|
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 July 13 2017 22:37 Kickboxer wrote:
... as I'm sure someone pointed out already, once you start discussing one type of "priviledge" it's an instant endless slippery slope.
I'm sure African Americans deserve and need better treatment in the USA and elsewhere, I just think the conceptual level of this issue, and the solutions offered (some kind of counter-privilege) are off
The solution proposed is literally just listening to people who come from relatively less privileged groups and not dismissing their experiences out of hand.
|
On July 13 2017 22:37 Doodsmack wrote:
Coupling this with the fact his first tweet about her emails came 10min after the meeting ended is enough to make any prosecutor blush.
Painfully obvious he knew. Only a matter of time before that evidence is found.
Edit: not first but it became something almost daily starting on this date and the first time he implied someone might have her emails. After this date he would start calling for them to be found, and magically they are! I also believe this the first day he used the super specific 33k instead of 30k. Could be wrong on that tho.
|
On July 13 2017 23:11 On_Slaught wrote:Coupling this with the fact his first tweet about her emails came 10min after the meeting ended is enough to make any prosecutor blush. Painfully obvious he knew. Only a matter of time before that evidence is found.
But hey, "it's not illegal". No issues here.
|
On July 13 2017 23:11 On_Slaught wrote:Coupling this with the fact his first tweet about her emails came 10min after the meeting ended is enough to make any prosecutor blush. Painfully obvious he knew. Only a matter of time before that evidence is found.
This is getting interesting. I always like a story where early plot points take on a new significance in light of later plot points.
|
United States41117 Posts
Hence my Prediction that the GOP defense will be he is/was new to this.
And being that this country is populated by apathy/stupidity it will be given a pass.
|
I've never agreed with the Democrats' approach to improving the condition of the Black community. My view on their policies is that they're more interested in getting the votes of the black community than actually improving its living conditions. I don't think the Democrats' base shares this goal, but the Democratic politicians have leveraged tribalism to further their electoral prospects on this one imo. As long as Democratic leadership positions itself as Black-friendly party, its base is generally going to lap up whatever policies leadership says it should pursue (otherwise you're called a racist). As much as liberals/progressives hate to admit it, they're susceptible to tribalism much the same as the Republicans are.
What does arguing about "privilege" do for the black community, other than stir up racial tensions? It's a red herring for deeper problems in the African American community. Ditto for microaggressions. But it sure gets votes, huh? Also, I don't think the issue of privilege (to progressives) is as simple as KwarK suggested. I've barely met anyone, outside of actual racists, who doesn't acknowledge that being White, Asian, Jewish, etc. is a socioeconomic advantage compared with being black. If privilege were merely about acknowledging that, why is this such a discussion at all? It would mostly be over by now, and we'd have moved on to other topics. Keeping the discussion in the public arena is what energizes the Black vote though.
Same goes for the Black Lives Matter movement. For every African American shot by a cop, there's probably dozens shot by other African Americans. But instead of focusing on fixing the larger, more difficult problem, Democratic politicians are focusing on the easy approach to obtaining the Black vote that accomplishes next to nothing in the long run. While I generally support reducing the War on Drugs and reducing the prison population, the Black community isn't going to make real progress until there's a culture that encourages doing well in school, having fathers stick around to raise their children, etc. It isn't rocket science. Cultures that emphasize doing well in school have better life outcomes.
Affirmative Action is another example of the Democrat's vote appeasement approach to the Black community. The policy has been in place for 50+ years, and the Black community isn't significantly better off than when it started. Clearly it's not doing much, but the Democratic party is appalled at proposals to shrink/eliminate it. Unfortunately, it's led to unfair negative stereotypes of Blacks in the workplace ("Did he only get hired because of AA?"), and has arguably fostered an entitlement mentality among the community. I'm not necessarily for or against AA and I think it's a complicated issue, but I don't have any faith that it's part of the Democratic platform because of its utility rather than it's effectiveness at retaining the Black voter base.
While I'm on the topic, I don't think Republicans are any better in the race relations area. While the party has a small faction with decent ideas, the larger party won't prioritize it because they're afraid of losing the racist vote as much as Dems are afraid of losing the Black vote.
|
It's hard to expect people to focus on doing well in school when lots of black communities are mired in serious socioeconomic hell.
That's not even limited to black communities, poor white communities are also filled with people too tied down by their own economic situation to feel like they CAN pursue more than a subsistence living with some form of entertainment or drug or booze to get them through life.
You can accept that cops shooting black people through either racism or baffling incompetence is a problem that can be dealt with alongside addressing the US' poverty issues, I'd love to see more done on both fronts, not that I know jack shit about what to really do about it.
|
On July 13 2017 23:49 Zambrah wrote:
It's hard to expect people to focus on doing well in school when lots of black communities are mired in serious socioeconomic hell.
That's not even limited to black communities, poor white communities are also filled with people too tied down by their own economic situation to feel like they CAN pursue more than a subsistence living with some form of entertainment or drug or booze to get them through life.
You can accept that cops shooting black people through either racism or baffling incompetence is a problem that can be dealt with alongside addressing the US' poverty issues, I'd love to see more done on both fronts, not that I know jack shit about what to really do about it.
Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc.
Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions.
|
On July 13 2017 23:30 mozoku wrote:
I've never agreed with the Democrats' approach to improving the condition of the Black community. My view on their policies is that they're more interested in getting the votes of the black community than actually improving its living conditions. I don't think the Democrats' base shares this goal, but the Democratic politicians have leveraged tribalism to further their electoral prospects on this one imo. As long as Democratic leadership positions itself as Black-friendly party, its base is generally going to lap up whatever policies leadership says it should pursue (otherwise you're called a racist). As much as liberals/progressives hate to admit it, they're susceptible to tribalism much the same as the Republicans are.
What does arguing about "privilege" do for the black community, other than stir up racial tensions? It's a red herring for deeper problems in the African American community. Ditto for microaggressions. But it sure gets votes, huh? Also, I don't think the issue of privilege (to progressives) is as simple as KwarK suggested. I've barely met anyone, outside of actual racists, who doesn't acknowledge that being White, Asian, Jewish, etc. is a socioeconomic advantage compared with being black. If privilege were merely about acknowledging that, why is this such a discussion at all? It would mostly be over by now, and we'd have moved on to other topics. Keeping the discussion in the public arena is what energizes the Black vote though.
Same goes for the Black Lives Matter movement. For every African American shot by a cop, there's probably dozens shot by other African Americans. But instead of focusing on fixing the larger, more difficult problem, Democratic politicians are focusing on the easy approach to obtaining the Black vote that accomplishes next to nothing in the long run. While I generally support reducing the War on Drugs and reducing the prison population, the Black community isn't going to make real progress until there's a culture that encourages doing well in school, having fathers stick around to raise their children, etc. It isn't rocket science. Cultures that emphasize doing well in school have better life outcomes.
Affirmative Action is another example of the Democrat's vote appeasement approach to the Black community. The policy has been in place for 50+ years, and the Black community isn't significantly better off than when it started. Clearly it's not doing much, but the Democratic party is appalled at proposals to shrink/eliminate it. Unfortunately, it's led to unfair negative stereotypes of Blacks in the workplace ("Did he only get hired because of AA?"), and has arguably fostered an entitlement mentality among the community. I'm not necessarily for or against AA and I think it's a complicated issue, but I don't have any faith that it's part of the Democratic platform because of its utility rather than it's effectiveness at retaining the Black voter base.
While I'm on the topic, I don't think Republicans are any better in the race relations area. While the party has a small faction with decent ideas, the larger party won't prioritize it because they're afraid of losing the racist vote as much as Dems are afraid of losing the Black vote.
I am only going to address one of the points here , not to dismiss the others but because I don't want to break apart everything and respond.
I feel the black on black crime is a big misnomer about the problems in the African american community. Sure it is high, but every race X on X crime is its highest crime rate.
I am going to post just a small part from this PDF https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf
Most murders were intraracial
From 1980 through 2008—
84% of white victims were killed by whites ( gure 19).
93% of black victims were killed by blacks.
So while 93% of homicides committed against AA are from other AA 84% of crimes committed against white people are committed by other whites.
So this idea that black on black crime is some huge problem only for the AA community is just a misconception.
Also, lets look at what happens when it is Black on Black crime vs when it is Police on Black crime. The first will more often than not result in someone going to jail, while the second will not. The second is also committed by someone entrusted by the community for protection. There is a huge difference between a cop killing someone in cold blood vs a random citizen doing the same, the police must be held to a higher standard than a criminal and this is a huge issue for that community.
Sorry if my thoughts seem scattered, been at work since 6am looking at data issues and my brain is a bit fried.
|
United States41470 Posts
We don't argue over black on black crime because there isn't an opposing side to argue against. There isn't anyone insisting that blacks should work harder to get those numbers up etc. With police brutality you have two sides, those who argue that it is acceptable and those that argue that it is not. And right now the former group are winning, with the party currently in office dismissing accountability programs as a "war on police" and doing all they can to reinforce the status quo.
|
On July 14 2017 00:02 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 23:30 mozoku wrote:
I've never agreed with the Democrats' approach to improving the condition of the Black community. My view on their policies is that they're more interested in getting the votes of the black community than actually improving its living conditions. I don't think the Democrats' base shares this goal, but the Democratic politicians have leveraged tribalism to further their electoral prospects on this one imo. As long as Democratic leadership positions itself as Black-friendly party, its base is generally going to lap up whatever policies leadership says it should pursue (otherwise you're called a racist). As much as liberals/progressives hate to admit it, they're susceptible to tribalism much the same as the Republicans are.
What does arguing about "privilege" do for the black community, other than stir up racial tensions? It's a red herring for deeper problems in the African American community. Ditto for microaggressions. But it sure gets votes, huh? Also, I don't think the issue of privilege (to progressives) is as simple as KwarK suggested. I've barely met anyone, outside of actual racists, who doesn't acknowledge that being White, Asian, Jewish, etc. is a socioeconomic advantage compared with being black. If privilege were merely about acknowledging that, why is this such a discussion at all? It would mostly be over by now, and we'd have moved on to other topics. Keeping the discussion in the public arena is what energizes the Black vote though.
Same goes for the Black Lives Matter movement. For every African American shot by a cop, there's probably dozens shot by other African Americans. But instead of focusing on fixing the larger, more difficult problem, Democratic politicians are focusing on the easy approach to obtaining the Black vote that accomplishes next to nothing in the long run. While I generally support reducing the War on Drugs and reducing the prison population, the Black community isn't going to make real progress until there's a culture that encourages doing well in school, having fathers stick around to raise their children, etc. It isn't rocket science. Cultures that emphasize doing well in school have better life outcomes.
Affirmative Action is another example of the Democrat's vote appeasement approach to the Black community. The policy has been in place for 50+ years, and the Black community isn't significantly better off than when it started. Clearly it's not doing much, but the Democratic party is appalled at proposals to shrink/eliminate it. Unfortunately, it's led to unfair negative stereotypes of Blacks in the workplace ("Did he only get hired because of AA?"), and has arguably fostered an entitlement mentality among the community. I'm not necessarily for or against AA and I think it's a complicated issue, but I don't have any faith that it's part of the Democratic platform because of its utility rather than it's effectiveness at retaining the Black voter base.
While I'm on the topic, I don't think Republicans are any better in the race relations area. While the party has a small faction with decent ideas, the larger party won't prioritize it because they're afraid of losing the racist vote as much as Dems are afraid of losing the Black vote. I am only going to address one of the points here , not to dismiss the others but because I don't want to break apart everything and respond. I feel the black on black crime is a big misnomer about the problems in the African american community. Sure it is high, but every race X on X crime is its highest crime rate. I am going to post just a small part from this PDF https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdfMost murders were intraracial From 1980 through 2008— 84% of white victims were killed by whites ( gure 19). 93% of black victims were killed by blacks. So while 93% of homicides committed against AA are from other AA 84% of crimes committed against white people are committed by other whites. So this idea that black on black crime is some huge problem only for the AA community is just a misconception. Also, lets look at what happens when it is Black on Black crime vs when it is Police on Black crime. The first will more often than not result in someone going to jail, while the second will not. The second is also committed by someone entrusted by the community for protection. There is a huge difference between a cop killing someone in cold blood vs a random citizen doing the same, the police must be held to a higher standard than a criminal and this is a huge issue for that community. Sorry if my thoughts seem scattered, been at work since 6am looking at data issues and my brain is a bit fried.
But the AA homicide rate is many times higher than the white homicide rate is. If whites murder 5 people a year in the US and it's all white-on-white, that's 100%... but 5 homicides aren't going to threaten social order. The magnitude is the important factor here.
|
On July 14 2017 00:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 23:49 Zambrah wrote:
It's hard to expect people to focus on doing well in school when lots of black communities are mired in serious socioeconomic hell.
That's not even limited to black communities, poor white communities are also filled with people too tied down by their own economic situation to feel like they CAN pursue more than a subsistence living with some form of entertainment or drug or booze to get them through life.
You can accept that cops shooting black people through either racism or baffling incompetence is a problem that can be dealt with alongside addressing the US' poverty issues, I'd love to see more done on both fronts, not that I know jack shit about what to really do about it. Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc. Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions.
I dunno why you limit this to black culture if anything it's American culture, poor white places are plenty prone to drugs and violence, the notion that black culture is unique in that way baffles me. Why can't we work towards reducing violence and poverty and accept that some parts of our lives benefit us and others harm us and that we should acknowledge and work on those issues? Like would you go to a trailer park and say, "man you heroine addicted white people need some real work ethic in your lives."?
|
On July 14 2017 00:07 KwarK wrote:
We don't argue over black on black crime because there isn't an opposing side to argue against. There isn't anyone insisting that blacks should work harder to get those numbers up etc. With police brutality you have two sides, those who argue that it is acceptable and those that argue that it is not. And right now the former group are winning, with the party currently in office dismissing accountability programs as a "war on police" and doing all they can to reinforce the status quo.
Why should public policy discussions be focused on issues where there are opposing sides, as opposed to issues that result in the greatest utility?
If Democrats really wanted to help AA community, they would start programs with community leaders to encourage constructive behavior and encourage anti-violence programs... Or at least put serious research into how those goals can be accomplished.
Instead they argue pointlessly on high-visibility, low-income issues that will secure them votes. They don't want to touch the difficult subjects that would actually help bring about change.
I dunno why you limit this to black culture if anything it's American culture, poor white places are plenty prone to drugs and violence, the notion that black culture is unique in that way baffles me. Why can't we work towards reducing violence and poverty and accept that some parts of our lives benefit us and others harm us and that we should acknowledge and work on those issues? Like would you go to a trailer park and say, "man you heroine addicted white people need some real work ethic in your lives."?
I agree that there are culture problems in poor white rural neighborhoods as well. But the issue at hand was race relations, so that's what my post was about.
I never advocated confronting individuals and telling them they've made poor life choice. There are more subtle, effective, and tactful ways of approaching making constructive changes to culture.
|
United States41470 Posts
On July 14 2017 00:12 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 00:07 KwarK wrote:
We don't argue over black on black crime because there isn't an opposing side to argue against. There isn't anyone insisting that blacks should work harder to get those numbers up etc. With police brutality you have two sides, those who argue that it is acceptable and those that argue that it is not. And right now the former group are winning, with the party currently in office dismissing accountability programs as a "war on police" and doing all they can to reinforce the status quo. Why should public policy discussions be focused on issues where there are opposing sides, as opposed to issues that result in the greatest utility? If Democrats really wanted to help AA community, they would start programs with community leaders to encourage constructive behavior and encourage anti-violence programs... Or at least put serious research into how those goals can be accomplished. Instead they argue pointlessly on high-visibility, low-income issues that will secure them votes. They don't want to touch the difficult subjects that would actually help bring about change.
There already are those kind of programs.
|
And we've come full circle to racism. There are groups of people who actively try to destroy the inner city where many black people live. There are poor white communities and other minorities in the USA as well. Not discounting that. But this is the root of the problem. Those groups of people aren't being marginalized solely based on skin color. They're just being left alone to figure it out on their own. Blacks are being targeted by the system on almost every level.
|
On July 14 2017 00:17 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 00:12 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 00:07 KwarK wrote:
We don't argue over black on black crime because there isn't an opposing side to argue against. There isn't anyone insisting that blacks should work harder to get those numbers up etc. With police brutality you have two sides, those who argue that it is acceptable and those that argue that it is not. And right now the former group are winning, with the party currently in office dismissing accountability programs as a "war on police" and doing all they can to reinforce the status quo. Why should public policy discussions be focused on issues where there are opposing sides, as opposed to issues that result in the greatest utility? If Democrats really wanted to help AA community, they would start programs with community leaders to encourage constructive behavior and encourage anti-violence programs... Or at least put serious research into how those goals can be accomplished. Instead they argue pointlessly on high-visibility, low-income issues that will secure them votes. They don't want to touch the difficult subjects that would actually help bring about change. There already are those kind of programs.
How extensive are they though? How much resources is put into them compared to, say, BLM?
I'm skeptical of the Left's commitment to such programs when a large wing of the party argues that it's ethnocentric and racist for Whites to be "educating" blacks on their behavior. Identity politics, the current dominant Democratic electoral strategy, requires disparate identities throughout races as well... which would seem to conflict with their supposed goal of AA cultural assimilation in these programs.
At the end of the day, the Democratic party is a vote-generating machine. As long as Republicans have a large racist faction to prevent competition for AAs and AA-sympathetic groups, the Democrats are going to be satisfied with token efforts to satisfy blacks and their base that wants to feel like they're "making progress." Actually "making progress" doesn't generate them any additional votes in the current political environment, and thus is going to be taking a backseat to prioritizing high-visibility, low-impact positions that are less politically risky (and less effective).
|
[QUOTE]On July 14 2017 00:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
And we've come full circle to racism. There are groups of people who actively try to destroy the inner city where many black people live. There are poor white communities and other minorities in the USA as well. Not discounting that. But this is the root of the problem. Those groups of people aren't being marginalized solely based on skin color. They're just being left alone to figure it out on their own. Blacks are being targeted by the system on almost every level.[/QUOTE]
See affirmative action, so you are wrong about that.
|
[QUOTE]On July 14 2017 00:27 RealityIsKing wrote:
[QUOTE]On July 14 2017 00:18 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:
And we've come full circle to racism. There are groups of people who actively try to destroy the inner city where many black people live. There are poor white communities and other minorities in the USA as well. Not discounting that. But this is the root of the problem. Those groups of people aren't being marginalized solely based on skin color. They're just being left alone to figure it out on their own. Blacks are being targeted by the system on almost every level.[/QUOTE]
See affirmative action, so you are wrong about that.[/QUOTE]
And affirmative action doesn't do anything but propagate racism because white people feel as if they are losing out on a job because there is a quota to be filled. Don't mistake this. Affirmative Action is a bandaid on the real issue.
|
On July 14 2017 00:02 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2017 23:49 Zambrah wrote:
It's hard to expect people to focus on doing well in school when lots of black communities are mired in serious socioeconomic hell.
That's not even limited to black communities, poor white communities are also filled with people too tied down by their own economic situation to feel like they CAN pursue more than a subsistence living with some form of entertainment or drug or booze to get them through life.
You can accept that cops shooting black people through either racism or baffling incompetence is a problem that can be dealt with alongside addressing the US' poverty issues, I'd love to see more done on both fronts, not that I know jack shit about what to really do about it. Lots of cultures throughout the world have been as poor/poorer than the African American community and managed to raise themselves out of poverty. See Asia. The difference is that the Asians (despite their own issues with racism and other problems) have a culture of work ethic, family values, nonviolence within communities, social stability, etc. Poverty doesn't necessarily lead to violence. Figuring out to change black culture to be less self-destructive would be a much more productive use of time than accusing whites of privilege and microaggressions.
That's a...pretty dumb view of history you have there.
"Asia" is not a culture any more than "Africa" is. And Asia as a whole had very long periods of war, conquest and violence across the thousands of cultures that spanned even more years, and mostly reached some forms of stability and nationhood because there were clear winners over significant periods of time.
Same as Europe, really.
Both continents were just "fortunate" enough to have their periods of war and conquest contained within their convenient continental labels. And, of course, to have reached some level of nationhood, stability and nationhood before other parts of the world reached them.
(Which also completely ignores the regions in Asia that were conquered by European nations)
|
On July 14 2017 00:25 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On July 14 2017 00:17 KwarK wrote:On July 14 2017 00:12 mozoku wrote:On July 14 2017 00:07 KwarK wrote:
We don't argue over black on black crime because there isn't an opposing side to argue against. There isn't anyone insisting that blacks should work harder to get those numbers up etc. With police brutality you have two sides, those who argue that it is acceptable and those that argue that it is not. And right now the former group are winning, with the party currently in office dismissing accountability programs as a "war on police" and doing all they can to reinforce the status quo. Why should public policy discussions be focused on issues where there are opposing sides, as opposed to issues that result in the greatest utility? If Democrats really wanted to help AA community, they would start programs with community leaders to encourage constructive behavior and encourage anti-violence programs... Or at least put serious research into how those goals can be accomplished. Instead they argue pointlessly on high-visibility, low-income issues that will secure them votes. They don't want to touch the difficult subjects that would actually help bring about change. There already are those kind of programs. How extensive are they though? How much resources is put into them compared to, say, BLM? I'm skeptical of the Left's commitment to such programs when a large wing of the party argues that it's ethnocentric and racist for Whites to be "educating" blacks on their behavior. Identity politics, the current dominant Democratic electoral strategy, requires disparate identities throughout races as well... which would seem to conflict with their supposed goal of AA cultural assimilation in these programs.
What makes you skeptical? Do you have numbers or quotes or is it just a gut feeling?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
