|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On January 22 2016 10:35 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm fairly sure there's a mod note with rules in the OP about not being dicks, yeah?
Lets give that a shot. Everyone just take a deep breath and shit.
The idea that engaging in a serious discussion, which one knows nothing about, and proceeding to say offensively ignorant things, is not being "dickish", is the problem with the whole concept that my response is disproportional.
|
On January 22 2016 10:35 OuchyDathurts wrote:
I'm fairly sure there's a mod note with rules in the OP about not being dicks, yeah?
Lets give that a shot. Everyone just take a deep breath and shit.
I love that of all the insults in this thread being corrected on a historical fact about slavery is what demands a call to order
On January 22 2016 10:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 10:02 Nyxisto wrote:On January 22 2016 09:56 oBlade wrote:On January 22 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:
but to fight racism you can't just 'help everybody in need', you'll need to address racism specifically. We know pretty well what the formula is to helping communities in need: Consistent education, rehabilitating criminals, providing healthcare (specifically contraception), employing people so there actually are opportunities, weeding out crime, and doing all this through organizing the community. Discrimination by the police force, Most people aren't in favor of police brutality, and simple bodycams are already shown to do a great job keeping police accountable. But it's important to remember that police discrimination is also rooted in years of disproportionate representation in crime. The focus should be fighting poverty, a huge factor in crime, and fighting crime itself in ways that don't just feed the prison industry. under-representation of minorities in certain jobs and so on. What aspect of this specifically, would you say, is a problem? If you meaningfully want to combat racism you can't just act like it doesn't exist. There are people on all sides who personally benefit from continued divisiveness, and furthering that isn't helping anyone either. lack of diversity in the workplace, especially in the higher paying jobs and in public administration means also segregation in the cities and communities. You can't overcome racism if people don't live and work together. Also diversity in companies is linked to better performance so there's also overall economic benefit. I think you have the cause and effect reversed.
What cause and effect? You think that black people are just bad at technology and filing tax reports?
|
from the article that was linked few pages back:
Half of Trump’s supporters within the GOP had stopped their education at or before high-school graduation, according to the polling firm YouGov
lol
|
For all of you who still don't understand that Trump is not conservative: go check out what the National Review is publishing in their next issue.
|
None of the republicans still in the race are conservative...
|
Reading Rand's Ama at the moment, what is his obsession with the Federal Reserve ? Does he want all people to trade in cows, Bitcoins and Shekels?
|
On January 22 2016 11:55 DickMcFanny wrote:
None of the republicans still in the race are conservative...
Yep, just like how none of them is white or Christian, or knows what to do with the business end of his manhood.
|
On January 22 2016 10:25 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 10:02 Nyxisto wrote:On January 22 2016 09:56 oBlade wrote:On January 22 2016 09:17 Nyxisto wrote:
but to fight racism you can't just 'help everybody in need', you'll need to address racism specifically. We know pretty well what the formula is to helping communities in need: Consistent education, rehabilitating criminals, providing healthcare (specifically contraception), employing people so there actually are opportunities, weeding out crime, and doing all this through organizing the community. Discrimination by the police force, Most people aren't in favor of police brutality, and simple bodycams are already shown to do a great job keeping police accountable. But it's important to remember that police discrimination is also rooted in years of disproportionate representation in crime. The focus should be fighting poverty, a huge factor in crime, and fighting crime itself in ways that don't just feed the prison industry. under-representation of minorities in certain jobs and so on. What aspect of this specifically, would you say, is a problem? If you meaningfully want to combat racism you can't just act like it doesn't exist. There are people on all sides who personally benefit from continued divisiveness, and furthering that isn't helping anyone either. lack of diversity in the workplace, especially in the higher paying jobs and in public administration means also segregation in the cities and communities. You can't overcome racism if people don't live and work together. Also diversity in companies is linked to better performance so there's also overall economic benefit. I think you have the cause and effect reversed.
What cause and effect?[/QUOTE]
I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities.
Also, you can't necessarily evenly distribute things that aren't in equal proportions. It's a sort of naivete to suggest that. Women in chess is a good example, just to illustrate this principle. They're apparently under-represented among masters. The reason isn't that women are incapable. It's just that in practice, there are fewer of them in chess, and for whatever reason there's less variance among them.
In the case of "diversity," it occurs to me that mainly companies that are large and successful enough to have an HR division are going to be setting up diversity initiatives.
The reason diversity is supposed to be a good idea is you'd often want people with different backgrounds - and therefore different perspectives - contributing to something. Just because one demographic or another is over- or underrepresented in a specific job or field or community, it's very far from clear to me that this is a problem per se that needs to be solved by quota-based social engineering. The mistake of collectivism is to dismiss that something can look unequal without it being a social issue. There is racism in the world, but not every blessed thing that involves race is necessarily "racist."
You think that black people are just bad at technology and filing tax reports?
I'm not sure what you're talking about here, it looks like just badgering.
On January 22 2016 11:55 DickMcFanny wrote:
None of the republicans still in the race are conservative...
Then shouldn't it also be easy for them to steal voters from the Democrats later?
|
On January 22 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:
I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities.
uhm.. I'm not a scholar of American history but I'm pretty sure a society in which slavery exists is literally as top down as you're going to get. What the heck is "bottom-up" about slavery. I really am starting to believe that you people have read this George Washington cookbook
|
I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities.
I might misunderstand something here. Does "slavery" ring a bell or two?
|
On January 22 2016 12:40 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:
I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities.
uhm.. I'm not a scholar of American history but I'm pretty sure a society in which slavery exists is literally as top down as you're going to get. What the heck is "bottom-up" about slavery. I really am starting to believe that you people have read this George Washington cookbook
On January 22 2016 12:44 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities. I might misunderstand something here. Does "slavery" ring a bell or two?
I appreciate the rhetorical humility from both of you, but from my understanding, slavery doesn't exist in the USA and hasn't for 150 years. All I am suggesting is that to help people here and now, we start at the bottom - on the assumption that those people are most in need. Am I wrong about this?
|
On January 22 2016 12:40 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:
I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities.
uhm.. I'm not a scholar of American history but I'm pretty sure a society in which slavery exists is literally as top down as you're going to get. What the heck is "bottom-up" about slavery. I really am starting to believe that you people have read this George Washington cookbook
Splitting hairs here, but I'm pretty sure if Africa had reached an industrial revolution before Europe, then Black Slavery in America would not be a thing.
But that's an irrelevant discourse for current affairs.
|
On January 22 2016 12:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 12:40 Nyxisto wrote:On January 22 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:
I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities.
uhm.. I'm not a scholar of American history but I'm pretty sure a society in which slavery exists is literally as top down as you're going to get. What the heck is "bottom-up" about slavery. I really am starting to believe that you people have read this George Washington cookbook Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 12:44 m4ini wrote:I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities. I might misunderstand something here. Does "slavery" ring a bell or two? I appreciate the rhetorical humility from both of you, but from my understanding, slavery doesn't exist in the USA and hasn't for 150 years. All I am suggesting is that to help people here and now, we start at the bottom - on the assumption that those people are most in need. Am I wrong about this?
In an economical system in which money and power are primarily inherited, I'd say yes. Or at least to effectively help people we need to forcefully end systems that are extensions of historical oppression, the war on drugs probably being the biggest one in the US.
|
On January 22 2016 12:56 oBlade wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 12:40 Nyxisto wrote:On January 22 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:
I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities.
uhm.. I'm not a scholar of American history but I'm pretty sure a society in which slavery exists is literally as top down as you're going to get. What the heck is "bottom-up" about slavery. I really am starting to believe that you people have read this George Washington cookbook Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 12:44 m4ini wrote:I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities. I might misunderstand something here. Does "slavery" ring a bell or two? I appreciate the rhetorical humility from both of you, but from my understanding, slavery doesn't exist in the USA and hasn't for 150 years. All I am suggesting is that to help people here and now, we start at the bottom - on the assumption that those people are most in need. Am I wrong about this?
You argue that "slavery is so 1820".
You do realize that many, MANY people are still alive that encountered the masterpiece called "segregation"? That was ruled unconstitutional not even 50 years ago.
I mean, come on. One can argue many things, even dumb things, but to argue that black people as a demographic had less money and fewer opportunities without taking segregation into consideration is.. Yeah, i'd say you're wrong about this.
And while "helping people here and now" is a good thing, that won't work with americans understanding where it all started.
|
The Environmental Protection Agency boss for the Midwest resigned Thursday amid ongoing fallout over the drinking water crisis in Flint, Michigan.
As the EPA's Region 5 administrator, Susan Hedman helped oversee the state's handling of Flint's water, which became toxic after the city switched its water source nearly two years ago.
EPA head Gina McCarthy accepted Hedman's resignation "given Susan’s strong interest in ensuring that EPA Region 5’s focus remains solely on the restoration of Flint’s drinking water," the agency said in a statement.
The EPA also issued an emergency order -- something it had previously resisted doing -- that will give the agency more control of the water situation after determining the city and state responses to the crisis "have been inadequate to protect public health and that these failures continue." Among other things, the EPA will begin sampling Flint's tap water and posting results online.
After Flint switched to the Flint River as its water source in April 2014, the state's top water regulator failed to ensure the water wouldn't corrode the city's aging pipes, many of which contain lead. Early last year, the EPA became aware that unsafe amounts of lead had leached into the water, but proved ineffectual in its efforts to make the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality treat the water to reduce its corrosiveness.
Source
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Scapegoated?
Get Snyder out of theeeeeeeeere.
|
On January 22 2016 09:50 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 09:42 Aquanim wrote:On January 22 2016 09:28 Plansix wrote:On January 22 2016 09:22 Aquanim wrote:If you meaningfully want to combat racism you can't just act like it doesn't exist. That is true to some degree. The argument is that placing racism on a pedestal above other reasons for social/economic inequality is quite likely to incite people to further racism. I am not saying not to acknowledge racism. I am saying that it should not be the only thing acknowledged. If nothing else, from a purely tactical point of view that offers opponents the smallest possible chance to claim that any special privilege is being granted. Everyone agrees there are numerous problems in the US, some as big as racism. There are a lot of problem solvers in the world, we can handle two things at once. The issues with racism can be addressed on their own, without waiting to solutions to those other issues. My concern is that this attitude will not actually result in success. Perhaps I'm wrong, and it is possible to right this particular wrong without reference to the many other problems in society. I certainly hope for the sake of the people trying to go about it in this way that I am wrong. It seems to me, though, that a cooperative lifting effort is more likely to result in success than if everybody is only concerned with their own load. Working to minimise arbitrary disadvantage is likely a far more popular goal than working to minimise arbitrary disadvantage for a particular subset of people. Its a big world out there, we can handle it. There is no "all solution" to these problems, the world is a complex and nuanced place. And a rising tide lifts all ships. Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 09:47 Ghostcom wrote:On January 22 2016 09:25 Kyadytim wrote:On January 22 2016 08:49 ticklishmusic wrote:On January 22 2016 08:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On January 22 2016 08:03 Deathstar wrote:On January 22 2016 07:47 Plansix wrote:On January 22 2016 07:39 Deathstar wrote:
I don't understand what the court case for this would even look like.
Defendant: White people in America
Plaintiff: Black people in America
Is reparations considered a serious claim? That, after 200 years, the modern day descendants of slaves are entitled to tax payer paid compensation? What is the logic? http://www.newsweek.com/slavery-reparations-could-cost-14-trillion-according-new-calculation-364141Its a talking point. If you take the number of slaves and the amount of unpaid labor caused by slavery, the prices is like 14 trillion. Which is a crazy number. But forget talking about it, just watch Season One, episode 18 of the West Wing, Six meetings before Lunch. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0745677/You have a liberal white house staffer talking to black appointee for assistant attorney general for civil rights about reparations and not agreeing on the topic. It pretty much sums up how its not viable or realistic, but a good thing to talk about. I'll watch the episode. But yeah, I understand why black people would talk about it. The thing is, it wasn't a government program. The US government wasn't using slaves. It was individual slave owners. This isn't like the japanese internment camp situation in which the US government locked up japanese americans and so they deserve reparation. The US government sure as hell used slaves?!?. I suppose they left the part about slaves building the capital in that “A Birthday Cake for George Washington” version of history. You have got to stop being so insulting when you post and treating people like idiots or racists. No. That's propagating an unhelpful at best idea it's okay for black people to talk about problems unique to them, but only if they do it in ways that don't make White people uncomfortable. These two articles by Doug Muder do a decent job of elaborating on it. Also try this one. If GreenHorizons is confrontational and gets in people's face about things like correcting misinformation about the US government's usage of slaves or involvement with slave owners (spoiler warning: around 2/3 of the Presidents before Lincoln and the next two Presidents after Lincoln were slave owners), that's probably because it gets results. No, it is propogating the idea that everyone should be respectful if you want an open and honest discussion of the issues at hand. Fair enough if you are not actually interested in such a discussion, but then what are you doing on a discussion forum? Yes, but a some point you need to put some bite behind your statements if someone insists on being miss informed or just saying shit that is totally wrong. The claim that the government didn't use slave is just dumb and can be solved with a google search.
Yeah, but you don't have to equate that with the person's sum total knowledge of US history being a discontinued book for elementary schoolers.
Obviously I'm not black and I have differences of perspective and opinion. I don't have every single fact (no one does, surprise). It doesn't mean these things, which are a result of my upbringing and environment are invalid or that I'm an idiot. Look, I agree there's a problem. I support finding solutions to these problems. However, this is a case where the messenger makes the message sound worse. When someone is wrong it's a potential teaching moment, not a moment to jerk off and feel superior.
If you feel like there are excuses/reasons to be less civil, that's fine but a pretty shitty thing to do regardless of venue. It really take more effort to be civil than to be a dick.
/shrug
|
On January 22 2016 13:00 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 22 2016 12:56 oBlade wrote:On January 22 2016 12:40 Nyxisto wrote:On January 22 2016 12:33 oBlade wrote:
I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities.
uhm.. I'm not a scholar of American history but I'm pretty sure a society in which slavery exists is literally as top down as you're going to get. What the heck is "bottom-up" about slavery. I really am starting to believe that you people have read this George Washington cookbook On January 22 2016 12:44 m4ini wrote:I'm saying that inequalities at the "top" that you're pointing to aren't the "cause" of "racism" (to speak quite generally). A string of white presidents didn't create a "racist" society. It's from the bottom-up: blacks as a demographic have had less money and fewer opportunities. I might misunderstand something here. Does "slavery" ring a bell or two? I appreciate the rhetorical humility from both of you, but from my understanding, slavery doesn't exist in the USA and hasn't for 150 years. All I am suggesting is that to help people here and now, we start at the bottom - on the assumption that those people are most in need. Am I wrong about this? In an economical system in which money and power are primarily inherited, I'd say yes. Or at least to effectively help people we need to forcefully end systems that are extensions of historical oppression, the war on drugs probably being the biggest one in the US.
Money and power are primarily inherited in the US. Sometimes directly and other times only through the access to quality education and social structures.
On January 22 2016 08:24 Simberto wrote:
There also seem to be two issues conflated here. Firstly, the fact that slavery & racism have left a lot of black people at an economic disadvantage, and that that disadvantage propagates through the generations due to how the system works.
And the second being a demand for damages due to abuse done by people who are dead for a hundred years to people who have been dead for a hundred years.
The first one is a valid point, the second one seems really ridiculous to me. And in my opinion, it would be a much better idea to solve the first problem through a non-race lense. Develop a program that helps people who grow up in shitty circumstances to become the best they can possibly be. Try to equalize chances between people born in different circumstances. This is not an easy thing to do, people have been trying to find a reasonable way to do this for ages, there are many complex interlocking issues that ultimately lead to these reduced chances in life.
But to me this seems like an infinitely better approach to the problem, which is much better suited to actually solve the situation in the long term. as opposed to any program that focuses on race. Because something like that is only going to lead to additional resentment. Imagine if there were a "Black people tax", that all, or possibly even only white people would have to pay to try to elevate black people out of poverty. The racism that something like that would spark is incredible.
On the other hand, if you have a program that approaches the same program as a societal problem of equalizing the chances of people born in ghettos and/or to poor/uneducated parents, you can achieve the exact same goal, without being polarizing about race.
To me, the best idea is still to try to solve the problems associated with past and present racism without trying to make everything only about racism at all times. This seems like the best way to eventually achieve a post-race society. If you have policies that treat people differently based on their race, i fail to see how that will help stop racism, as it is fundamentally a constant reminder that race does matter.
I think Simberto has the right approach. If you address race and racial reparations directly, you'll end up with a whole lot more racists ("Black people are inferior and need a handout."). However, if you address poverty, a whole lot of the race issues go away.
There are plenty of ways to address poverty, some tried, some untried. No single point will fix poverty on its own, but they can all contribute to minimizing poverty.
1) Universal healthcare is a start, used extensively in Europe.
2) A heavily graduated tax to pay for social programs (like healthcare) is another not-new way to fight economic inequality.
3) A minimum wage that guarantees a living wage is another way to reduce poverty by ensuring that anyone who works won't be impoverished.
4) You can widen the property tax bases past districts to ensure that there is more equality in public education whereas right now, there is a huge difference in public education between wealthy areas and poor areas. If you pool the money together from a wider area and then distribute it more evenly, the quality of education can improve in the poorer areas (but probably at the expense of the richer areas). Better education can help the poor earn a place in better Universities (not receive an Affirmative Action handout) where they can enter social/job networks that were previously unavailable to them.
5) Body cams on police. Honestly, as a white suburbanite, I had no idea how shitty some of the police actions have been towards black people until recently. Of course, they're also shitty towards white people and I'd guess those are often poor white people. See below:
Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones.
source: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all
There are plenty more ways to help fight poverty and the issues holding down the poor, but that's just a start. As I said, no one fix will fix all. However, a combination of those things can significantly help. Turn America back into the land of opportunity and many people will take that opportunity.
|
The militiamen stationed at a federal wildlife refuge in eastern Oregon are now rummaging through artifacts and documents of the Paiute tribe, sparking outrage among local Native Americans whose ancestors originally occupied the land.
LaVoy Finicum, one of the leaders of the armed protesters occupying the Malheur national wildlife refuge, posted a video of himself inside a government building looking through cardboard boxes of papers and other items associated with the local tribe – and inviting Paiute leaders to meet with the militia and reclaim their belongings.
“We want to make sure these things are returned to their rightful owner,” said Finicum, who recently helped destroy a US Fish and Wildlife Service fence and remove cameras that he claimed the government was using for surveillance.
The rightwing militia, led by Ammon Bundy, took over the headquarters of the wildlife sanctuary on 2 January to protest the government’s land-use regulations in rural Harney County. They have demanded that local ranchers have control of public lands – not the federal government.
But days after the occupation began, leaders of the federally recognized Paiute Indian tribe in Burns, the town closest to the refuge, decried the armed occupation, pointing out that the out-of-state militiamen were trying to claim sacred lands that are part of the tribe’s ancestral territory.
The new video, posted on Wednesday night, has only further enraged tribal leaders who recently called on law enforcement officials to protect native cultural resources at the refuge and to criminally prosecute the militiamen.
Source
|
Tonight, a top official with the RNC called me to say that National Review was being disinvited. The reason: Our “Against Trump“ editorial and symposium. We expected this was coming. Small price to pay for speaking the truth about The Donald.
Source
Day late and a dollar short, but better late than never.
@Ticklish: He literally said
The federal government did, at some point in its history, use slave labor.... documentation shows that the government paid the slaves for their labor.
Then people wonder why people make big deals out of history books doing things like calling slaves "immigrants" and getting rid of the phrase "slave trade" or GW's birthday cake...
It's because they produce more people thinking ignorant things like slaves were paid or that the government didn't use them.
Then we have to explain basic facts that should be common knowledge before we can even agree that there's a problem with what people think they know
I wish I could say such ignorance was a failing of the educational system, but every news story about white washing history reminds me that it's actually a feature.
People shouldn't feel guilty about slavery, they should feel guilty about refusing to do anything to correct it's legacy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
