|
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 August 18 2017 06:46 Wulfey_LA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 06:38 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:31 Wulfey_LA wrote:I have a challenge for you. Try saying "we need to deal with race on the sly" to one of these people, to their faces. // charlottesville vigil + Show Spoiler +I get Lilla's point, that suburban whites are fragile flowers and don't want to hear about gender and race, but are comfortable hearing about class. And be damned if that isn't true. But I don't see how the Democratic party can function if they have to tell the people who vote for them that we have to be more politically correct about race and gender if we want to get them scared suburbanites. EDIT: the Dems could of course play a sort of two faced game, where we run suburban looking people in the suburbs and they stay strangely silent on gender and race issues while at the same time urban democrats are forthright on issues of gender and race. Threading that needle is gonna be rough. That one is easy. You deal with that one straight up. No one liked the KKK. But most racial political issue are local. They involve local governments and local actors. They are complex and nuanced. Just keep those local, rather than taking it national. Because frankly, the national news media does a terrible job covering these issues as well. Keep on the economy and pocket book issues. And for the love of god, do not rework the entire healthcare system again. If we are going to do that single payer thing, just slow roll that. The thinking part of my brain is on board with that plan and I have thought for a while along almost identical lines that you just suggested. But do you really think we dodge race issues when Trump is running in 2020? Hell in 2018? How will this stuff not come up? He makes it come up. Bannon even said in the interview they intentionally make it come up so they can split off snowflake suburbanites.
You have to tie race to easily grasped and established injustices. Not a vague goal of diversity. The voter’s rights act being restored is a great example.
|
Canada11279 Posts
On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:Because the perception in that community is that it is about race. It may or may not be. Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong? I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same".
Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed.
|
On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:Because the perception in that community is that it is about race. It may or may not be. Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong? I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed.
This is the problem though, the law might not be sufficient. Or no one is enforcing said law because racism is solved. The problem with racism in America is that it is ever present and must be tamped down. The existing of a law is not enough, it must be enforced. There are so many points along the way where this can come off the track. But we never get there because we first must prove the problem exists. And by doing it, we are playing identity politics.
|
On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:Because the perception in that community is that it is about race. It may or may not be. Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong? I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed.
You realize this is in a country that can barely (if at all) imprison a cop who murders someone on video right?
One that takes pay-offs fines in exchange for looking the other way of billions of dollars of fraud, drug/other money laundering, etc...
The idea that "hitting them with the law" hasn't been/isn't always being tried betrays a gross lack of understanding of the issues at hand.
|
|
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:Because the perception in that community is that it is about race. It may or may not be. Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong? I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed.
The law is unevenly enforced and when people complain that the law is being unevenly enforced a group of people headed by the likes of Sessions paints them as anarchists who hate society and want to kill cops.
Americans do not all have equal protection under the law. You're viewing this as a specific problem rather than a systemic one. The law has an extremely long and troubling history as the implement of racist oppression, rather than a bastion against it.
Sorry to pin this on you but an outsider to the problem saying "if this really were a problem then it would have been taken care of by this, therefore there must not be a problem" is what the privilege folks mean when they say privilege. Your default assumptions, such as that the law has an interest in protecting you, are not universal experiences.
|
On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:Because the perception in that community is that it is about race. It may or may not be. Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong? I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed.
Speaking of credit history - I have really good credit history, because my parents got me my first credit card at 16 or so. It wasn't really mine, though, it was joint in in my name and theirs. They had me use it regularly for minor but necessary purchases like refueling a car and then paid it off in full every month. They also helped me open an account with a federal credit union, which I was approved for because my parents were members. With an established good credit score from that first credit card, I could get a very good rate on a loan from that federal credit union, which general have better rates than normal banks.
Given that the Civil Rights Act was only 53 years ago, there's definitely people alive right now who do not have the financial opportunities I have, because their parents and grandparents were black and therefore didn't have the financial resources, established memberships, or financial knowledge learned from their parents that I and my parents were just handed. There's certainly white people alive with the same problem, but their problem can't be tracked back to their parents or grandparents being actively suppressed for being black.
I hope that sufficiently illustrates ways in which black people can suffer disadvantages due to race without anyone today being explicitly racist.
|
Canada11279 Posts
@GH. P6
Well, what else are you going to do if not tighten up current laws and/or enforce the ones we currently have, revolution? The law can show where we are in error and regulate behaviour, but the law is powerless to change hearts and minds. It's weakened by human nature.
edit.
Kwark- I'm not saying if it were a problem, it would have been dealt with (past tense.) I'm saying if it is a problem, then it should be dealt with (prescription for the present and future.) That is, I'm saying if true, then I agree something should be done about it.
|
On August 18 2017 07:22 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:Because the perception in that community is that it is about race. It may or may not be. Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong? I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed. Speaking of credit history - I have really good credit history, because my parents got me my first credit card at 16 or so. It wasn't really mine, though, it was joint in in my name and theirs. They had me use it regularly for minor but necessary purchases like refueling a car and then paid it off in full every month. They also helped me open an account with a federal credit union, which I was approved for because my parents were members. With an established good credit score from that first credit card, I could get a very good rate on a loan from that federal credit union, which general have better rates than normal banks. Given that the Civil Rights Act was only 53 years ago, there's definitely people alive right now who do not have the financial opportunities I have, because their parents and grandparents were black and therefore didn't have the financial resources, established memberships, or financial knowledge learned from their parents that I and my parents were just handed. There's certainly white people alive with the same problem, but their problem can't be tracked back to their parents or grandparents being actively suppressed for being black. I hope that sufficiently illustrates ways in which black people can suffer disadvantages due to race without anyone today being explicitly racist.
Your example shows exactly why the problem itself is unrelated to race beyond mere correlation. Being black is not a cause of financial illiteracy. Lack of proper financial education is.
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 18 2017 07:29 Falling wrote:
Well, what else are you going to do if not tighten up current laws and/or enforce the ones we currently have, revolution? The law can show where we are in error and regulate behaviour, but the law is powerless to change hearts and minds. It's weakened by human nature.
People have tried all sorts of things. An athlete named Kaepernick tried kneeling and conservatives lost their shit about it. Some black community activists tried to start a national conversation about the police in their communities and there was a national attempt to silence them by insisting that all lives matter and therefore nobody need talk about specific black issues with policing because it's a racially neutral subject. Obama had his justice department investigate whether police departments were acting in a racist way and although those investigations found that they were it was portrayed as a war on police.
You're right that short of revolution there is little that can be done. Racism is here, and it's here to stay. There are an awful lot of people very invested in making sure it doesn't go anywhere.
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 18 2017 07:32 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 07:22 Kyadytim wrote:On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:Because the perception in that community is that it is about race. It may or may not be. Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong? I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed. Speaking of credit history - I have really good credit history, because my parents got me my first credit card at 16 or so. It wasn't really mine, though, it was joint in in my name and theirs. They had me use it regularly for minor but necessary purchases like refueling a car and then paid it off in full every month. They also helped me open an account with a federal credit union, which I was approved for because my parents were members. With an established good credit score from that first credit card, I could get a very good rate on a loan from that federal credit union, which general have better rates than normal banks. Given that the Civil Rights Act was only 53 years ago, there's definitely people alive right now who do not have the financial opportunities I have, because their parents and grandparents were black and therefore didn't have the financial resources, established memberships, or financial knowledge learned from their parents that I and my parents were just handed. There's certainly white people alive with the same problem, but their problem can't be tracked back to their parents or grandparents being actively suppressed for being black. I hope that sufficiently illustrates ways in which black people can suffer disadvantages due to race without anyone today being explicitly racist. Your example shows exactly why the problem itself is unrelated to race beyond mere correlation. Being black is not a cause of financial illiteracy. Lack of proper financial education is.
lack of proper financial education because of what xDaunt?
|
On August 18 2017 07:36 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 07:22 Kyadytim wrote:On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:Because the perception in that community is that it is about race. It may or may not be. Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong? I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed. Speaking of credit history - I have really good credit history, because my parents got me my first credit card at 16 or so. It wasn't really mine, though, it was joint in in my name and theirs. They had me use it regularly for minor but necessary purchases like refueling a car and then paid it off in full every month. They also helped me open an account with a federal credit union, which I was approved for because my parents were members. With an established good credit score from that first credit card, I could get a very good rate on a loan from that federal credit union, which general have better rates than normal banks. Given that the Civil Rights Act was only 53 years ago, there's definitely people alive right now who do not have the financial opportunities I have, because their parents and grandparents were black and therefore didn't have the financial resources, established memberships, or financial knowledge learned from their parents that I and my parents were just handed. There's certainly white people alive with the same problem, but their problem can't be tracked back to their parents or grandparents being actively suppressed for being black. I hope that sufficiently illustrates ways in which black people can suffer disadvantages due to race without anyone today being explicitly racist. Your example shows exactly why the problem itself is unrelated to race beyond mere correlation. Being black is not a cause of financial illiteracy. Lack of proper financial education is. lack of proper financial education because of what xDaunt?
He also ignored the part where he mentioned that Black people were cut out of a lot of financial opportunities to build wealth and that effect is still felt today.
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 18 2017 07:40 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 07:22 Kyadytim wrote:On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:Because the perception in that community is that it is about race. It may or may not be. Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong? I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed. Speaking of credit history - I have really good credit history, because my parents got me my first credit card at 16 or so. It wasn't really mine, though, it was joint in in my name and theirs. They had me use it regularly for minor but necessary purchases like refueling a car and then paid it off in full every month. They also helped me open an account with a federal credit union, which I was approved for because my parents were members. With an established good credit score from that first credit card, I could get a very good rate on a loan from that federal credit union, which general have better rates than normal banks. Given that the Civil Rights Act was only 53 years ago, there's definitely people alive right now who do not have the financial opportunities I have, because their parents and grandparents were black and therefore didn't have the financial resources, established memberships, or financial knowledge learned from their parents that I and my parents were just handed. There's certainly white people alive with the same problem, but their problem can't be tracked back to their parents or grandparents being actively suppressed for being black. I hope that sufficiently illustrates ways in which black people can suffer disadvantages due to race without anyone today being explicitly racist. Your example shows exactly why the problem itself is unrelated to race beyond mere correlation. Being black is not a cause of financial illiteracy. Lack of proper financial education is. lack of proper financial education because of what xDaunt? He also ignored the part where he mentioned that Black people were cut out of a lot of financial opportunities to build wealth and that effect is still felt today.
And when we say cut out, we mean actively repressed with participation by the authorities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsa_race_riot
This was an attack on a particularly prosperous black district.
|
On August 18 2017 06:24 KwarK wrote:
I often feel like the best way to get America functioning like a real first world country would be to make everyone an honourary veteran.
You say this, but if you included European countries in the US, they'd rank among the poorest in GDP and per capita terms. So, if the US isn't a first-world country, neither is most of Europe. Besides, I heard Europe has this migrant and terrorism issues they're working out, plus you have people like Orban who are much worse than Trump. If I venture over into the EU politics thread it's a shitstorm as well. I mean, really, what's your point - that if the US isn't acting in the way you think they should act it's functioning like a 3rd world country? We're not quite banana republic yet.
|
On August 18 2017 07:40 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 07:22 Kyadytim wrote:On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:Because the perception in that community is that it is about race. It may or may not be. Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong? I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed. Speaking of credit history - I have really good credit history, because my parents got me my first credit card at 16 or so. It wasn't really mine, though, it was joint in in my name and theirs. They had me use it regularly for minor but necessary purchases like refueling a car and then paid it off in full every month. They also helped me open an account with a federal credit union, which I was approved for because my parents were members. With an established good credit score from that first credit card, I could get a very good rate on a loan from that federal credit union, which general have better rates than normal banks. Given that the Civil Rights Act was only 53 years ago, there's definitely people alive right now who do not have the financial opportunities I have, because their parents and grandparents were black and therefore didn't have the financial resources, established memberships, or financial knowledge learned from their parents that I and my parents were just handed. There's certainly white people alive with the same problem, but their problem can't be tracked back to their parents or grandparents being actively suppressed for being black. I hope that sufficiently illustrates ways in which black people can suffer disadvantages due to race without anyone today being explicitly racist. Your example shows exactly why the problem itself is unrelated to race beyond mere correlation. Being black is not a cause of financial illiteracy. Lack of proper financial education is. lack of proper financial education because of what xDaunt? He also ignored the part where he mentioned that Black people were cut out of a lot of financial opportunities to build wealth and that effect is still felt today.
Isn't the "left" against building / generational wealth? Inheritance taxes aren't high enough - there needs to be more redistribution, etc. etc. It's one of these areas where there are contradictory principles. You want blacks to gain wealth, but not too much, and not to pass it off to their families either, but then you risk looking like a racist, so who wins out in this war - is it the pro-Inheritance tax, fuck generational wealth transfers, or is it yes, we want blacks to build and pass their wealth. I eagerly await to hear how you support both at the same time.
|
lol yeah, how can you support inheritance taxes that only kick in at over 5 million dollars and the building of generational wealth among black people that have inherited nothing but debt from their once enslaved forebears at the same time? The nerve, Slaughter, the nerve....
|
On August 18 2017 08:02 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 07:40 Slaughter wrote:On August 18 2017 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 07:22 Kyadytim wrote:On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:
[quote]
Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong?
I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed. Speaking of credit history - I have really good credit history, because my parents got me my first credit card at 16 or so. It wasn't really mine, though, it was joint in in my name and theirs. They had me use it regularly for minor but necessary purchases like refueling a car and then paid it off in full every month. They also helped me open an account with a federal credit union, which I was approved for because my parents were members. With an established good credit score from that first credit card, I could get a very good rate on a loan from that federal credit union, which general have better rates than normal banks. Given that the Civil Rights Act was only 53 years ago, there's definitely people alive right now who do not have the financial opportunities I have, because their parents and grandparents were black and therefore didn't have the financial resources, established memberships, or financial knowledge learned from their parents that I and my parents were just handed. There's certainly white people alive with the same problem, but their problem can't be tracked back to their parents or grandparents being actively suppressed for being black. I hope that sufficiently illustrates ways in which black people can suffer disadvantages due to race without anyone today being explicitly racist. Your example shows exactly why the problem itself is unrelated to race beyond mere correlation. Being black is not a cause of financial illiteracy. Lack of proper financial education is. lack of proper financial education because of what xDaunt? He also ignored the part where he mentioned that Black people were cut out of a lot of financial opportunities to build wealth and that effect is still felt today. Isn't the "left" against building / generational wealth? Inheritance taxes aren't high enough - there needs to be more redistribution, etc. etc. It's one of these areas where there are contradictory principles. You want blacks to gain wealth, but not too much, and not to pass it off to their families either, but then you risk looking like a racist, so who wins out in this war - is it the pro-Inheritance tax, fuck generational wealth transfers, or is it yes, we want blacks to build and pass their wealth. I eagerly await to hear how you support both at the same time.
the principles aren't contradictory at all; the issue is excessive generational wealth and concentration of power, not generational wealth in general. your claim is just unfounded nonsense which shows more of an ideological bias than any real attempt to reasonably discuss the issue. please don't state such silly things when people are trying to have a semi-serious discussion.
|
United States42004 Posts
On August 18 2017 08:02 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 07:40 Slaughter wrote:On August 18 2017 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 07:22 Kyadytim wrote:On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:
[quote]
Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong?
I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed. Speaking of credit history - I have really good credit history, because my parents got me my first credit card at 16 or so. It wasn't really mine, though, it was joint in in my name and theirs. They had me use it regularly for minor but necessary purchases like refueling a car and then paid it off in full every month. They also helped me open an account with a federal credit union, which I was approved for because my parents were members. With an established good credit score from that first credit card, I could get a very good rate on a loan from that federal credit union, which general have better rates than normal banks. Given that the Civil Rights Act was only 53 years ago, there's definitely people alive right now who do not have the financial opportunities I have, because their parents and grandparents were black and therefore didn't have the financial resources, established memberships, or financial knowledge learned from their parents that I and my parents were just handed. There's certainly white people alive with the same problem, but their problem can't be tracked back to their parents or grandparents being actively suppressed for being black. I hope that sufficiently illustrates ways in which black people can suffer disadvantages due to race without anyone today being explicitly racist. Your example shows exactly why the problem itself is unrelated to race beyond mere correlation. Being black is not a cause of financial illiteracy. Lack of proper financial education is. lack of proper financial education because of what xDaunt? He also ignored the part where he mentioned that Black people were cut out of a lot of financial opportunities to build wealth and that effect is still felt today. Isn't the "left" against building / generational wealth? Inheritance taxes aren't high enough - there needs to be more redistribution, etc. etc. It's one of these areas where there are contradictory principles. You want blacks to gain wealth, but not too much, and not to pass it off to their families either, but then you risk looking like a racist, so who wins out in this war - is it the pro-Inheritance tax, fuck generational wealth transfers, or is it yes, we want blacks to build and pass their wealth. I eagerly await to hear how you support both at the same time.
Do you genuinely believe that the reason there is greater inherited wealth among the people who used to own slaves than there is among the people who used to be slaves is because inheritance taxes are too high?
|
On August 18 2017 07:59 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 06:24 KwarK wrote:
I often feel like the best way to get America functioning like a real first world country would be to make everyone an honourary veteran. You say this, but if you included European countries in the US, they'd rank among the poorest in GDP and per capita terms. So, if the US isn't a first-world country, neither is most of Europe. Besides, I heard Europe has this migrant and terrorism issues they're working out, plus you have people like Orban who are much worse than Trump. If I venture over into the EU politics thread it's a shitstorm as well. I mean, really, what's your point - that if the US isn't acting in the way you think they should act it's functioning like a 3rd world country? We're not quite banana republic yet.
His point is the US reserves various social provisions and benefits for veterans, when many poorer countries in Europe manage to provide them for all.
|
On August 18 2017 07:40 Slaughter wrote:Show nested quote +On August 18 2017 07:36 KwarK wrote:On August 18 2017 07:32 xDaunt wrote:On August 18 2017 07:22 Kyadytim wrote:On August 18 2017 07:06 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:50 WolfintheSheep wrote:On August 18 2017 06:45 Falling wrote:On August 18 2017 06:32 Plansix wrote:On August 18 2017 06:24 Falling wrote:Because the perception in that community is that it is about race. It may or may not be. Do you think perceptions can be wrong? Like, not just an alternative way of viewing things, but outright wrong? I think it actually matters whether the problem exists because they are a minority vs because they are poor because if we misidentify the source of the problem, we will not come up with the right solution. I believe the perception is irrelevant. They have noticed something that impacts them negatively and it appears to be associated with race. Quibbling about if it is systematic racism or just the law of averages is counterproductive when the issue could just be addressed. In the process of addressing it, the real answer if it was racist or not will likely turn up anyways. If perception is irrelevant, why does it matter so much? Well, and wouldn't what the problem is matter on how you address it? Like, if the issue is like the redlining pre-1968 era you would address the problem in one way. But if the main issue is that it's hard to get a loan because you are poor and you need to get such a large loan because the prices are so high compared to what you make and the prices are so high because housing demand vastly outstrips supply (see the Vancouver market), wouldn't you address the problem in a very different way? The outcome might look the same- minorities are not getting a loan, but cause matters a lot. Just because someone is moved by compassion or a sense of justice to do something doesn't mean they'll actually do the right thing. It matters that you actually fix what you want to fix and so digging down and finding out what's actually wrong matters... a lot. I think the part you're missing is that the mortgage applications are not being treated equally, and the dividing line tends towards race. Which is where the racism (systemic or overt) comes in. It's generally not "he's black, so not mortgage". It's "here are the criteria we use, some of which is historical or location based, so if your grandfather was explicitly discriminated against, then you will be effected by the same". Well look, if it's the case that whites in equal financial situations are getting loans and minorities are not, that's wrong and should be covered under the Fair Housing Act? So hit 'em with the law. The grandfather part was about not being able to build up wealth in the past? Or was there something else- I don't think a grandfather's credit history has any relevance to a grandchild and so if that's being used and it isn't covered under Fair Housing Act, then it seems a new amendment to the law is needed. Speaking of credit history - I have really good credit history, because my parents got me my first credit card at 16 or so. It wasn't really mine, though, it was joint in in my name and theirs. They had me use it regularly for minor but necessary purchases like refueling a car and then paid it off in full every month. They also helped me open an account with a federal credit union, which I was approved for because my parents were members. With an established good credit score from that first credit card, I could get a very good rate on a loan from that federal credit union, which general have better rates than normal banks. Given that the Civil Rights Act was only 53 years ago, there's definitely people alive right now who do not have the financial opportunities I have, because their parents and grandparents were black and therefore didn't have the financial resources, established memberships, or financial knowledge learned from their parents that I and my parents were just handed. There's certainly white people alive with the same problem, but their problem can't be tracked back to their parents or grandparents being actively suppressed for being black. I hope that sufficiently illustrates ways in which black people can suffer disadvantages due to race without anyone today being explicitly racist. Your example shows exactly why the problem itself is unrelated to race beyond mere correlation. Being black is not a cause of financial illiteracy. Lack of proper financial education is. lack of proper financial education because of what xDaunt? He also ignored the part where he mentioned that Black people were cut out of a lot of financial opportunities to build wealth and that effect is still felt today.
Of course I did. It's a silly argument to make because it applies evenly across races now, whether it be poor white people that inherited nothing, poor Mexicans that are just now immigrating to the country, or poor black people who have lived in inner cities for generations. Wealth (or lack thereof) is the issue, not race.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2017/08/17/candlelight_march_ss_09-3fe842668a025637159601895c4db1ba2d320852-s900-c85.jpg)
