Race, Money, The People, Barrels of Guns etc. I understand the concept of white privilege and how it is separate from economic privilege and the building of generational wealth. But the existence of White Privilege does not negate the possibility of a black person being racist in western countries. I'm glad you like my example because it shows how your provided definitions are not mutually exclusive. You say my example is your second definition - but the interaction clearly fits the first definition:
Racism refers to social actions, practices or beliefs [of] political systems that consider different races to be ranked as inherently superior or inferior to each other......
No, like I already said that's the definition of institutional racism.
What I described was a black business owner telling a Korean man that he's not welcome because 1) "You eat dog"; 2) "you steal" - the first is an accusation that would imply eating dog is an inferior act. And that by simply being Korean he was a thief, which is an inferior social class, especially to a business owner.
Racism doesn't need to be spelled out like the Spanish mestizo system or the South African legal code. It can happen in simple interactions like my example.
Prejudice or discrimination practices (like your situation) refers to a positive or negative evaluation of another person based on their perceived group membership....
What do you think of this equation Prejudice/Race = Racism. Prejudice based on Race is Racist. What about Prejudice/Sex= ??
When I use the word "Power" I am talking on a socio-economic level with systemic structures etc.
Wouldn't the black business owner be in a higher socio economic position than the shifty Korean patron vis a vis capitalism? Being black doesn't help, but when we do weigh in other privileges the black man is in the position to tell a customer to F off. Although that example couldn't specifically happen do to anti-discrimination laws, but it shows in theory blacks can be racist. Not everything said about honkies/crackers can be chalked up to frustrated reactions to oppression. Hoteps and black supremacists are clearly racist. Even the SPLC acknowledges this. They don't need to control the government to be racist.
As I said before power comes from many places, I don't think we should gerrymander the definition of racism to just fit institutional power which blacks do have potential access to - and in some cases like Barry O and various other well-to-do blacks - do actually have.
The example I keep falling back to is the situation in South Africa.... now, if they decide to kill the White Farmers because they are White then that would be an example of Black Racism
Why does it have to be so extreme as killing them? The alt-right propaganda also claims rape and killings are occurring. Mandela strove for reconciliation between the races, I understand how the most fertile farmland was unequally distributed by race. The "homeland" aspect of the Apartheid regime really did a number on the demographics - but that issue was something Mandela seemed to not address on his campaign for national unity. With all this said I think taking the land of white farmers w/o compensation because they are white would also be racist. But given the racist history the farm should be taken through 'eminent domain' (a source of power) and be bought at fair market value - if the SA gov would have trouble paying that much they could issue bonds (IOUs) to the farmers as compensation. It must be acknowledged for SA that just taking the good farmland from whites w/o compensation would only hurt the race relations Mandela sought to mend.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
you are one naive criminal mastermind hahahahaha
You've yet to show how.
enjoy it when your henchmen break your neck and your best friend takes it for himself and his girlfriend blackmails him to give it up and her cousin does the same to her. life without law is hell on earth
Uh huh ... and you believe every drug interaction is like a movie? You do realize that real drug cartels manage to avoid eating each other long enough to make a profit right? They run drugs without legal free periods and they manage to carve out respective territories and traffic routes - and yes murder each other (365 days a year) - but unless an internal struggle breaks out like the Zetas there's a certain level of cohesion and what you could called 'trust'. You're not casting doubt on my idea, you're just writing some weird fan fic or paraphrasing a movie. If the purge existed then I could only do such a plan if I had the resources/infrastructure to do so. Add that into your story.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ravensjt
Reverse discrimination isn't reality seeing as to how Blacks dont have the power needed to be racist (racism= power + prejudice)
The definition you use is Institutional Racism, but what social racism not done by institutions of power? Unless the definition of power is more broad?
What if a Korean where to walk into a convenience store owned by a black person and the black owner said to the Korean "Get out of here, I hate Asians, you eat dog, you steal, get out!" - would that be an act of racism given that the store owner has the "power" granted to him by legal title of the store and personal rights of self defense and property ownership?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@triangle.128k
However, you would now notice that Asians are unlike any other minority. They carry more power and wealth than whites - speaking on averages. Blacks on the other hand remain in dysfunctional communities and are still present in a lower socio-economic status.
There are a few factors that set how white Americans treat blacks compared to Asians. First Asians are a small minority (~5%) compared to blacks (~13%) and where they lived in great number, the West Coast and California in particular, there was relatively some racism, legal and social, against Asians compared to blacks. And with Asians coming voluntarily they still had a connection with their homeland ie access to resources abroad. This is not a starting position African slaves had. And as Ravensjt as points out they were more tight knit economically, probably because they could still maintain their culture and values because they weren't literal slaves. Also there may have been a skin tone dynamic too, East Asians being light skinned, generally smaller in stature compared to whites, and less in number made them look less threatening so there was not as much need to remind Asians of their lower tier social class - until WW2 when the enemy was an Asian. Then the propaganda took a racist tone and there was Internment. But it was mostly about trying to import enough Asians to make the Western railroad but not enough to establish large numbers. But there was no history of Asian-American political leaders being assassinated like MLK and Malcolm X, that's important too. Asian have never been seen much as politically motivated in the US - not a threat to white supremacy like blacks and Hispanics represent.
Have you ever wondered why "hip" means "cool"? When high on opium you tend to lie down - or if you want to socialize you sit up on your hip. "Long time, no see" is also a saying borrowed from Chinese 'engrish'.
Blacks largely followed liberal leaders such as Web DuBois, placing a focus on protest for equal treatment. Asians largely took an approach more similar to Booker T Washington's ideals. They focused on education and economic opportunities to readily exploit.As a result, who do you believe is in a better condition nowadays?
Jim Crow South didn't really effect Asians in West. Black history is marred by a cycle of building communities only to see them destroyed. After centuries of cruel slavery and dehumanization the Civil War was won - this former slave class was never given that 40 acres and a mule as often referred. They started out with nothing, many would go back to working for their old masters for a wage. Prison chain gangs were common for keeping former slaves working. The gains of the Reconstruction Era: black schools, black politicians, black entrepreneurs etc were severely mitigated by Jim Crow law and reinforced by the domestic terrorist organization known as the KKK. (Don't even start with any 'They were Democrats' distraction).
In 1921, 8 years before the Great Stock Market Crash, one of the richest black communities in the US - Tulsa, Oklahoma - was destroyed by white rioters [1]. This was still the Jim Crow Era after all. WW2 happens - it ends; Black soldiers returning from the war noted that the French would cheer them as liberators and yet and home in the US they'd still experience social racism similar to what the jews had in Nazi Germany [2]. Don't even get me started on the Tuskegee experiment [3]. Do you understand the concept of racial gerrymandering and how it's still effecting voting demographics [4]?
Even after the Civil and Voting Rights Acts of 64 and 65 respectively there is still tones of discrimination against blacks from employment applications [5] to home loans [6] to even medical treatment [7]. Compound that all with a culture of poverty that forms from generational poverty after being denied generational wealth. Key word by the way - the ticket to communal success is **generational wealth**. Even in these recent years the accomplishments of Barack Obama are being undone with no care at all by the man who ran on the conspiracy he was born in Kenya.
From all this I hope I have dented your belief in the Asian Model Minority Myth [8] and we can conclude the Civil Rights Movement was necessary and would always be met with white opposition.
Sources:
Edit: Figured out how quotes work.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
By who? 90% of the population is indoors hiding, the rest are killing each other. The only other threat would be another criminal syndicate smart enough to copy my idea. And you can't really rob people who are laundering money digitally. The drug trafficking sure - and that's why you hire mercenaries to protect said shipments. Did I really need to add that detail?
The only problem I see is keeping the stash hidden while still selling it during the rest of the year.
Created:
-->
@Castin
Any real baller knows the crime to commit during the purge is money laundering with drug trafficking on the side. Customs is closed? Lemme just roll these 12 semi-trucks of narcotics accross the border. Dirty money can come from other countries digitally no risk at all.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
I don't represent them, I was just pointing out the levels of inability which are held fast by social ignorance. Some may realize that unisex includes trans people, but the general argument against trans is a fear of a male pervert around women and children. With unisex that social barrier is gone, thus potentially increasing the odds of an assault. Even if the argument is frivolous it still applies to unisex compared to just letting passing trans people use the bathroom of their choice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ethang5
> The answer seems to be, "no reason at all".
Conservative parents can't handle the idea of letting a trans person use the bathroom let alone abolishing the concept of gendered bathrooms. That's why it won't happen - parents would complain too much.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Danielle
It's a 12 second clip and you only listed through 8 seconds. Context folks, context. Today, who could argue against the government opening up a soup kitchen in the poorest neighborhoods of America? We know there are homeless and poor families who's food budgts are strained. Would you rather the poor continue to suffer from the debilitating conditions of poverty? Or are you full of talking points about how they need to pull themselves up by their boot straps and the meritocratic free market will work itself out?
Created:
-->
@dylancatlow
You really like leading inarticulate questions. Your hypothetical questions are worthless without social context to ground them in. Why is there high crime? Why were the races suddenly made to cohabitate? So many details that your hypothetical can't provide. But that's ok, we both know you prefer the hypothetical more than the real world in which we derive real world context to explain why things are the way they are.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@dylancatlow
One's ignorance on a subject does not constitute a valid position. It's like when Dinesh D'Souza ignorantly asked about what the colony of Puerto Rico provided to the US - as if his ignorance of PR constituted a refutation of the claims of colonization. https://i.redditmedia.com/yT1V2E11FQcWlKrzK2_fh68XxspLSQfXtcC7Yx33Oso.jpg?w=320&s=1f2c7a631a947481e30e7170647f90c2
Q1: what problems besetting blacks can be be attributed to their lack of influence at the upper levels of society?
Literally not having a say in laws being passed that effect them. Lack of access to greater financial institutions like banks for home/car loans. Being secluded from power also means that claims of abuse of authority go ignored. It is a structural denial to blacks that has been in place for centuries, and only now in the new millennia have we had a non-white president, and even then a large segment of the population still believes he was born in Kenya. Although blacks are not the only group to be discriminated against, they are the metaphorical whipping boy of society. Thir struggle is emblematic, and thus appropriated by almost every American claim to social justice. Even conservatives will quote MLK while playing the victim of supposed anti-Christian bigotry.
Q2: are there any examples of black Harvard graduates who went on to make necessary changes that non-blacks didn't think of making before?
What are "necessary changes"? And why is Harvard important? If you mean pass legislation that helps black people, historically speaking after the Civil War there was a number of black politicians elected, but after Reconstruction cam Jim Crow and racial gerrymandering that persists to this day that has limited the voting power of black and other minorities. Imagine if blacks had a seat at the table, do you think republicans would have such an easy time carving out a district in their own favor?
Q3: What percent of black Harvard graduates fall into this category?
Irrelevant question that just goes to show that it must be important to judge black intellectuals w/o ever wonder what percent of white Harvard grads go on to make "necessary changes".
Q4: Would it be justified to arbitrarily admit 1000 blacks knowing that only 1 would even try to advocate for black interests?
That's an admission that you believe in such an assertion, not an admission to the validity of said assertion. And again you make such a claim w/o any control to compare it to. So not only is it not justified, it makes me question why you want to justify it in the first place.
Q5: Have black students at Harvard been made aware of the role Harvard wishes them to pursue once they graduate - that of a "black advocate"?
This is a loaded question on par with an Alex Jones conspiracy, so 'll pass.
Created: