Author Topic: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?  (Read 64575 times)

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #900 on: March 24, 2019, 10:03:57 AM »
What's amazing to me is that in this thread, many, many, many people can say point blank "racism is a thing, I see it all the time and/or I have experienced it myself, it's very common" and then other people are just like "blank out".  Completely ignore or downplay these facts.  That's not logical.  Ignoring the facts is never logical.  Even when they are uncomfortable.  Even when you haven't seen it yourself.  It doesn't matter if 'you' have seen it or not.  WE HAVE, and we're telling you about it.  Please stop ignoring these facts.  Please be more logical and base your arguments on the facts, ALL of the facts.   

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #901 on: March 24, 2019, 10:13:20 AM »

I worked with a Nigerian immigrant who came to the US as a child.  Immigrating to the US, they came to live in a poverty stricken African American community. Her whole life her parents instilled the benefits of education.  As my friend describes, her parents did everything in their power so the children will become successful. She and all 5 of her siblings are successful adults today all with upper level degrees and well paying jobs.  She tells me stories of friends in high school who's parents actually put them down for trying to get good grades with an attitude of the parent not wanting to see their child have better success than them which as a very stark opposite of how my Nigerian friend grew up.  I have another successful African American friend who too experienced this among his high school friends.  The way I see it, if kids are not incentivized and taught how to break free from poverty, how will they not follow in the footsteps of their parents?

Does anyone have an opinion on these anecdotes?

Yes, I do.

These two unverifiable second hand stories of black people purposely holding back their children for no discernible reason have convinced me of your viewpoint.  The evident biases of those in positions of power in the current power structure that we live in is unimportant.  Obviously black people are the problem.  Racism (while we all agree that it exists and is common to see) is nowhere near as important as the terribleness of black parents in anecdotes from "black friends".

Actually the fact that a first generation African, who comes to the US who is "naive" to racism, does better than a multi-generation African American, can be taken as evidence of the huge effect that multi-generational racism has had on African American communities. If you are told over and over again you cannot succeed, you are inferior, and you have also seen your parents and grandparents work very hard with less success than white counterparts, don't you think that might affect your belief in yourself? If you do not see people who look like you as lawyers, as politicians, and otherwise successful people in the communitiy, but the only people who do look like you who are successful are in sports or music, you might think that is the best way to succeed? In my own personal experience my ex talking to the cooks in back of the house (blacks mostly work "back of the house" in restaurants, but not "front of the house aka waits, bartenders, managers), said, why didn't you go to school (past hs)? Oftentimes they were raised in single parent household with other siblings. Their Mom felt as a "male" of the house, their job was to get out of school and start making money as soon as possible, to help support the family. There was absolutely no support from the parents (overworked Mom, absentee father) to even THINK that higher schooling was an option. Higher schooling was considered a luxury, for other people.

@GuitarStv,
What an interesting comment by you, using it to judge me instead of just discussing the specific anecdotes.  BTW, I have discussed similar scenarios of white children from poor neighborhoods as well.  I purposely did not include whites in my two anecdotes to see what type of response I would get.  Clearly because they were black you had to assume I have some form of racial judgement even after a disclaimer trying to keep racism out of that discussion.  Is it possible that maybe you find African Americans inferior for some reason and just assume racism from everyone that does not think just like you? There, now I lay judgement on you.  Just as silly as your judgement on me.

Here is the reality for you.  If kids grow up in a household where parents don't know or don't care to teach their kids work ethic, the benefits of higher education, morality, it makes no difference if they are white, black, or orange the odds of success is low.  This is the reason why immigrants do so well in the United States.  They come here for a better life and work hard at it and teach their children to work hard at it.

Sure there is racism in the world. It would be naive to think that people do not segregate themselves with those similar to them.  But calling out racism as the sole reason for a person's problems is equally naive.  The problems stem much deeper in poor communities that have nothing to do with color but more to do with the lack of education from parents who don't know any better and likely were never taught any better from their parents.  Considering that racism was so perverse just a few years ago allowing little options for education or success makes it even tougher to break free from that cycle.  We can see it today in many Native American communities as well. 

Today, although not perfect, things are significantly improved.  All races have much more equal opportunity to get ahead.  Instead of segregating further and portraying people as victims lets instead empower every child born in poor neighborhoods with the tools necessary to get ahead in the US.  Bringing resources to adolescence will not just help them, but their progeny as well.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4712
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #902 on: March 24, 2019, 10:35:58 AM »
Today, although not perfect, things are significantly improved.  All races have much more equal opportunity to get ahead.  Instead of segregating further and portraying people as victims lets instead empower every child born in poor neighborhoods with the tools necessary to get ahead in the US.  Bringing resources to adolescence will not just help them, but their progeny as well.

Are you proposing more money for education? How will that be funded?

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #903 on: March 24, 2019, 11:33:41 AM »
Today, although not perfect, things are significantly improved.  All races have much more equal opportunity to get ahead.  Instead of segregating further and portraying people as victims lets instead empower every child born in poor neighborhoods with the tools necessary to get ahead in the US.  Bringing resources to adolescence will not just help them, but their progeny as well.

Are you proposing more money for education? How will that be funded?

Yes, I propose more funding to education and that money is to come from eliminating the department of education with all its overhead and letting the states do what they believe is best. Some states will perform better, others worse and they can learn from each other. I also think we should change our welfare system by eliminating cliffs and instead creating linear phaseouts.  This incentives income and will decrease our welfare population.  It will also allow parents to teach children by example as they work and bring in more income providing a better life for the entire family.

I also believe we need a crackdown on disability fraud.  I admit because of my profession I am in the position to witness a higher incidence of disability fraud compared to the population as a whole which likely forms my perspective.  But I see enough of it to know that there is money to be saved there and better utilized elsewhere.

Lastly, though very controversial I believe we should legalize all drugs and tax it, eliminate the war on drugs and free all non violent drug offenders from prison, expunging that data from their record.  Tons of money there to actually do some good in the US as opposed to all the harm it causes.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4712
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #904 on: March 24, 2019, 11:40:58 AM »
Today, although not perfect, things are significantly improved.  All races have much more equal opportunity to get ahead.  Instead of segregating further and portraying people as victims lets instead empower every child born in poor neighborhoods with the tools necessary to get ahead in the US.  Bringing resources to adolescence will not just help them, but their progeny as well.

Are you proposing more money for education? How will that be funded?

Yes, I propose more funding to education and that money is to come from eliminating the department of education with all its overhead and letting the states do what they believe is best. Some states will perform better, others worse and they can learn from each other.

Will there be any rules on this block grant? Who will administer the rules? Or is it just, "Here's $50M for the year. Spend it on education/training for the poor. Good luck."

Quote
I also think we should change our welfare system by eliminating cliffs and instead creating linear phaseouts.  This incentives income and will decrease our welfare population.  It will also allow parents to teach children by example as they work and bring in more income providing a better life for the entire family.

Yes, the welfare cliff is terribly stupid and ineffective. A number of my Section 8 tenants would hide their part-time income in order not to lose benefits.

Quote
I also believe we need a crackdown on disability fraud.  I admit because of my profession I am in the position to witness a higher incidence of disability fraud compared to the population as a whole which likely forms my perspective.  But I see enough of it to know that there is money to be saved there and better utilized elsewhere.

I'm ambivalent about this. Fraud is bad but this didn't work out so well when we tried to kick out the drug users. More money was spent on drug tests and policing than was saved by kicking off people. It sounds like a great idea for an experiment, though.

Quote
Lastly, though very controversial I believe we should legalize all drugs and tax it, eliminate the war on drugs and free all non violent drug offenders from prison, expunging that data from their record.  Tons of money there to actually do some good in the US as opposed to all the harm it causes.

Agreed.

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #905 on: March 24, 2019, 12:11:56 PM »
Today, although not perfect, things are significantly improved.  All races have much more equal opportunity to get ahead.  Instead of segregating further and portraying people as victims lets instead empower every child born in poor neighborhoods with the tools necessary to get ahead in the US.  Bringing resources to adolescence will not just help them, but their progeny as well.

Are you proposing more money for education? How will that be funded?

Yes, I propose more funding to education and that money is to come from eliminating the department of education with all its overhead and letting the states do what they believe is best. Some states will perform better, others worse and they can learn from each other. I also think we should change our welfare system by eliminating cliffs and instead creating linear phaseouts.  This incentives income and will decrease our welfare population.  It will also allow parents to teach children by example as they work and bring in more income providing a better life for the entire family.

I also believe we need a crackdown on disability fraud.  I admit because of my profession I am in the position to witness a higher incidence of disability fraud compared to the population as a whole which likely forms my perspective.  But I see enough of it to know that there is money to be saved there and better utilized elsewhere.

Lastly, though very controversial I believe we should legalize all drugs and tax it, eliminate the war on drugs and free all non violent drug offenders from prison, expunging that data from their record.  Tons of money there to actually do some good in the US as opposed to all the harm it causes.

I don't have all the answers to this, but when you have states control and fund education, you get worse outcomes and higher disparities. Federal funding "evens out" these disparities (state funding of schools is primarily property tax based, so schools in poorer zip codes have less education funding. It propagates disparities, which I'm sure is not what you intended. The aim of the department of education is that all kids in the US have equal access to education. By having states control and fund schools, you are saying you do not feel that aim is important. We have already seen states who do not value education and cut education, creating a vicious cycle for its citizens.

As far as welfare fraud, trying to eliminate all welfare fraud is trying to swat at a mosquito landing on your food while a huge dog is eating your food (defense budget). I think it makes more sense to have graduated welfare, where it is not an all or none proposition (you don't work you get welfare: if you go back to work and you make a certain $ cut off, you lose all your benefits). Right now it's incentivizing people either not working, or lying about working. If anything we should incentivize people working.
And to tell the truth, there are some people who may be able to hold down a part time job, but for whatever reasons, cannot hold down full time jobs but also do not qualify for disability. My sister is one of those people. Most likely she has underlying depression but is too proud to get treatment for it. So she gets jobs, struggles, at her best works for a couple years, before being late too many times or sick she loses her job. It is heartbreaking to me to see how hard she works and still not be able to support herself. The way the system is set up there is no assistance available to someone like her.  When she was younger and trying to save money by renting a room from someone, the male landlord would come into her room unannounced. I understand why she lives with family members because she can't afford an apartment on her own, and is too afraid to try a sublet situation.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2019, 12:13:36 PM by partgypsy »

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #906 on: March 24, 2019, 12:17:43 PM »
Today, although not perfect, things are significantly improved.  All races have much more equal opportunity to get ahead.  Instead of segregating further and portraying people as victims lets instead empower every child born in poor neighborhoods with the tools necessary to get ahead in the US.  Bringing resources to adolescence will not just help them, but their progeny as well.

Are you proposing more money for education? How will that be funded?

Yes, I propose more funding to education and that money is to come from eliminating the department of education with all its overhead and letting the states do what they believe is best. Some states will perform better, others worse and they can learn from each other.

Will there be any rules on this block grant? Who will administer the rules? Or is it just, "Here's $50M for the year. Spend it on education/training for the poor. Good luck."

Quote
I also think we should change our welfare system by eliminating cliffs and instead creating linear phaseouts.  This incentives income and will decrease our welfare population.  It will also allow parents to teach children by example as they work and bring in more income providing a better life for the entire family.

Yes, the welfare cliff is terribly stupid and ineffective. A number of my Section 8 tenants would hide their part-time income in order not to lose benefits.

Quote
I also believe we need a crackdown on disability fraud.  I admit because of my profession I am in the position to witness a higher incidence of disability fraud compared to the population as a whole which likely forms my perspective.  But I see enough of it to know that there is money to be saved there and better utilized elsewhere.

I'm ambivalent about this. Fraud is bad but this didn't work out so well when we tried to kick out the drug users. More money was spent on drug tests and policing than was saved by kicking off people. It sounds like a great idea for an experiment, though.

Quote
Lastly, though very controversial I believe we should legalize all drugs and tax it, eliminate the war on drugs and free all non violent drug offenders from prison, expunging that data from their record.  Tons of money there to actually do some good in the US as opposed to all the harm it causes.

Agreed.

The rules will be set by the state to decide to do what they want with that money.  That is how our Constitution was designed to begin with.  Winning solutions will likely get adopted eventually by other states with more inferior processes.

I don't care about drug use.  I care about people claiming disability and collecting money when they are well bodied Americans able to work for living.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #907 on: March 24, 2019, 12:22:33 PM »
Today, although not perfect, things are significantly improved.  All races have much more equal opportunity to get ahead.  Instead of segregating further and portraying people as victims lets instead empower every child born in poor neighborhoods with the tools necessary to get ahead in the US.  Bringing resources to adolescence will not just help them, but their progeny as well.

Are you proposing more money for education? How will that be funded?

Yes, I propose more funding to education and that money is to come from eliminating the department of education with all its overhead and letting the states do what they believe is best. Some states will perform better, others worse and they can learn from each other. I also think we should change our welfare system by eliminating cliffs and instead creating linear phaseouts.  This incentives income and will decrease our welfare population.  It will also allow parents to teach children by example as they work and bring in more income providing a better life for the entire family.

I also believe we need a crackdown on disability fraud.  I admit because of my profession I am in the position to witness a higher incidence of disability fraud compared to the population as a whole which likely forms my perspective.  But I see enough of it to know that there is money to be saved there and better utilized elsewhere.

Lastly, though very controversial I believe we should legalize all drugs and tax it, eliminate the war on drugs and free all non violent drug offenders from prison, expunging that data from their record.  Tons of money there to actually do some good in the US as opposed to all the harm it causes.

I don't have all the answers to this, but when you have states control and fund education, you get worse outcomes and higher disparities. Federal funding "evens out" these disparities (state funding of schools is primarily property tax based, so schools in poorer zip codes have less education funding. It propagates disparities, which I'm sure is not what you intended. The aim of the department of education is that all kids in the US have equal access to education. By having states control and fund schools, you are saying you do not feel that aim is important. We have already seen states who do not value education and cut education, creating a vicious cycle for its citizens.

As far as welfare fraud, trying to eliminate all welfare fraud is trying to swat at a mosquito landing on your food while a huge dog is eating your food (defense budget). I think it makes more sense to have graduated welfare, where it is not an all or none proposition (you don't work you get welfare: if you go back to work and you make a certain $ cut off, you lose all your benefits). Right now it's incentivizing people either not working, or lying about working. If anything we should incentivize people working.
And to tell the truth, there are some people who may be able to hold down a part time job, but for whatever reasons, cannot hold down full time jobs but also do not qualify for disability. My sister is one of those people. Most likely she has underlying depression but is too proud to get treatment for it. So she gets jobs, struggles, at her best works for a couple years, before being late too many times or sick she loses her job. It is heartbreaking to me to see how hard she works and still not be able to support herself. The way the system is set up there is no assistance available to someone like her.  When she was younger and trying to save money by renting a room from someone, the male landlord would come into her room unannounced. I understand why she lives with family members because she can't afford an apartment on her own, and is too afraid to try a sublet situation.

I think welfare fraud can be eliminated but it requires two steps. 
1) To institute a phase out instead of cliff as discussed above.
2) award citizens money for ousting their neighbors with equivocal proof.

The problem would correct itself eventually.  But we must eliminate this cliff mentality 1st and then a few years later institute the ousting system.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4712
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #908 on: March 24, 2019, 12:40:45 PM »
The rules will be set by the state to decide to do what they want with that money.  That is how our Constitution was designed to begin with.  Winning solutions will likely get adopted eventually by other states with more inferior processes.

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States"

The Constitution doesn't ban a DOE, nor does it create limits on what rules and regulations can be set for using those taxes, duties, imposts, and excises that it collects and gives back to the states.

But you're right -- state experiments are a good idea. We'd then have to decide on whether, say, Alabama can make it faith based and run by a mega-church millionaire "pastor."

Quote
I don't care about drug use.  I care about people claiming disability and collecting money when they are well bodied Americans able to work for living.

You missed the point. If we have to hire a PI to tail every disability applicant (of the 40% of applicants who are accepted currently) in order to catch 5%, it makes it more expensive than to just give the 5% their disability. Or is this a moral issue rather than a financial issue?

Of course, the irony is that in order to detect fraud, the SS Admin will need...more money! Where does that money come from, initially at least, to start a thorough investigating team?
« Last Edit: March 24, 2019, 12:45:16 PM by bacchi »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #909 on: March 24, 2019, 12:44:13 PM »

I worked with a Nigerian immigrant who came to the US as a child.  Immigrating to the US, they came to live in a poverty stricken African American community. Her whole life her parents instilled the benefits of education.  As my friend describes, her parents did everything in their power so the children will become successful. She and all 5 of her siblings are successful adults today all with upper level degrees and well paying jobs.  She tells me stories of friends in high school who's parents actually put them down for trying to get good grades with an attitude of the parent not wanting to see their child have better success than them which as a very stark opposite of how my Nigerian friend grew up.  I have another successful African American friend who too experienced this among his high school friends.  The way I see it, if kids are not incentivized and taught how to break free from poverty, how will they not follow in the footsteps of their parents?

Does anyone have an opinion on these anecdotes?

Yes, I do.

These two unverifiable second hand stories of black people purposely holding back their children for no discernible reason have convinced me of your viewpoint.  The evident biases of those in positions of power in the current power structure that we live in is unimportant.  Obviously black people are the problem.  Racism (while we all agree that it exists and is common to see) is nowhere near as important as the terribleness of black parents in anecdotes from "black friends".

Actually the fact that a first generation African, who comes to the US who is "naive" to racism, does better than a multi-generation African American, can be taken as evidence of the huge effect that multi-generational racism has had on African American communities. If you are told over and over again you cannot succeed, you are inferior, and you have also seen your parents and grandparents work very hard with less success than white counterparts, don't you think that might affect your belief in yourself? If you do not see people who look like you as lawyers, as politicians, and otherwise successful people in the communitiy, but the only people who do look like you who are successful are in sports or music, you might think that is the best way to succeed? In my own personal experience my ex talking to the cooks in back of the house (blacks mostly work "back of the house" in restaurants, but not "front of the house aka waits, bartenders, managers), said, why didn't you go to school (past hs)? Oftentimes they were raised in single parent household with other siblings. Their Mom felt as a "male" of the house, their job was to get out of school and start making money as soon as possible, to help support the family. There was absolutely no support from the parents (overworked Mom, absentee father) to even THINK that higher schooling was an option. Higher schooling was considered a luxury, for other people.

@GuitarStv,
What an interesting comment by you, using it to judge me instead of just discussing the specific anecdotes.  BTW, I have discussed similar scenarios of white children from poor neighborhoods as well.  I purposely did not include whites in my two anecdotes to see what type of response I would get.  Clearly because they were black you had to assume I have some form of racial judgement even after a disclaimer trying to keep racism out of that discussion.  Is it possible that maybe you find African Americans inferior for some reason and just assume racism from everyone that does not think just like you? There, now I lay judgement on you.  Just as silly as your judgement on me.

There have been exactly zero people in this thread arguing that hard work and effort aren't necessary to do well in life.  Please remember, I didn't bring up the race of the people in your example.  You did all on your own.  I didn't suppress similar anecdotes about white people in my anecdote.  You did all on your own.

We know that on nearly every metric available black people in the US do worse than white people.  You're arguing that racism is not a real barrier to success in the US.  I guess that I don't understand what point you were getting at, if not to say that black Americans are inferior (in this case, cuturally inferior - which you somehow divorce from racial history entirely) with your comments.



Here is the reality for you.  If kids grow up in a household where parents don't know or don't care to teach their kids work ethic, the benefits of higher education, morality, it makes no difference if they are white, black, or orange the odds of success is low.  This is the reason why immigrants do so well in the United States.  They come here for a better life and work hard at it and teach their children to work hard at it.

Sure, I agree completely with this.  But it's tangential to the discussion that was going on.



Sure there is racism in the world. It would be naive to think that people do not segregate themselves with those similar to them.  But calling out racism as the sole reason for a person's problems is equally naive.  The problems stem much deeper in poor communities that have nothing to do with color but more to do with the lack of education from parents who don't know any better and likely were never taught any better from their parents.  Considering that racism was so perverse just a few years ago allowing little options for education or success makes it even tougher to break free from that cycle.  We can see it today in many Native American communities as well. 

Point to the post or comment made in this thread where racism was called out as the "sole reason for a person's problems", where motivation and hard work were both ignored.

If you're having trouble finding it, then maybe dismantle that straw man you've built to argue against.



Today, although not perfect, things are significantly improved.  All races have much more equal opportunity to get ahead.  Instead of segregating further and portraying people as victims lets instead empower every child born in poor neighborhoods with the tools necessary to get ahead in the US.  Bringing resources to adolescence will not just help them, but their progeny as well.

The weird thing is, I agree with much of this statement.  Things are significantly improved regarding equal opportunity.  I'd love for every child born in poor neighborhoods to get the tools necessary to get ahead in the US.

One of the tools necessary to get ahead though, is equal treatment.  Pretending that policing between races is similar, that the legal system works the same way for people of different races, that people with a particular sounding name will recieve equal treatment when someone is skimming over a resume, etc . . . all of these arguments are used to stall and eliminate further progress on this front.

Yes, I believe that a black guy can do well in the US.  Of course hard work and gumption are still important.  But right now the stats seem to point to the fact that someone who is white doesn't have to work quite as hard for his success as someone who is black.  That's the part that seems unfair to me, and still needs attention until it has been resolved.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #910 on: March 24, 2019, 01:03:56 PM »
I mean, I get why he's arguing, he actually thinks there's no racism, which is just...wow. But why are you all engaging in this nonsense?

Talk about not getting it. I'm not stating that there is no racism. I'm stating that it is rare. If I was wrong I think that there would be a bunch of you stating how black people are morally inferior to white people but that isn't happening. You are the proof of what I'm stating.

The problem is that a bunch of you call it racist when people from different cultural backgrounds do well or poorly in various aspects of society. My example of young white doctors being a minority and this is not racism is another good way to view my argument.


Don't waste your time @steveo . They've redefined "racism" and tied it to some bs power dynamic (aka by their definition it's not possible to be racist towards Whites oh and "white" Jews, among other ethnic groups), along with a whole slew of other "feel good" words. This ideology, which has been called many things, including Grievance Studies, intersectionalism, and Social Justice, or just critical theories in general, cloaks itself in beautiful words (e.g. “inclusion,” “diversity”) but is in fact in service of the opposite. It is racist, sexist, and limiting.

The most important thing for decent, rational, liberal people to understand about Social Justice is that it's always making its asks from within applied postmodern theory. It's therefore almost always asking for something very distinct and more demanding than it sounds like it is.

In this ideology, a panel that is 100% black women is 100% diverse because it isn't speaking from the "dominant" perspective that's assumed to pervade and underwrite all of society in applied postmodern theory. Yes, this is counter-intuitive, and it's what "diversity" really means as per stand point theory and intersectionality.

Your experience trying to talk about racism with these folks is critical race theory in a nutshell. It contains a few kernels of truth. Beyond those kernels, which are nearly irrelevant, it's utter bullshit. Not only is it totally BS, it's a specific kind of BS designed to make YOU feel guilty enough to believe and repeat it.

"Diversity" pushed by Social Justice is a justified form of naked discrimination. "Inclusion" means a demand for restricted speech. "Equity" is affirmative action that goes further and cuts down. To them, it is ALL "justified."

They know it's completely indefensible if the public ever finds out what it actually is, which is why they often just call people names (Nazi, neonazi, white supremacist, kkk, etc) while refuse to engage in rational discussions. Oh actually, apparently logic and reason is also a white construct these days.

@ericrugiero  The way I see it, it is not so much liberals vs conservatives. It is those of us that see how racist and sexist and limiting this bs ideology is vs its practitioners.


This is a great post.

I know.  @steveo   You should read some of my other posts, just skip the ones that weren't so great and the ones I was wrong. ;) /s

I probably know more about the nature of critical theories than most here, having been inspired by the Sokal Squared Three. In fact, I might have surpassed them in one particular regard:

I have managed to get one paper of the "anti-racism" flavor (so far, still cranking out more in my dark boiler room) into the publishing process. It is incredibly easy to hoax journals in these "studies".

It is so easy because the manuscript are essentially introductions to ideas, ideas that are unverifiable, unfalsifiable, but also irresistible. Yes, outlandish ideas that are irresistible to these race hustlers and grifters. These ideas are not research, not by a long shot. But they are presented as "facts" that are then used to drive diversity policies within and outside academia.

If you are an outsider and manage to publish pure made up gibberish that are indistinguishable with "real scholarships", then it is not the review process, it's the field. I started reading/learning about critical theories less than 6 months ago, from Crenshaw to Coates, from DiAngelo to McIntyre, from Davies to Kendi, I read them all. Now, my "work" fits perfectly with these "scholars".

Some People in the critical theory field DEFENDED (still do) the idea that the penis is a social construct AFTER the idea was revealed to be a hoax. If people in the field can't distinguish between made up stuff (that also included very questionable methods, like deleting data) and real research, then again, it is not the peer-review process, it is the field itself.

My one take away for you is this: Critical race theory doesn't exist to improve race relations or issues related to race. It exists to find racism in everything and to make all such accusations stick. It is itself racist in nature and a parasitic disease.

Wanna know what my hoax paper is about? I wrote about how some measures, which are essentially segregation, but with blacks living in better conditions than whites, is positive for an anti-racist environment. Basically, enforced segregation with the whites living in crappy conditions is a good thing for the cause of anti-racism. lol right?

This BS is hardly out of line when compared with what previous "scholars" in this field have established as infallible rules of engagement:

"This project works to deepen our understanding of the harm that White teachers do in classrooms"

"The task in this chapter is to examine, deconstruct, and critique the existence of whiteness"

"A positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy. "

"Just as White supremacy, whiteness itself lives in white bodies, communities, and structures"


Intersectionality will eventually lead to calls for segregation because the claim is that different groups are inherently against each other and can’t work together without oppression.

The true face of this ideology can be seen in Mike Nayna's part 2 of the evergreen documentary. It becomes self-evident in the part where the students demanded the guy to keep lowering his hands.

It's about Power. Power to oppress others. Nothing more.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #911 on: March 24, 2019, 01:10:39 PM »

I worked with a Nigerian immigrant who came to the US as a child.  Immigrating to the US, they came to live in a poverty stricken African American community. Her whole life her parents instilled the benefits of education.  As my friend describes, her parents did everything in their power so the children will become successful. She and all 5 of her siblings are successful adults today all with upper level degrees and well paying jobs.  She tells me stories of friends in high school who's parents actually put them down for trying to get good grades with an attitude of the parent not wanting to see their child have better success than them which as a very stark opposite of how my Nigerian friend grew up.  I have another successful African American friend who too experienced this among his high school friends.  The way I see it, if kids are not incentivized and taught how to break free from poverty, how will they not follow in the footsteps of their parents?

Does anyone have an opinion on these anecdotes?

Yes, I do.

These two unverifiable second hand stories of black people purposely holding back their children for no discernible reason have convinced me of your viewpoint.  The evident biases of those in positions of power in the current power structure that we live in is unimportant.  Obviously black people are the problem.  Racism (while we all agree that it exists and is common to see) is nowhere near as important as the terribleness of black parents in anecdotes from "black friends".

Actually the fact that a first generation African, who comes to the US who is "naive" to racism, does better than a multi-generation African American, can be taken as evidence of the huge effect that multi-generational racism has had on African American communities. If you are told over and over again you cannot succeed, you are inferior, and you have also seen your parents and grandparents work very hard with less success than white counterparts, don't you think that might affect your belief in yourself? If you do not see people who look like you as lawyers, as politicians, and otherwise successful people in the communitiy, but the only people who do look like you who are successful are in sports or music, you might think that is the best way to succeed? In my own personal experience my ex talking to the cooks in back of the house (blacks mostly work "back of the house" in restaurants, but not "front of the house aka waits, bartenders, managers), said, why didn't you go to school (past hs)? Oftentimes they were raised in single parent household with other siblings. Their Mom felt as a "male" of the house, their job was to get out of school and start making money as soon as possible, to help support the family. There was absolutely no support from the parents (overworked Mom, absentee father) to even THINK that higher schooling was an option. Higher schooling was considered a luxury, for other people.

@GuitarStv,
What an interesting comment by you, using it to judge me instead of just discussing the specific anecdotes.  BTW, I have discussed similar scenarios of white children from poor neighborhoods as well.  I purposely did not include whites in my two anecdotes to see what type of response I would get.  Clearly because they were black you had to assume I have some form of racial judgement even after a disclaimer trying to keep racism out of that discussion.  Is it possible that maybe you find African Americans inferior for some reason and just assume racism from everyone that does not think just like you? There, now I lay judgement on you.  Just as silly as your judgement on me.

There have been exactly zero people in this thread arguing that hard work and effort aren't necessary to do well in life.  Please remember, I didn't bring up the race of the people in your example.  You did all on your own.  I didn't suppress similar anecdotes about white people in my anecdote.  You did all on your own.

We know that on nearly every metric available black people in the US do worse than white people.  You're arguing that racism is not a real barrier to success in the US.  I guess that I don't understand what point you were getting at, if not to say that black Americans are inferior (in this case, cuturally inferior - which you somehow divorce from racial history entirely) with your comments.



Here is the reality for you.  If kids grow up in a household where parents don't know or don't care to teach their kids work ethic, the benefits of higher education, morality, it makes no difference if they are white, black, or orange the odds of success is low.  This is the reason why immigrants do so well in the United States.  They come here for a better life and work hard at it and teach their children to work hard at it.

Sure, I agree completely with this.  But it's tangential to the discussion that was going on.



Sure there is racism in the world. It would be naive to think that people do not segregate themselves with those similar to them.  But calling out racism as the sole reason for a person's problems is equally naive.  The problems stem much deeper in poor communities that have nothing to do with color but more to do with the lack of education from parents who don't know any better and likely were never taught any better from their parents.  Considering that racism was so perverse just a few years ago allowing little options for education or success makes it even tougher to break free from that cycle.  We can see it today in many Native American communities as well. 

Point to the post or comment made in this thread where racism was called out as the "sole reason for a person's problems", where motivation and hard work were both ignored.

If you're having trouble finding it, then maybe dismantle that straw man you've built to argue against.



Today, although not perfect, things are significantly improved.  All races have much more equal opportunity to get ahead.  Instead of segregating further and portraying people as victims lets instead empower every child born in poor neighborhoods with the tools necessary to get ahead in the US.  Bringing resources to adolescence will not just help them, but their progeny as well.

The weird thing is, I agree with much of this statement.  Things are significantly improved regarding equal opportunity.  I'd love for every child born in poor neighborhoods to get the tools necessary to get ahead in the US.

One of the tools necessary to get ahead though, is equal treatment.  Pretending that policing between races is similar, that the legal system works the same way for people of different races, that people with a particular sounding name will recieve equal treatment when someone is skimming over a resume, etc . . . all of these arguments are used to stall and eliminate further progress on this front.

Yes, I believe that a black guy can do well in the US.  Of course hard work and gumption are still important.  But right now the stats seem to point to the fact that someone who is white doesn't have to work quite as hard for his success as someone who is black.  That's the part that seems unfair to me, and still needs attention until it has been resolved.

I think you and I are on the same page and agree significantly more than we disagree based on your last paragraph.  The disagreement lies now with how much of an issue is race in determining success?  Is it 100% race?  Obviously not, as you mentioned above.  Well then, how much of it is current cultural practices in poor communities that leads to poor outcomes and how much of it is racism? 

Do some communities have higher incidence of drug abuse or alcohol abuse?  Do some communities have a higher incidence of crime? Is it racism that causes these disparities or is it the culture of those communities?  I think it is local culture and yes, our legal system does exacerbate the problem.

I believe every person no matter of race or religion has equal chance to do great in the US because I believe we are all equal if given similar motivation and education necessary to succeed.  I think we have a little too much victimization in the world today and not enough education and motivation.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #912 on: March 24, 2019, 01:17:11 PM »
I think we have a little too much victimization in the world today and not enough education and motivation.

"The man who lies to himself can be more easily offended than anyone else. You know it is sometimes very pleasant to take offense, isn't it? A man may know that nobody has insulted him, but that he has invented the insult for himself, has lied and exaggerated to make it picturesque, has caught at a word and made a mountain out of a molehill--he knows that himself, yet he will be the first to take offense, and will revel in his resentment till he feels great pleasure in it.”

-Fyodor Dostoevsky

But that's prob because he's white so also a white supremacist. /s

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #913 on: March 24, 2019, 04:59:21 PM »
I mean, I get why he's arguing, he actually thinks there's no racism, which is just...wow. But why are you all engaging in this nonsense?

Talk about not getting it. I'm not stating that there is no racism. I'm stating that it is rare. If I was wrong I think that there would be a bunch of you stating how black people are morally inferior to white people but that isn't happening. You are the proof of what I'm stating.

The problem is that a bunch of you call it racist when people from different cultural backgrounds do well or poorly in various aspects of society. My example of young white doctors being a minority and this is not racism is another good way to view my argument.


Don't waste your time @steveo . They've redefined "racism" and tied it to some bs power dynamic (aka by their definition it's not possible to be racist towards Whites oh and "white" Jews, among other ethnic groups), along with a whole slew of other "feel good" words. This ideology, which has been called many things, including Grievance Studies, intersectionalism, and Social Justice, or just critical theories in general, cloaks itself in beautiful words (e.g. “inclusion,” “diversity”) but is in fact in service of the opposite. It is racist, sexist, and limiting.

The most important thing for decent, rational, liberal people to understand about Social Justice is that it's always making its asks from within applied postmodern theory. It's therefore almost always asking for something very distinct and more demanding than it sounds like it is.

In this ideology, a panel that is 100% black women is 100% diverse because it isn't speaking from the "dominant" perspective that's assumed to pervade and underwrite all of society in applied postmodern theory. Yes, this is counter-intuitive, and it's what "diversity" really means as per stand point theory and intersectionality.

Your experience trying to talk about racism with these folks is critical race theory in a nutshell. It contains a few kernels of truth. Beyond those kernels, which are nearly irrelevant, it's utter bullshit. Not only is it totally BS, it's a specific kind of BS designed to make YOU feel guilty enough to believe and repeat it.

"Diversity" pushed by Social Justice is a justified form of naked discrimination. "Inclusion" means a demand for restricted speech. "Equity" is affirmative action that goes further and cuts down. To them, it is ALL "justified."

They know it's completely indefensible if the public ever finds out what it actually is, which is why they often just call people names (Nazi, neonazi, white supremacist, kkk, etc) while refuse to engage in rational discussions. Oh actually, apparently logic and rl
[/b]

This is a great post.

I know.  @steveo   You should read some of my other posts, just skip the ones that weren't so great and the ones I was wrong. ;) /s

I probably know more about the nature of critical theories than most here, having been inspired by the Sokal Squared Three. In fact, I might have surpassed them in one particular regard:

I have managed to get one paper of the "anti-racism" flavor (so far, still cranking out more in my dark boiler room) into the publishing process. It is incredibly easy to hoax journals in these "studies".

It is so easy because the manuscript are essentially introductions to ideas, ideas that are unverifiable, unfalsifiable, but also irresistible. Yes, outlandish ideas that are irresistible to these race hustlers and grifters. These ideas are not research, not by a long shot. But they are presented as "facts" that are then used to drive diversity policies within and outside academia.

If you are an outsider and manage to publish pure made up gibberish that are indistinguishable with "real scholarships", then it is not the review process, it's the field. I started reading/learning about critical theories less than 6 months ago, from Crenshaw to Coates, from DiAngelo to McIntyre, from Davies to Kendi, I read them all. Now, my "work" fits perfectly with these "scholars".

Some People in the critical theory field DEFENDED (still do) the idea that the penis is a social construct AFTER the idea was revealed to be a hoax. If people in the field can't distinguish between made up stuff (that also included very questionable methods, like deleting data) and real research, then again, it is not the peer-review process, it is the field itself.

My one take away for you is this: Critical race theory doesn't exist to improve race relations or issues related to race. It exists to find racism in everything and to make all such accusations stick. It is itself racist in nature and a parasitic disease.

Wanna know what my hoax paper is about? I wrote about how some measures, which are essentially segregation, but with blacks living in better conditions than whites, is positive for an anti-racist environment. Basically, enforced segregation with the whites living in crappy conditions is a good thing for the cause of anti-racism. lol right?

This BS is hardly out of line when compared with what previous "scholars" in this field have established as infallible rules of engagement:

"This project works to deepen our understanding of the harm that White teachers do in classrooms"

"The task in this chapter is to examine, deconstruct, and critique the existence of whiteness"

"A positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy. "

"Just as White supremacy, whiteness itself lives in white bodies, communities, and structures"


Intersectionality will eventually lead to calls for segregation because the claim is that different groups are inherently against each other and can’t work together without oppression.

The true face of this ideology can be seen in Mike Nayna's part 2 of the evergreen documentary. It becomes self-evident in the part where the students demanded the guy to keep lowering his hands.

It's about Power. Power to oppress others. Nothing more.
Wow dude, that is a weird hobby. Personally if I had that much time on my hands I would be rescuing puppies, or helping old ladies across the street. Maybe you need to get off the computer and interact with real people, in the real world before you totally lose yourself.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2019, 05:01:55 PM by partgypsy »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #914 on: March 24, 2019, 06:15:41 PM »
I think you and I are on the same page and agree significantly more than we disagree based on your last paragraph.  The disagreement lies now with how much of an issue is race in determining success?  Is it 100% race?  Obviously not, as you mentioned above.  Well then, how much of it is current cultural practices in poor communities that leads to poor outcomes and how much of it is racism? 

Do some communities have higher incidence of drug abuse or alcohol abuse?  Do some communities have a higher incidence of crime? Is it racism that causes these disparities or is it the culture of those communities?  I think it is local culture and yes, our legal system does exacerbate the problem.

You're acting like culture spontaneously arises from nothing.  How much of current cultural practice exists because of the impacts of racism in the past?  An awful lot, I'd wager.  And if that's so, then how do we level the playing field?


I believe every person no matter of race or religion has equal chance to do great in the US because I believe we are all equal if given similar motivation and education necessary to succeed.  I think we have a little too much victimization in the world today and not enough education and motivation.

So you believe that racism has no impact whatsoever on any person's success in America?  That's what the first sentence quoted above indicates, and it's something that I can't agree with . . . given the very large amount of data that contradicts it.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #915 on: March 24, 2019, 06:20:51 PM »
I mean, I get why he's arguing, he actually thinks there's no racism, which is just...wow. But why are you all engaging in this nonsense?

Talk about not getting it. I'm not stating that there is no racism. I'm stating that it is rare. If I was wrong I think that there would be a bunch of you stating how black people are morally inferior to white people but that isn't happening. You are the proof of what I'm stating.

The problem is that a bunch of you call it racist when people from different cultural backgrounds do well or poorly in various aspects of society. My example of young white doctors being a minority and this is not racism is another good way to view my argument.


Don't waste your time @steveo . They've redefined "racism" and tied it to some bs power dynamic (aka by their definition it's not possible to be racist towards Whites oh and "white" Jews, among other ethnic groups), along with a whole slew of other "feel good" words. This ideology, which has been called many things, including Grievance Studies, intersectionalism, and Social Justice, or just critical theories in general, cloaks itself in beautiful words (e.g. “inclusion,” “diversity”) but is in fact in service of the opposite. It is racist, sexist, and limiting.

The most important thing for decent, rational, liberal people to understand about Social Justice is that it's always making its asks from within applied postmodern theory. It's therefore almost always asking for something very distinct and more demanding than it sounds like it is.

In this ideology, a panel that is 100% black women is 100% diverse because it isn't speaking from the "dominant" perspective that's assumed to pervade and underwrite all of society in applied postmodern theory. Yes, this is counter-intuitive, and it's what "diversity" really means as per stand point theory and intersectionality.

Your experience trying to talk about racism with these folks is critical race theory in a nutshell. It contains a few kernels of truth. Beyond those kernels, which are nearly irrelevant, it's utter bullshit. Not only is it totally BS, it's a specific kind of BS designed to make YOU feel guilty enough to believe and repeat it.

"Diversity" pushed by Social Justice is a justified form of naked discrimination. "Inclusion" means a demand for restricted speech. "Equity" is affirmative action that goes further and cuts down. To them, it is ALL "justified."

They know it's completely indefensible if the public ever finds out what it actually is, which is why they often just call people names (Nazi, neonazi, white supremacist, kkk, etc) while refuse to engage in rational discussions. Oh actually, apparently logic and rl
[/b]

This is a great post.

I know.  @steveo   You should read some of my other posts, just skip the ones that weren't so great and the ones I was wrong. ;) /s

I probably know more about the nature of critical theories than most here, having been inspired by the Sokal Squared Three. In fact, I might have surpassed them in one particular regard:

I have managed to get one paper of the "anti-racism" flavor (so far, still cranking out more in my dark boiler room) into the publishing process. It is incredibly easy to hoax journals in these "studies".

It is so easy because the manuscript are essentially introductions to ideas, ideas that are unverifiable, unfalsifiable, but also irresistible. Yes, outlandish ideas that are irresistible to these race hustlers and grifters. These ideas are not research, not by a long shot. But they are presented as "facts" that are then used to drive diversity policies within and outside academia.

If you are an outsider and manage to publish pure made up gibberish that are indistinguishable with "real scholarships", then it is not the review process, it's the field. I started reading/learning about critical theories less than 6 months ago, from Crenshaw to Coates, from DiAngelo to McIntyre, from Davies to Kendi, I read them all. Now, my "work" fits perfectly with these "scholars".

Some People in the critical theory field DEFENDED (still do) the idea that the penis is a social construct AFTER the idea was revealed to be a hoax. If people in the field can't distinguish between made up stuff (that also included very questionable methods, like deleting data) and real research, then again, it is not the peer-review process, it is the field itself.

My one take away for you is this: Critical race theory doesn't exist to improve race relations or issues related to race. It exists to find racism in everything and to make all such accusations stick. It is itself racist in nature and a parasitic disease.

Wanna know what my hoax paper is about? I wrote about how some measures, which are essentially segregation, but with blacks living in better conditions than whites, is positive for an anti-racist environment. Basically, enforced segregation with the whites living in crappy conditions is a good thing for the cause of anti-racism. lol right?

This BS is hardly out of line when compared with what previous "scholars" in this field have established as infallible rules of engagement:

"This project works to deepen our understanding of the harm that White teachers do in classrooms"

"The task in this chapter is to examine, deconstruct, and critique the existence of whiteness"

"A positive white identity is an impossible goal. White identity is inherently racist; white people do not exist outside the system of white supremacy. "

"Just as White supremacy, whiteness itself lives in white bodies, communities, and structures"


Intersectionality will eventually lead to calls for segregation because the claim is that different groups are inherently against each other and can’t work together without oppression.

The true face of this ideology can be seen in Mike Nayna's part 2 of the evergreen documentary. It becomes self-evident in the part where the students demanded the guy to keep lowering his hands.

It's about Power. Power to oppress others. Nothing more.
Wow dude, that is a weird hobby. Personally if I had that much time on my hands I would be rescuing puppies, or helping old ladies across the street. Maybe you need to get off the computer and interact with real people, in the real world before you totally lose yourself.

Maybe I do interact with people in the real world from time to time. I do disappear from here for weeks to months at a time, don't I? ;)

Now I would like to demonstrate what you wrote

"if I had that much time on my hands I would be rescuing puppies, or helping old ladies across the street." is deeply problematic from the critical theories' lens.

***
First of all this demonstrates an interventionist and imperialist mentality, by assuming others need help, more specifically, need your help. The combination of racism (puppies), ageism (old), sexism (ladies), ableism (cross the street) is common in what is most widely known as the "White Savior Complex", the epitome of societal manifestation of white normality in our systemic racist society.

If you are white, then this is enough proof that you are racist, sexist, and ablist (aka all-in-one bigot) and that you are the cause of everyone's problems. If you are not white, it is equally bad because this means you've internalized the structural whiteness in our racist country. Oh the horror!
***

Remember, critical theories exist to find racism/sexism/discrimination in everything and to make all such accusations stick.

So what do you do when someone says this you? Well maybe you are the kind of person that just takes it in stride. I am less agreeable, I look them in the eyes and tell them to go f*ck themselves.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #916 on: March 24, 2019, 06:57:34 PM »
I think you and I are on the same page and agree significantly more than we disagree based on your last paragraph.  The disagreement lies now with how much of an issue is race in determining success?  Is it 100% race?  Obviously not, as you mentioned above.  Well then, how much of it is current cultural practices in poor communities that leads to poor outcomes and how much of it is racism? 

Do some communities have higher incidence of drug abuse or alcohol abuse?  Do some communities have a higher incidence of crime? Is it racism that causes these disparities or is it the culture of those communities?  I think it is local culture and yes, our legal system does exacerbate the problem.

You're acting like culture spontaneously arises from nothing.  How much of current cultural practice exists because of the impacts of racism in the past?  An awful lot, I'd wager.  And if that's so, then how do we level the playing field?


I believe every person no matter of race or religion has equal chance to do great in the US because I believe we are all equal if given similar motivation and education necessary to succeed.  I think we have a little too much victimization in the world today and not enough education and motivation.

So you believe that racism has no impact whatsoever on any person's success in America?  That's what the first sentence quoted above indicates, and it's something that I can't agree with . . . given the very large amount of data that contradicts it.

You ignored my questions for some reason. But I'll respond to you.

The culture that kids born in poor neighborhoods are less likely to have parents that teach them the benefits of hard work, eduction and morals, is a function of poor neighborhoods and not a function of racism. In todays America it is not race that keeps a child from success but the cultural surroundings of their parents and peers.  I have yet to see convincing data that negates that.  This is seen over and over again by minority immigrants who have better success than their white American counterparts. 

The deleterious effects of racism are much much less problematic today as compared to a generation ago.  You make it seem like it is close to 100% due to race and I say that it is a much smaller percentage.

You want to level the playing field and I say that such a stance is in fact racist. It states that minorities need something extra where I say they are equal and can succeed on their own if given the right environment such as a cultural shift that rewards education and hard work something that is devoid in all poor communities regardless of race.  If we want to minimize the deleterious affects of racism we need to stop depicting minorities as victims but instead empower poor communities with the tools they need to understand how to be successful on their own.

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4712
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #917 on: March 24, 2019, 07:40:42 PM »
So what do you do when someone says this you? Well maybe you are the kind of person that just takes it in stride. I am less agreeable, I look them in the eyes and tell them to go f*ck themselves.

Yeah, I'm sure you do.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #918 on: March 24, 2019, 08:27:07 PM »
I think you and I are on the same page and agree significantly more than we disagree based on your last paragraph.  The disagreement lies now with how much of an issue is race in determining success?  Is it 100% race?  Obviously not, as you mentioned above.  Well then, how much of it is current cultural practices in poor communities that leads to poor outcomes and how much of it is racism? 

Do some communities have higher incidence of drug abuse or alcohol abuse?  Do some communities have a higher incidence of crime? Is it racism that causes these disparities or is it the culture of those communities?  I think it is local culture and yes, our legal system does exacerbate the problem.

You're acting like culture spontaneously arises from nothing.  How much of current cultural practice exists because of the impacts of racism in the past?  An awful lot, I'd wager.  And if that's so, then how do we level the playing field?


I believe every person no matter of race or religion has equal chance to do great in the US because I believe we are all equal if given similar motivation and education necessary to succeed.  I think we have a little too much victimization in the world today and not enough education and motivation.

So you believe that racism has no impact whatsoever on any person's success in America?  That's what the first sentence quoted above indicates, and it's something that I can't agree with . . . given the very large amount of data that contradicts it.

You ignored my questions for some reason. But I'll respond to you.

The culture that kids born in poor neighborhoods are less likely to have parents that teach them the benefits of hard work, eduction and morals, is a function of poor neighborhoods and not a function of racism. In todays America it is not race that keeps a child from success but the cultural surroundings of their parents and peers.  I have yet to see convincing data that negates that.  This is seen over and over again by minority immigrants who have better success than their white American counterparts.

I agree.

Is there a reason why black people are more likely to grow up in poor surroundings in America though?  Or have parents and grandparents who were less likely to see any benefits from their own hard work?  This is what I was talking about when I said that culture doesn't spontaneously arise from nothing.

You can't ignore the impact of so many years of unchecked racism in the past when looking at this issue.



The deleterious effects of racism are much much less problematic today as compared to a generation ago.  You make it seem like it is close to 100% due to race and I say that it is a much smaller percentage.

Again, I agree.  Racism has less of an impact today than it did in the 60s.  It had less of an impact in the 60s than it did in 1900.  We're moving in the right direction.

Where I disagree is in the assertion that racism is simply a thing of the past, is no longer a real problem, and has no negative impact on the lives of people today.  That's simply not supported by fact.



You want to level the playing field and I say that such a stance is in fact racist. It states that minorities need something extra where I say they are equal and can succeed on their own if given the right environment such as a cultural shift that rewards education and hard work something that is devoid in all poor communities regardless of race.  If we want to minimize the deleterious affects of racism we need to stop depicting minorities as victims but instead empower poor communities with the tools they need to understand how to be successful on their own.

I don't follow this line of reasoning at all.  You want a level playing field too, don't you?

"I believe every person no matter of race or religion has equal chance to do great in the US because I believe we are all equal if given similar motivation and education necessary to succeed."

I like your idea.  Let's try to give everyone similar motivation and education necessary to succeed.  I think that there are minorities who are still feeling the impacts of centuries of disenfranchisement deserve to be on a level playing field as those who have had centuries of benefit from racism.  Minorities aren't powerless victims, and it's certainly possible to succeed . . . but it's harder than it should be.  That's unfair.

If it makes you feel better, I hold similar viewpoints for people in general.  There should be better programs to help educate and motivate people, there should be more support for parents in need so they're not constantly burned out and in a spot where giving up on their kids is the only way that they can cope, better programs to address food insecurity, better access to mental health care (and health care in general), there need to be programs to tackle and handle the problems caused by wealth inequality in society.  It's just that for historical reasons, minorities make up the largest portion of the poor in America, which is why they tend to get more of the discussion time.

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #919 on: March 24, 2019, 09:13:59 PM »
I think you and I are on the same page and agree significantly more than we disagree based on your last paragraph.  The disagreement lies now with how much of an issue is race in determining success?  Is it 100% race?  Obviously not, as you mentioned above.  Well then, how much of it is current cultural practices in poor communities that leads to poor outcomes and how much of it is racism? 

Do some communities have higher incidence of drug abuse or alcohol abuse?  Do some communities have a higher incidence of crime? Is it racism that causes these disparities or is it the culture of those communities?  I think it is local culture and yes, our legal system does exacerbate the problem.

You're acting like culture spontaneously arises from nothing.  How much of current cultural practice exists because of the impacts of racism in the past?  An awful lot, I'd wager.  And if that's so, then how do we level the playing field?


I believe every person no matter of race or religion has equal chance to do great in the US because I believe we are all equal if given similar motivation and education necessary to succeed.  I think we have a little too much victimization in the world today and not enough education and motivation.

So you believe that racism has no impact whatsoever on any person's success in America?  That's what the first sentence quoted above indicates, and it's something that I can't agree with . . . given the very large amount of data that contradicts it.

You ignored my questions for some reason. But I'll respond to you.

The culture that kids born in poor neighborhoods are less likely to have parents that teach them the benefits of hard work, eduction and morals, is a function of poor neighborhoods and not a function of racism. In todays America it is not race that keeps a child from success but the cultural surroundings of their parents and peers.  I have yet to see convincing data that negates that.  This is seen over and over again by minority immigrants who have better success than their white American counterparts.

I agree.

Is there a reason why black people are more likely to grow up in poor surroundings in America though?  Or have parents and grandparents who were less likely to see any benefits from their own hard work?  This is what I was talking about when I said that culture doesn't spontaneously arise from nothing.

You can't ignore the impact of so many years of unchecked racism in the past when looking at this issue.



The deleterious effects of racism are much much less problematic today as compared to a generation ago.  You make it seem like it is close to 100% due to race and I say that it is a much smaller percentage.

Again, I agree.  Racism has less of an impact today than it did in the 60s.  It had less of an impact in the 60s than it did in 1900.  We're moving in the right direction.

Where I disagree is in the assertion that racism is simply a thing of the past, is no longer a real problem, and has no negative impact on the lives of people today.  That's simply not supported by fact.



You want to level the playing field and I say that such a stance is in fact racist. It states that minorities need something extra where I say they are equal and can succeed on their own if given the right environment such as a cultural shift that rewards education and hard work something that is devoid in all poor communities regardless of race.  If we want to minimize the deleterious affects of racism we need to stop depicting minorities as victims but instead empower poor communities with the tools they need to understand how to be successful on their own.

I don't follow this line of reasoning at all.  You want a level playing field too, don't you?

"I believe every person no matter of race or religion has equal chance to do great in the US because I believe we are all equal if given similar motivation and education necessary to succeed."

I like your idea.  Let's try to give everyone similar motivation and education necessary to succeed.  I think that there are minorities who are still feeling the impacts of centuries of disenfranchisement deserve to be on a level playing field as those who have had centuries of benefit from racism.  Minorities aren't powerless victims, and it's certainly possible to succeed . . . but it's harder than it should be.  That's unfair.

If it makes you feel better, I hold similar viewpoints for people in general.  There should be better programs to help educate and motivate people, there should be more support for parents in need so they're not constantly burned out and in a spot where giving up on their kids is the only way that they can cope, better programs to address food insecurity, better access to mental health care (and health care in general), there need to be programs to tackle and handle the problems caused by wealth inequality in society.  It's just that for historical reasons, minorities make up the largest portion of the poor in America, which is why they tend to get more of the discussion time.

a few points:
1) I disagree with the concept of wealth inequality if it pertains to redistribution of wealth.  I am for paths that allow people to reach their own wealth as apposed to spreading around the wealth of others.

2) What does leveling the playing field mean and how do we do it?  Since we both agree that the problem we are seeing is a lack of education on how to succeed in poor communities.  It is a culture that ridicules hard work and striving for good grades as opposed to promoting it and that is where our resources should go.  There is no quick fix because it will take 1 or 2 generations for those process to permeate through to almost everyone in those communities.

I would also go to venture that poor communities are poor not because they are minorities but because the majority of the people living there don't understand how to succeed, don't teach their children to succeed, and even worse ridicule those who try to better themselves.  This is not a black thing, or a white thing.  It is a poor thing.  We as a society that wants to do good start throwing money at the problem because we believe that more money equals more resources and we "level the paying field" when in fact we may be handicapping those individuals into a sense of government subsistence if all we do is provide resources for the present instead of resources to build a better future. 

What is so amazing in the US is that today, it makes no difference what gender, race, or even country you are from.  Everyone has equal opportunity to get an education, work hard and succeed.  When I say everyone, I mean everyone. Yes people in poor communities have a harder time to succeed, but it is not because they are minorities but because of the culture in those communities.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #920 on: March 24, 2019, 09:40:31 PM »
What is so amazing in the US is that today, it makes no difference what gender, race, or even country you are from.  Everyone has equal opportunity to get an education, work hard and succeed.  When I say everyone, I mean everyone. Yes people in poor communities have a harder time to succeed, but it is not because they are minorities but because of the culture in those communities.

Enjoyit, I think this is where the disconnect occurs. They are not necessarily happy with "equal opportunity", rather, they prefer "equal outcome", hence equity.

Namely, they want to give (more like enforce) everyone similar motivation and education necessary to succeed. This mentality either implies an absolute blank-slate model where everyone was born with equal talents and abilities or that people who are for whatever reason MORE motivated need to more scrutinized to the point of near-discrimination. An example would be how Asians, particularly East Asians are suing various schools that were also involved with recent scandals.

I am a believer in equality of opportunities, alas I grew up a commie and I know full well where equality of outcome leads.


EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #921 on: March 24, 2019, 09:48:36 PM »
What is so amazing in the US is that today, it makes no difference what gender, race, or even country you are from.  Everyone has equal opportunity to get an education, work hard and succeed.  When I say everyone, I mean everyone. Yes people in poor communities have a harder time to succeed, but it is not because they are minorities but because of the culture in those communities.

Enjoyit, I think this is where the disconnect occurs. They are not necessarily happy with "equal opportunity", rather, they prefer "equal outcome", hence equity.

Namely, they want to give (more like enforce) everyone similar motivation and education necessary to succeed. This mentality either implies an absolute blank-slate model where everyone was born with equal talents and abilities or that people who are for whatever reason MORE motivated need to more scrutinized to the point of near-discrimination. An example would be how Asians, particularly East Asians are suing various schools that were also involved with recent scandals.

I am a believer in equality of opportunities, alas I grew up a commie and I know full well where equality of outcome leads.

Interesting I too was born in a communist society which may be the reason why we share some similarity in thinking.  I have witnessed the poverty and hunger that socialism brings and do fear it spreading to the US where my family and I have earned success.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #922 on: March 24, 2019, 10:46:45 PM »

Interesting I too was born in a communist society which may be the reason why we share some similarity in thinking.  I have witnessed the poverty and hunger that socialism brings and do fear it spreading to the US where my family and I have earned success.

Haha no way! I think our similarity in thinking is likely due to the "the laws of nature do not vary subjectively" maxim (pretty much the Marxist way of saying facts don't care about your feelings as was made famous by shaprio) that were drilled into us in our youth.

These modern identitarian left who also posses much of the authoritarian flair of Marxism instead took up the garbage bits from the French PoMo thinkers and placed "lived experiences" and "subjectivity" and "personal uniqueness" above objective/measureable outcomes yet they somehow retained the notion of the collective.

Because they kept the concept of the collective, but got rid of objectivity, they had to resort to immutable characteristics to form their group identities. However, the PoMo thinking corrupts it further as these immutable characteristics were allowed to be open to self-identification. they were then left with an oppression Olympics that's constantly fighting each other for most past grievances.

lol, so they ended up with a mutated form of Marxism (power and oppression) that's operates more like fascism in practice (focused on grievance and vengeance oops I mean justice).

We know what they want don't work, our dead knows it too. But these ones don't.
« Last Edit: March 24, 2019, 11:20:12 PM by anisotropy »

EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #923 on: March 24, 2019, 10:58:28 PM »

Interesting I too was born in a communist society which may be the reason why we share some similarity in thinking.  I have witnessed the poverty and hunger that socialism brings and do fear it spreading to the US where my family and I have earned success.

Haha no way! I think our similarity in thinking is likely due to the "the laws of nature do not vary subjectively" maxim (pretty much the Marxist way of saying facts don't care about your feelings as was made famous by shaprio) that were drilled into us in our youth.

These modern identitarian left who also posses much of the authoritarian flair of Marxism instead took up the garbage bits from the French PoMo thinkers and place "lived experiences" and "subjectivity" and "personal uniqueness" above objective/measureable outcomes yet they somehow retained the notion of the collective.

lol, so they end up with a mutated form of Marxism (power and oppression) that's more akin to fascism in practice (focused on grievance and vengeance oops I mean justice).

We know what they want don't work, our dead knows it too. But these ones don't.

Here is something awesome coming from the Trump administration: Trump signs order to protect free speech on college campuses
https://www.today.com/video/trump-signs-order-to-protect-free-speech-on-college-campuses-1462981187623

This is a huge win and loss for those who only like free speech when they agree with the subject.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #924 on: March 24, 2019, 11:11:37 PM »

Interesting I too was born in a communist society which may be the reason why we share some similarity in thinking.  I have witnessed the poverty and hunger that socialism brings and do fear it spreading to the US where my family and I have earned success.

Haha no way! I think our similarity in thinking is likely due to the "the laws of nature do not vary subjectively" maxim (pretty much the Marxist way of saying facts don't care about your feelings as was made famous by shaprio) that were drilled into us in our youth.

These modern identitarian left who also posses much of the authoritarian flair of Marxism instead took up the garbage bits from the French PoMo thinkers and place "lived experiences" and "subjectivity" and "personal uniqueness" above objective/measureable outcomes yet they somehow retained the notion of the collective.

lol, so they end up with a mutated form of Marxism (power and oppression) that's more akin to fascism in practice (focused on grievance and vengeance oops I mean justice).

We know what they want don't work, our dead knows it too. But these ones don't.

Here is something awesome coming from the Trump administration: Trump signs order to protect free speech on college campuses
https://www.today.com/video/trump-signs-order-to-protect-free-speech-on-college-campuses-1462981187623

This is a huge win and loss for those who only like free speech when they agree with the subject.

I am not a fan of trump in general (I supported Clinton in 2016 and Obama before that), but I do think he's a lot smarter than most people give him credit for. He knows how to manipulate the media quite well (again, we commies know a master media manipulator when we see one) and by proxy, the voters.

I had hoped that the college free speech issue could have been solved from the bottom up, I am just afraid that what was given can also be taken away. This "decree" however likely will win him a swath of voters in the center and center-left who are sick of the authoritarian left telling them what they can or can not say/do.

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #925 on: March 25, 2019, 12:48:12 AM »
What is so amazing in the US is that today, it makes no difference what gender, race, or even country you are from.  Everyone has equal opportunity to get an education, work hard and succeed.  When I say everyone, I mean everyone. Yes people in poor communities have a harder time to succeed, but it is not because they are minorities but because of the culture in those communities.

Enjoyit, I think this is where the disconnect occurs. They are not necessarily happy with "equal opportunity", rather, they prefer "equal outcome", hence equity.

Namely, they want to give (more like enforce) everyone similar motivation and education necessary to succeed. This mentality either implies an absolute blank-slate model where everyone was born with equal talents and abilities or that people who are for whatever reason MORE motivated need to more scrutinized to the point of near-discrimination. An example would be how Asians, particularly East Asians are suing various schools that were also involved with recent scandals.

I am a believer in equality of opportunities, alas I grew up a commie and I know full well where equality of outcome leads.

Here is the interesting point. The proponents of this social justice theory are the racist and sexist ones. People like myself who aren't racist or sexist don't get it because we don't judge people on their skin colour or ethnic background. These people do. They make race and gender huge factors. To them race or gender are critical factors.

I will state that I think some proponents of this theory in this thread simply don't have the emotional maturity to discuss these topics in detail or they have just been hoodwinked. It's not that they are racist. They are though coming from a racist/sexist paradigm. It's just like someone who was bought up to be racist or sexist and they don't understand the world isn't really like that and they haven't actually thought about it.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 01:12:34 AM by steveo »

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #926 on: March 25, 2019, 01:05:10 AM »
You want to level the playing field and I say that such a stance is in fact racist. It states that minorities need something extra where I say they are equal and can succeed on their own if given the right environment such as a cultural shift that rewards education and hard work something that is devoid in all poor communities regardless of race.  If we want to minimize the deleterious affects of racism we need to stop depicting minorities as victims but instead empower poor communities with the tools they need to understand how to be successful on their own.

Here is the interesting point. The proponents of this social justice theory are the racist and sexist ones. People like myself who aren't racist or sexist don't get it because we don't judge people on their skin colour or ethnic background. These people do. They make race and gender huge factors. To them race or gender are critical factors.

I will state that I think some proponents of this theory in this thread simply don't have the emotional maturity to discuss these topics in detail or they have just been hoodwinked. It's not that they are racist. They are though coming from a racist/sexist paradigm. It's just like someone who was bought up to be racist or sexist and they don't understand the world isn't really like that and they haven't actually thought about it.

You are being overly generous. Make no mistake, while they are the real racists and sexists, they understand the world just fine.

To them, pointing out minorities' culture as the cause of inequalities is racist because its an attempt of assimilation, and it would be trying to impose whiteness on them, or to colonize them again. Their preferred solution is to be "anti-racist", meaning that we must leave their cultures be, just give them equal outcomes, ie, equity.

To them, whiteness/racism is all encompassing, asking for rigor is racist, expecting people to be punctual is racist, conscientiousness especially is a racist white construct.

To them, not seeing skin color but instead focusing on the content of their characters is racist, because it implies we are viewing them with the "default" lens, ie, we are seeing them as white. And that we are attempting to take away their identities.

If you look at it with an utilitarian view, you begin to suspect that they do it to keep the minorities down on purpose, so that there would always be a market for their racist ideas.

They call themselves anti-racist, ya, just like the word anti-climax, it means it's simply a different kind of racism. The sh*t kind. This is an ideology that is fundamentally incompatible with Classical Liberalism that the West is built upon. Hence their constant attack on how Classical Liberalism is evil/racist/sexist/amoral.

So I ask you, what do we say to these racists? I tell them Go f*ck yourselves.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 01:30:07 AM by anisotropy »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #927 on: March 25, 2019, 01:23:31 AM »
You want to level the playing field and I say that such a stance is in fact racist. It states that minorities need something extra where I say they are equal and can succeed on their own if given the right environment such as a cultural shift that rewards education and hard work something that is devoid in all poor communities regardless of race.  If we want to minimize the deleterious affects of racism we need to stop depicting minorities as victims but instead empower poor communities with the tools they need to understand how to be successful on their own.

Here is the interesting point. The proponents of this social justice theory are the racist and sexist ones. People like myself who aren't racist or sexist don't get it because we don't judge people on their skin colour or ethnic background. These people do. They make race and gender huge factors. To them race or gender are critical factors.

I will state that I think some proponents of this theory in this thread simply don't have the emotional maturity to discuss these topics in detail or they have just been hoodwinked. It's not that they are racist. They are though coming from a racist/sexist paradigm. It's just like someone who was bought up to be racist or sexist and they don't understand the world isn't really like that and they haven't actually thought about it.

You are being overly generous. Make no mistake, while they are the real racists and sexists, they understand the world just fine.

To them, pointing at the minorities' culture as the cause of inequalities is racist because its a form of assimilation, and it would be trying to impose whiteness on them, or to colonize them again. Their preferred solution is to be "anti-racist", meaning that we must leave their cultures be, just give them equal outcomes, ie, equity.

To them, whiteness/racism is all encompassing, asking for rigor is racist, expecting people to be punctual is racist, conscientiousness especially is racist white construct.

If you look at it with an utilitarian view, you begin to suspect that they do it to keep the minorities down on purpose, so that there would always be a market for their racist ideas.

I think you are wrong. I think they are exactly like people who have been bought up racist and it's just a tribal belief system. I don't believe every poster parroting this philosophy is racist. They just don't have the ability to think in emotionally mature fashions and they've turned this into a tribal issue. Your Dostoevsky quote sums up some of the people who I think fit this category. They are so offended when you don't buy their line.

You are also right though. I'm giving the doubt to some people who contributed to this thread and puppet this abhorrent philosophy. I agree that the whole crux of this philosophy is to define everything as racist. If someone doesn't achieve top marks that is due to racism. The judging criteria is set up to help out the white person.

Did you read when I gave the example of young doctors in Australia being predominantly of Asian and Indian background. I asked if that was racism and the silence was deafening.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 01:25:23 AM by steveo »

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #928 on: March 25, 2019, 01:27:27 AM »
ya that's what prompted my initial reply. Recall what i said, by their definition one can't be racist towards whites. lol

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #929 on: March 25, 2019, 01:33:07 AM »
I'm going to state that I believe in providing equal opportunities to everyone and even providing some forms of positive discrimination to try and help people who are born into environments where it is hard to succeed on societies terms. I'm also a fan of prison and drug reform.

I don't believe that the free market provides the best outcome to society especially when society places moral judgements on things like drug taking. Capitalism works fantastically well but it has some flaws. Society needs to help out here.

The problem is that we need to accept that government intervention in society has to be limited because of philosophies as per what has been discussed within this thread. If people who are true believers in these philosophies obtain power the consequences can be horrific.

Human beings need to succeed based on their own abilities and effort. Sure luck plays a part as well but over time I don't believe luck is that important. Some people will also simply not have the same abilities as others and we need to help some of these people out. Opportunities in relation to education and health care are critical. The government also needs to provide some infrastructure (usually in tandem with free enterprise) as well as protect people against the use of force.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 04:40:23 AM by steveo »

steveo

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1943
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #930 on: March 25, 2019, 01:34:27 AM »
ya that's what prompted my initial reply. Recall what i said, by their definition one can't be racist towards whites. lol

It's hilarious isn't it.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #931 on: March 25, 2019, 01:48:22 AM »
ya that's what prompted my initial reply. Recall what i said, by their definition one can't be racist towards whites. lol

It's hilarious isn't it.

It's hilarious until it happens to you or your loved ones. By your own statement on what you believe in I might place you as a Classical Lib or NeoLib lite, both of which mean "Alt-Right" to them, hence the unrelenting personal attack and hatred from these posters.

Blasphemers are always more hated than infidels because they are more dangerous.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #932 on: March 25, 2019, 07:34:21 AM »
What is so amazing in the US is that today, it makes no difference what gender, race, or even country you are from.  Everyone has equal opportunity to get an education, work hard and succeed.  When I say everyone, I mean everyone. Yes people in poor communities have a harder time to succeed, but it is not because they are minorities but because of the culture in those communities.

Enjoyit, I think this is where the disconnect occurs. They are not necessarily happy with "equal opportunity", rather, they prefer "equal outcome", hence equity.

Namely, they want to give (more like enforce) everyone similar motivation and education necessary to succeed. This mentality either implies an absolute blank-slate model where everyone was born with equal talents and abilities or that people who are for whatever reason MORE motivated need to more scrutinized to the point of near-discrimination. An example would be how Asians, particularly East Asians are suing various schools that were also involved with recent scandals.

I am a believer in equality of opportunities, alas I grew up a commie and I know full well where equality of outcome leads.

Not at all.

I believe strongly in equal opportunity.

If you have a guy named Steve Smith and a guy named DeShawn Brown and they both submit exactly the same resume to the same set of companies, the white sounding guy gets 50% more call backs.  That is an example of the unequal opportunity that exists today as it relates to race that I think is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
 https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/.

Equal outcome though?  No, not really.  Looking at outcomes statistically (along with other metrics) is one of several ways of roughly identifying if opportunity is the same, but I would never expect outcomes to be exactly equal across all the sex/race/sexual orientation metrics.  That's obviously unreasonable.  Of course there will be variation on a case by case basis.  In a properly functioning system, this variation should be linked to intelligence, quality of work, suitability for particular careers, etc.  Not based on having a white sounding name.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 09:48:51 AM by GuitarStv »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #933 on: March 25, 2019, 07:40:53 AM »
"I will state that I think some proponents of this theory in this thread simply don't have the emotional maturity to discuss these topics in detail or they have just been hoodwinked."

I disagree. I respectfully told Anisotrophy that he was going so down the rabbit hole of paranoid thinking to the point he was saying people who are against racism are going to promote segregation of the races (white in inferior living conditions) and want total power, that maybe he should step away from the computer and interact with real people.

I was not indoctrinated about racism. On the contrary I grew up in the Midwest and was taught that racism was bad, but it was a historical abberation which has now been corrected. My change in my views came directly upon moving to the south and seeing things that to everyone was part of the landscape, but showed to me that the effects of generational racism is still alive and well. Schools closed rather than be segregated. Older black people AFRAID of dogs, all dogs.
I was fortunate to talk to older African Americans about their experiences as part of a research project. The topic was NOT about racism (about end of life) but their memories of what they experienced during segregation, and after segregation was outlawed but still maintained informally is - shocking. They were taught by their parents to not look at a white person in the eye. Otherwise they risk a beating. Did you have to learn that lesson when you were a kid? Laws were only enforced for white people.  In our town, I saw the perfectly fine municipal pool closed, for many years. During segregation the city preferred to close the pool than have blacks use the pool. History has an effect on the present. Present day, African American kids are 5 times more likely to die from drowning than white American kids. Does it have to do with motivation and hard work? Fuck no. Other countries like Great Britain do not have those racial disparities. It has to do with our racial history, and that their parents and their parents before them didn't have access to pools and never learned how to swim and couldn't teach their kids to swim.
To heal as a country we need to acknowledge that race relations while obviously better than in the past, are still MESSED UP. Not spout whatever academic or literary bullshit you object to and think is more relevant than real people, and real lives. 
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 09:28:24 AM by partgypsy »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #934 on: March 25, 2019, 07:54:33 AM »
a few points:
1) I disagree with the concept of wealth inequality if it pertains to redistribution of wealth.  I am for paths that allow people to reach their own wealth as apposed to spreading around the wealth of others.

2) What does leveling the playing field mean and how do we do it?  Since we both agree that the problem we are seeing is a lack of education on how to succeed in poor communities.  It is a culture that ridicules hard work and striving for good grades as opposed to promoting it and that is where our resources should go.  There is no quick fix because it will take 1 or 2 generations for those process to permeate through to almost everyone in those communities.

I would also go to venture that poor communities are poor not because they are minorities but because the majority of the people living there don't understand how to succeed, don't teach their children to succeed, and even worse ridicule those who try to better themselves.  This is not a black thing, or a white thing.  It is a poor thing.  We as a society that wants to do good start throwing money at the problem because we believe that more money equals more resources and we "level the paying field" when in fact we may be handicapping those individuals into a sense of government subsistence if all we do is provide resources for the present instead of resources to build a better future.

1.  There aren't too many people who believe that a guy who makes 10 billion dollars a year should pay the same amount in taxes as a guy who makes 10,000 dollars a year.  The rich man enjoys greater benefit from public service . . . he has more to lose (typically lots of stuff, several properties, etc.), so police protection is more important to maintaining his wealth.  He travels more, so transportation infrastructure is of greater benefit to him.  He has a greater interest in keeping the poor happy because he is the one most likely to be put up against the wall and shot in the case of an uprising.

When the billionaire pays more in taxes than go to fund social programs (say a food program for kids who don't have enough to eat at home), this is wealth redistribution.  You are against that?



2.  That's a complicated question to answer.  There are a large number of things that can be done to level the playing field . . . from ensuring that quality of public education is extremely high, to providing food programs for kids, to providing help/support to poor parents, to providing health (including mental health) services to people who need them, etc.  This list goes on and on.  I'm not interested in 'throwing money at the problem', I'm interested in providing an easier path to success for a greater number of people.  Unfortunately, many of these solutions are a change from the current status quo, so will cost money.

If your concern is a culture that ridicules hard work and education (since those things didn't work for the parents/grandparents due to factors like racism) what do you propose to fix the problem you've identified?


What is so amazing in the US is that today, it makes no difference what gender, race, or even country you are from.  Everyone has equal opportunity to get an education, work hard and succeed.  When I say everyone, I mean everyone. Yes people in poor communities have a harder time to succeed, but it is not because they are minorities but because of the culture in those communities.

You've said this a couple times now, and it has been refuted a couple times now.

Everyone does not have equal opportunity if you have to work twice as hard to get the same number of call backs because your name sounds black.

Does the fact that opportunity is not equal mean that you can't succeed if you're a minority?  No, obviously not.  If you're black and work twice as hard, you get the same opportunity as a guy with a white sounding name . . . so success is certainly a possibility.  Working harder is generally the advice that I'd give anyone who doesn't have the opportunity that a straight white male has in the job market.  But I don't think that it's fair to have a system where that is the case.

I agree with you that treating people like victims isn't a great way to motivate them . . . but I also see that pretending well proven structural disadvantages that exist in our society don't exist is not a great way to motivate someone either.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 09:45:59 AM by GuitarStv »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4712
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #935 on: March 25, 2019, 09:06:15 AM »
It's hilarious until it happens to you or your loved ones. By your own statement on what you believe in I might place you as a Classical Lib or NeoLib lite, both of which mean "Alt-Right" to them, hence the unrelenting personal attack and hatred from these posters.

Citation please on the "unrelenting personal attack."

Since it's unrelenting, there must be plenty to choose from and perhaps those users should be reported. Thanks.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 09:11:07 AM by bacchi »

partgypsy

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3987
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #936 on: March 25, 2019, 09:40:02 AM »
"I agree with you that treating people like victims isn't a great way to motivate them . . . but I also see that pretending well proven structural disadvantages that exist in our society don't exist is not a great way to motivate someone either."

Spot on. Most people do not want to see themselves as a victim. Even people who go through horrific things, they survive by focusing on getting past it. At the same time, to assert that that multi-generational historic racism has little or no effect on present day American blacks, is just denying reality. And it allow no opportunity for healing and moving past it. Something that you think is silly and trivial, such as protesting civil war statues, has a deeper story than you may think.

I don't know the way moving forward, but denying a problem exists, or shooting the messenger of a truth, even if the truth is unpleasant is not usually an effective solution.

Watchmaker

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 728
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #937 on: March 25, 2019, 10:45:59 AM »
But why are you all engaging in this nonsense?

It's been useful for me. I know a fair number of people who have beliefs similar to Steveo's. I talk with them, but I struggle to get coherent, rational explanations for those beliefs from them. I think Steveo has been honest and fairly clear. I'm not saying I agree with him, but I now understand where we differ, and we are not really that far apart.

I'm going to state that I believe in providing equal opportunities to everyone and even providing some forms of positive discrimination to try and help people who are born into environments where it is hard to succeed on societies terms. I'm also a fan of prison and drug reform.



I don't believe that the free market provides the best outcome to society especially when society places moral judgements on things like drug taking. Capitalism works fantastically well but it has some flaws. Society needs to help out here.

...

Human beings need to succeed based on their own abilities and effort. Sure luck plays a part as well but over time I don't believe luck is that important. Some people will also simply not have the same abilities as others and we need to help some of these people out. Opportunities in relation to education and health care are critical. The government also needs to provide some infrastructure (usually in tandem with free enterprise) as well as protect people against the use of force.

The only part of this quote above I disagree with is the bolded section. That seems like a lot of common ground, from which we could hopefully do some good.

Did you read when I gave the example of young doctors in Australia being predominantly of Asian and Indian background. I asked if that was racism and the silence was deafening.

I didn't engage on the Asian doctors question, because I have been focusing on understanding your position better and that felt like a distraction. But if it's important to you, I'm willing to discuss it. First, let me say I'm going to skip all the caveats and contexts I'd provide if I was trying to be fully rigorous--I'll trust that you'll read generously.

I don't think that racism is a good explanation for the high rates of Asian doctors in Western countries. I see many factors:

-Many Western countries have skill-based immigration rules. This means that being a doctor (or engineer or scientist) has been a good way of gaining entry into countries like the US or Australia.
-Western countries are desirable places to live, so many people would immigrate if they can.
-Western countries' universities have held positions of prestige around the world, so many people try to get their education in America, which often leads to them staying.
-The universities promoted this because they enjoy the full-rate tuition those students pay.
-There is a genuine shortage of doctors being trained in Western countries (I know this is true for the state I live in, anyway).
-There's probably also a cost control component. Immigrant doctors are likely willing to work for less pay that American doctors, so hiring them keeps healthcare costs down.
-India & China have large populations relative to the US, so they have more people capable of being good doctors (not as a %, but it raw numbers).
-Many Asian and Asian-American (and probably Asian-Australian) communities put a lot of emphasis on education, hard work, and obtaining good paying jobs.

I don't see significant racism in any of those points. No one is forcing Asians to be doctors, and I don't see where anyone else is being prevented from pursuing the career, except to the degree to which immigrant doctors might be bidding down the salaries.

This is very different than the case of African Americans, who suffered from the most heinous racism imaginable. It's absolutely true that it has gotten so much better-- outright, public racism is now rarer and usually rejected by the larger community. But I've had too much exposure to actual racism to believe it's all in the past. I live in the northern US and I know white people who regularly use the n-word, who wouldn't consider hiring a black person "because they're lazy", and who are suspicious of any black person they meet. And I've read enough scientific studies to believe the weight of the evidence is on my side that even people who don't intend to be racist (such as myself) have subtle behaviors that, when added to everyone else's subtle behaviors, result in "headwinds" for black people, stronger even then the "headwinds" faced by poor white people (who we should also be trying to help).



EnjoyIt

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1399
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #938 on: March 25, 2019, 11:16:32 AM »
a few points:
1) I disagree with the concept of wealth inequality if it pertains to redistribution of wealth.  I am for paths that allow people to reach their own wealth as apposed to spreading around the wealth of others.

2) What does leveling the playing field mean and how do we do it?  Since we both agree that the problem we are seeing is a lack of education on how to succeed in poor communities.  It is a culture that ridicules hard work and striving for good grades as opposed to promoting it and that is where our resources should go.  There is no quick fix because it will take 1 or 2 generations for those process to permeate through to almost everyone in those communities.

I would also go to venture that poor communities are poor not because they are minorities but because the majority of the people living there don't understand how to succeed, don't teach their children to succeed, and even worse ridicule those who try to better themselves.  This is not a black thing, or a white thing.  It is a poor thing.  We as a society that wants to do good start throwing money at the problem because we believe that more money equals more resources and we "level the paying field" when in fact we may be handicapping those individuals into a sense of government subsistence if all we do is provide resources for the present instead of resources to build a better future.

1.  There aren't too many people who believe that a guy who makes 10 billion dollars a year should pay the same amount in taxes as a guy who makes 10,000 dollars a year.  The rich man enjoys greater benefit from public service . . . he has more to lose (typically lots of stuff, several properties, etc.), so police protection is more important to maintaining his wealth.  He travels more, so transportation infrastructure is of greater benefit to him.  He has a greater interest in keeping the poor happy because he is the one most likely to be put up against the wall and shot in the case of an uprising.

When the billionaire pays more in taxes than go to fund social programs (say a food program for kids who don't have enough to eat at home), this is wealth redistribution.  You are against that?



2.  That's a complicated question to answer.  There are a large number of things that can be done to level the playing field . . . from ensuring that quality of public education is extremely high, to providing food programs for kids, to providing help/support to poor parents, to providing health (including mental health) services to people who need them, etc.  This list goes on and on.  I'm not interested in 'throwing money at the problem', I'm interested in providing an easier path to success for a greater number of people.  Unfortunately, many of these solutions are a change from the current status quo, so will cost money.

If your concern is a culture that ridicules hard work and education (since those things didn't work for the parents/grandparents due to factors like racism) what do you propose to fix the problem you've identified?


What is so amazing in the US is that today, it makes no difference what gender, race, or even country you are from.  Everyone has equal opportunity to get an education, work hard and succeed.  When I say everyone, I mean everyone. Yes people in poor communities have a harder time to succeed, but it is not because they are minorities but because of the culture in those communities.

You've said this a couple times now, and it has been refuted a couple times now.

Everyone does not have equal opportunity if you have to work twice as hard to get the same number of call backs because your name sounds black.

Does the fact that opportunity is not equal mean that you can't succeed if you're a minority?  No, obviously not.  If you're black and work twice as hard, you get the same opportunity as a guy with a white sounding name . . . so success is certainly a possibility.  Working harder is generally the advice that I'd give anyone who doesn't have the opportunity that a straight white male has in the job market.  But I don't think that it's fair to have a system where that is the case.

I agree with you that treating people like victims isn't a great way to motivate them . . . but I also see that pretending well proven structural disadvantages that exist in our society don't exist is not a great way to motivate someone either.

1) I never said that. If you make more you pay more $ in taxes even if percent is the same.

2) I have not had a chance to but will look at the link you provided about call backs and respond later.
Annecdotely as an employer or ex-employer I do not see that but I realize my experience is not reality for the whole US so it deserves more of my attention.

3) I stand by my statement that race does not matter as proven by every immigrants who learn to play the US game and become more successful than their white American counterparts.

4) we seem to want the same outcome though have some slight disagreements on how to get there. I believe just giving people money or jobs they didn’t earn adds to the problem. I believe teaching people how to break free from the cycle of poor mentality will have far lasting results. Those results will require 1-2 generations to be prevalent in poor communities. And again, this is not about race, this is about being poor.

Just as an example. Single young uneducated mom Is pregnant. What do we do? Free housing and food with free healthcare. Thank you very much, who is next. We just failed this mother and this child who will have a high likelihood of being attached to the government teet their entirety life.
Alternative, provide free housing food and healthcare for a limited time while also providing mandatory education so that the mom will learn the needed resources to get a job and learn to succeed and survive on her own.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #939 on: March 25, 2019, 11:20:24 AM »
What is so amazing in the US is that today, it makes no difference what gender, race, or even country you are from.  Everyone has equal opportunity to get an education, work hard and succeed.  When I say everyone, I mean everyone. Yes people in poor communities have a harder time to succeed, but it is not because they are minorities but because of the culture in those communities.

Enjoyit, I think this is where the disconnect occurs. They are not necessarily happy with "equal opportunity", rather, they prefer "equal outcome", hence equity.

Namely, they want to give (more like enforce) everyone similar motivation and education necessary to succeed. This mentality either implies an absolute blank-slate model where everyone was born with equal talents and abilities or that people who are for whatever reason MORE motivated need to more scrutinized to the point of near-discrimination. An example would be how Asians, particularly East Asians are suing various schools that were also involved with recent scandals.

I am a believer in equality of opportunities, alas I grew up a commie and I know full well where equality of outcome leads.

Not at all.

I believe strongly in equal opportunity.

If you have a guy named Steve Smith and a guy named DeShawn Brown and they both submit exactly the same resume to the same set of companies, the white sounding guy gets 50% more call backs.  That is an example of the unequal opportunity that exists today as it relates to race that I think is a serious problem that needs to be addressed.
 https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/mar/15/jalen-ross/black-name-resume-50-percent-less-likely-get-respo/.

Equal outcome though?  No, not really.  Looking at outcomes statistically (along with other metrics) is one of several ways of roughly identifying if opportunity is the same, but I would never expect outcomes to be exactly equal across all the sex/race/sexual orientation metrics.  That's obviously unreasonable.  Of course there will be variation on a case by case basis.  In a properly functioning system, this variation should be linked to intelligence, quality of work, suitability for particular careers, etc.  Not based on having a white sounding name.

alright, i gotta head out, so this will be jumpy.

First of all, "a large body of social science evidence on racial discrimination operates under a misguided assumption that all black names are alike, and the findings from correspondence audits are likely sensitive to name selection"

Note how the key misguided assumption is "all black names are alike". This ties back to the corrupted collective mentality in the PoMo Left, all minorities (because of intersectionality and oppression) must share similar characteristics. But it's not true.

https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-4/september/SocSci_v4_469to489.pdf

Secondly, the Names Signaling has just as much to do with social status than as race
https://www.bustle.com/p/a-new-study-on-name-discrimination-suggests-names-signaling-race-are-also-linked-to-social-status-2348497

Finally, white sounding names "problem" is something ALL immigrants encounter, including asians, latinos, and eastern europeans. even Jews.
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/immigrants-american-sounding-first-names/579367/

Based on these 3 alone, it's not hard to see the fuller picture beyond the commonly touted "omg black sounding names are discriminated against" partial picture.

Having a name that are familiar to employers is a SIGN of assimilation and candidate's willingness to integrate into the society. Don't just scream racism at everything, it can often be explained within the non-racist framework. Are you going to go full anti-racist and claim that the "assimilation" is racist now?

bacchi,
Don't lie, you know you typed "Internet ARW" yesterday and quickly edited out.

finally PG, i wouldn't call it paranoia, because my "work" is built on established canon in the CRT, as i typed out in another post which fits perfectly. When you have a whole field that is openly racist towards certain ethnicity (predominately white for now), and has no way to either verify or falsify its "ideas" which are presented as facts. Combine that with some sort of rationalization that all these racist ideas are justified ant not racist at all, you will end up with some variations of the "final solution".  As a side note, some school in Spain already rolled out a program to "educate" white kids by denying them recess on occassion.

k done.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 11:32:16 AM by anisotropy »

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4712
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #940 on: March 25, 2019, 11:27:03 AM »
bacchi,
Don't lie, you know you typed "Internet ARW" yesterday and quickly edited out.

Yes, I did write that. When did I lie about it? Citation please.

Do you have any other examples? It was "unrelenting" so there should be plenty. Thanks.

It's hilarious until it happens to you or your loved ones. By your own statement on what you believe in I might place you as a Classical Lib or NeoLib lite, both of which mean "Alt-Right" to them, hence the unrelenting personal attack and hatred from these posters.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 11:32:29 AM by bacchi »

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #941 on: March 25, 2019, 11:40:46 AM »
a few points:
1) I disagree with the concept of wealth inequality if it pertains to redistribution of wealth.  I am for paths that allow people to reach their own wealth as apposed to spreading around the wealth of others.

2) What does leveling the playing field mean and how do we do it?  Since we both agree that the problem we are seeing is a lack of education on how to succeed in poor communities.  It is a culture that ridicules hard work and striving for good grades as opposed to promoting it and that is where our resources should go.  There is no quick fix because it will take 1 or 2 generations for those process to permeate through to almost everyone in those communities.

I would also go to venture that poor communities are poor not because they are minorities but because the majority of the people living there don't understand how to succeed, don't teach their children to succeed, and even worse ridicule those who try to better themselves.  This is not a black thing, or a white thing.  It is a poor thing.  We as a society that wants to do good start throwing money at the problem because we believe that more money equals more resources and we "level the paying field" when in fact we may be handicapping those individuals into a sense of government subsistence if all we do is provide resources for the present instead of resources to build a better future.

1.  There aren't too many people who believe that a guy who makes 10 billion dollars a year should pay the same amount in taxes as a guy who makes 10,000 dollars a year.  The rich man enjoys greater benefit from public service . . . he has more to lose (typically lots of stuff, several properties, etc.), so police protection is more important to maintaining his wealth.  He travels more, so transportation infrastructure is of greater benefit to him.  He has a greater interest in keeping the poor happy because he is the one most likely to be put up against the wall and shot in the case of an uprising.

When the billionaire pays more in taxes than go to fund social programs (say a food program for kids who don't have enough to eat at home), this is wealth redistribution.  You are against that?



2.  That's a complicated question to answer.  There are a large number of things that can be done to level the playing field . . . from ensuring that quality of public education is extremely high, to providing food programs for kids, to providing help/support to poor parents, to providing health (including mental health) services to people who need them, etc.  This list goes on and on.  I'm not interested in 'throwing money at the problem', I'm interested in providing an easier path to success for a greater number of people.  Unfortunately, many of these solutions are a change from the current status quo, so will cost money.

If your concern is a culture that ridicules hard work and education (since those things didn't work for the parents/grandparents due to factors like racism) what do you propose to fix the problem you've identified?


What is so amazing in the US is that today, it makes no difference what gender, race, or even country you are from.  Everyone has equal opportunity to get an education, work hard and succeed.  When I say everyone, I mean everyone. Yes people in poor communities have a harder time to succeed, but it is not because they are minorities but because of the culture in those communities.

You've said this a couple times now, and it has been refuted a couple times now.

Everyone does not have equal opportunity if you have to work twice as hard to get the same number of call backs because your name sounds black.

Does the fact that opportunity is not equal mean that you can't succeed if you're a minority?  No, obviously not.  If you're black and work twice as hard, you get the same opportunity as a guy with a white sounding name . . . so success is certainly a possibility.  Working harder is generally the advice that I'd give anyone who doesn't have the opportunity that a straight white male has in the job market.  But I don't think that it's fair to have a system where that is the case.

I agree with you that treating people like victims isn't a great way to motivate them . . . but I also see that pretending well proven structural disadvantages that exist in our society don't exist is not a great way to motivate someone either.

1) I never said that. If you make more you pay more $ in taxes even if percent is the same.

Yes.  If you make more money you pay more in taxes, then the taxes fund programs - many of which help those who make less money.  This is how wealth re-distribution works in our society.  But you said you were opposed to redistribution of wealth.

Are you opposed to all forms of wealth redistribution, or are there just certain types of wealth redistribution that you don't like?



2) I have not had a chance to but will look at the link you provided about call backs and respond later.
Annecdotely as an employer or ex-employer I do not see that but I realize my experience is not reality for the whole US so it deserves more of my attention.

The link that I posted wasn't to one of the many studies demonstrating that having a black sounding name results in fewer job opportunities.  If you want the specific one that I was referencing, you can find it here: 
https://www.nber.org/papers/w9873


3) I stand by my statement that race does not matter as proven by every immigrants who learn to play the US game and become more successful than their white American counterparts.

The fact that some immigrants do as well or better than their white American counterparts does not prove that they are on an equal playing field.

That's like proving that drugs have no impact on athletic performance by comparing a stoned Michael Jordan playing basketball to a sober me.  Jordan will win because he's better.  That doesn't mean that we started on an equal playing field.
 

4) we seem to want the same outcome though have some slight disagreements on how to get there. I believe just giving people money or jobs they didn’t earn adds to the problem. I believe teaching people how to break free from the cycle of poor mentality will have far lasting results. Those results will require 1-2 generations to be prevalent in poor communities. And again, this is not about race, this is about being poor.

That's another straw man.  I have not argued (and don't believe) that giving people money or jobs they didn't earn will solve the problem.  I'm in complete agreement that teaching people to break free from the cycle of poor mentality will have lasting results.

Where we seem to disagree is that you appear to believe that pretending racism is not a component of that cycle for some will lead to better results.  You have yet to have articulated exactly why this is so though.


Just as an example. Single young uneducated mom Is pregnant. What do we do? Free housing and food with free healthcare. Thank you very much, who is next. We just failed this mother and this child who will have a high likelihood of being attached to the government teet their entirety life.
Alternative, provide free housing food and healthcare for a limited time while also providing mandatory education so that the mom will learn the needed resources to get a job and learn to succeed and survive on her own.

Another straw man.  You're arguing against something that I don't support or want, while providing a solution that is more closely aligned to what I believe is reasonable.

GuitarStv

  • Senior Mustachian
  • ********
  • Posts: 16041
  • Age: 39
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #942 on: March 25, 2019, 12:06:27 PM »
First of all, "a large body of social science evidence on racial discrimination operates under a misguided assumption that all black names are alike, and the findings from correspondence audits are likely sensitive to name selection"

Note how the key misguided assumption is "all black names are alike". This ties back to the corrupted collective mentality in the PoMo Left, all minorities (because of intersectionality and oppression) must share similar characteristics. But it's not true.

https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-4/september/SocSci_v4_469to489.pdf

I agree with you, all black names are not alike.  There are a wide variety of names that people of any ethnicity take.  I think that we can agree however, that there are startlingly few white guys named DeShawn.  The basic premise of the study (to figure out if names commonly associated with a particular ethnicity are treated differently by employers) is therefore still valid.


Secondly, the Names Signaling has just as much to do with social status than as race
https://www.bustle.com/p/a-new-study-on-name-discrimination-suggests-names-signaling-race-are-also-linked-to-social-status-2348497

Yes, I'm well aware of this and agree.  As black people make up significantly more of the lower rungs of social status in America, this is certainly to be expected.


Finally, white sounding names "problem" is something ALL immigrants encounter, including asians, latinos, and eastern europeans. even Jews.
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/immigrants-american-sounding-first-names/579367/

Woah, hold your horses here.

DeShawn is an American name, not an immigrant name.  It has roots in America, not Europe, not Africa, not Asia.  The name is significantly more popular in the African American community than anywhere else . . . but is arguably more American than a name like "Steven" or "Greg", both of which originated in Greece.


Having a name that are familiar to employers is a SIGN of assimilation and candidate's willingness to integrate into the society. Don't just scream racism at everything, it can often be explained within the non-racist framework. Are you going to go full anti-racist and claim that the "assimilation" is racist now?

As mentioned, a name like Deshawn is a traditional, American created name.  It's just a name that was popular in the black rather than white community.  Can you explain why you believe that black Americans with American names should change their names to one of a European origin in order to assimilate to what their white employers want?
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 12:08:34 PM by GuitarStv »

Boofinator

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1432
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #943 on: March 25, 2019, 01:48:31 PM »

I worked with a Nigerian immigrant who came to the US as a child.  Immigrating to the US, they came to live in a poverty stricken African American community. Her whole life her parents instilled the benefits of education.  As my friend describes, her parents did everything in their power so the children will become successful. She and all 5 of her siblings are successful adults today all with upper level degrees and well paying jobs.  She tells me stories of friends in high school who's parents actually put them down for trying to get good grades with an attitude of the parent not wanting to see their child have better success than them which as a very stark opposite of how my Nigerian friend grew up.  I have another successful African American friend who too experienced this among his high school friends.  The way I see it, if kids are not incentivized and taught how to break free from poverty, how will they not follow in the footsteps of their parents?

Does anyone have an opinion on these anecdotes?

I also want to make it clear that this is not about racism and that I see acts of racism regularly enough to know it still exists. And to stay on point to this topic, I am fiscally conservative and social liberal. I don't see a vs. or a conflict in my views.

I have similar anecdotes. Some of the most successful African-Americans I've met are immigrants from Africa or the Caribbean (Trinidad and Bahamas). I don't pretend to begin to understand the causal factors (if it happens to be anything more than a random anecdote), but I suspect it has something to do with seeing people who look like them in positions of responsibility, and therefore conceptualizing that it is possible. For this reason (and some others) I am on-board with criteria that consider diversity for hiring practices, college enrollment, etc. (though not at the expense of lowering standards, if that makes sense). I believe one day these practices will be obsolete and a relic of history, but we aren't there yet. (Actually, they might be needed forever, because there will always be tribal people.)

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #944 on: March 25, 2019, 02:49:43 PM »
First of all, "a large body of social science evidence on racial discrimination operates under a misguided assumption that all black names are alike, and the findings from correspondence audits are likely sensitive to name selection"

Note how the key misguided assumption is "all black names are alike". This ties back to the corrupted collective mentality in the PoMo Left, all minorities (because of intersectionality and oppression) must share similar characteristics. But it's not true.

https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-4/september/SocSci_v4_469to489.pdf

I agree with you, all black names are not alike.  There are a wide variety of names that people of any ethnicity take.  I think that we can agree however, that there are startlingly few white guys named DeShawn.  The basic premise of the study (to figure out if names commonly associated with a particular ethnicity are treated differently by employers) is therefore still valid.


Secondly, the Names Signaling has just as much to do with social status than as race
https://www.bustle.com/p/a-new-study-on-name-discrimination-suggests-names-signaling-race-are-also-linked-to-social-status-2348497

Yes, I'm well aware of this and agree.  As black people make up significantly more of the lower rungs of social status in America, this is certainly to be expected.


Finally, white sounding names "problem" is something ALL immigrants encounter, including asians, latinos, and eastern europeans. even Jews.
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/immigrants-american-sounding-first-names/579367/

Woah, hold your horses here.

DeShawn is an American name, not an immigrant name.  It has roots in America, not Europe, not Africa, not Asia.  The name is significantly more popular in the African American community than anywhere else . . . but is arguably more American than a name like "Steven" or "Greg", both of which originated in Greece.


Having a name that are familiar to employers is a SIGN of assimilation and candidate's willingness to integrate into the society. Don't just scream racism at everything, it can often be explained within the non-racist framework. Are you going to go full anti-racist and claim that the "assimilation" is racist now?

As mentioned, a name like Deshawn is a traditional, American created name.  It's just a name that was popular in the black rather than white community.  Can you explain why you believe that black Americans with American names should change their names to one of a European origin in order to assimilate to what their white employers want?

right so round and round we go. Deshawn, in this case, is perceived negatively because of the social status, not so much race. Deshawn apparently first became popular in the late 60s (which apparently was of Irish origin, lol what), much later than Steve or Greg of "greek" origin.

Literally EVERY ETHNIC GROUP went through the same name-related discrimination historically in the States. From the Italians, to the Irish, to the Germans, the Jews, East Asians, South Asians, East Europeans. All of these groups were shunned because of their low social status and the jobs they did were less than "prestigious" and "professional". But they worked through it. At the turn of the 19th century the Chinese were treated worse than Blacks in Cali. So the Chinese did the crappy and shady jobs to survive, yet at the same time they improved their cognitive abilities to surpass even the Whites in standardized exams. So when the openly discriminatory policies were finally removed post war, the Chinese population flourished.

But what do we see when it comes to Black exam scores? OMG the exams are RACIST, OMG the structure is RACIST, OMG why you impose your whiteness on us.

As a result the homegrown American Blacks NEVER completed the path, they are stuck in limbo, no KEPT in limbo.

Ever heard of Marva Collins? She taught her low-income black pupils the "white" (aka classical, greek, socratic) way, she essentially removed all of the bs PoMo bits in other black schools (aka you do you) but instead taught them YOU are responsible for your own life, not the govt, not the "white saviors", not racism, just YOU.

There is almost a formulaic path for each ethnic group to become fully integrated and overcome stigma and discrimination in the long run. Booker Washington saw it and wanted to fix it for the long haul, but no, it's much easier for militants like "Willie" (Kendi's word, not mine) Du Bois and race hustlers like Davis and Coates to call upon grievance and resentment for a quick fix in the form of EQUITY, welfare and pity.

It. Does. Not. Work.
It. Has. Never. Worked. Anywhere. In. The. World.


Blacks are equally capable like everyone else to thrive in the absence of government interventions, just look at all the recent Black immigrants (incidentally, these areas were not tainted by bs "anti-racist" policies). It is the homegrown American Blacks that are lagging in almost EVERY regard, these anti-racist (more like extremely racist) policies championed by the identitarian left dont work. the longer you do it, the worse their condition will become.

The more you want to emphasize how "unique" you are, the more you want to show your "differences" with your immutable characteristics, your unique history, your unique culture, the more you are pushing everyone else away.

Just compare their conditions today to when the SoJ movement first began in 2010. Things are worse for them today than 10 years ago. But you know who benefited from all this? The damn race hustlers, the damn CRT "scholars", the damn "journalists" who went through various PoMo "studies". Their employment positions have increased by almost 1000%.

There is a reason why "white left" aka left-leaning whites who went through PoMo studies in higher ed see racism as a bigger problem than how minorities view them (by almost a factor of 2). It's monetary. These damn race hustlers' livelihood DEPEND on racism being perceived a bigger problem than it actually is.
« Last Edit: March 25, 2019, 03:03:08 PM by anisotropy »

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #945 on: March 25, 2019, 03:52:39 PM »
First of all, "a large body of social science evidence on racial discrimination operates under a misguided assumption that all black names are alike, and the findings from correspondence audits are likely sensitive to name selection"

Note how the key misguided assumption is "all black names are alike". This ties back to the corrupted collective mentality in the PoMo Left, all minorities (because of intersectionality and oppression) must share similar characteristics. But it's not true.

https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-4/september/SocSci_v4_469to489.pdf

I agree with you, all black names are not alike.  There are a wide variety of names that people of any ethnicity take.  I think that we can agree however, that there are startlingly few white guys named DeShawn.  The basic premise of the study (to figure out if names commonly associated with a particular ethnicity are treated differently by employers) is therefore still valid.


Secondly, the Names Signaling has just as much to do with social status than as race
https://www.bustle.com/p/a-new-study-on-name-discrimination-suggests-names-signaling-race-are-also-linked-to-social-status-2348497

Yes, I'm well aware of this and agree.  As black people make up significantly more of the lower rungs of social status in America, this is certainly to be expected.


Finally, white sounding names "problem" is something ALL immigrants encounter, including asians, latinos, and eastern europeans. even Jews.
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/immigrants-american-sounding-first-names/579367/

Woah, hold your horses here.

DeShawn is an American name, not an immigrant name.  It has roots in America, not Europe, not Africa, not Asia.  The name is significantly more popular in the African American community than anywhere else . . . but is arguably more American than a name like "Steven" or "Greg", both of which originated in Greece.


Having a name that are familiar to employers is a SIGN of assimilation and candidate's willingness to integrate into the society. Don't just scream racism at everything, it can often be explained within the non-racist framework. Are you going to go full anti-racist and claim that the "assimilation" is racist now?

As mentioned, a name like Deshawn is a traditional, American created name.  It's just a name that was popular in the black rather than white community.  Can you explain why you believe that black Americans with American names should change their names to one of a European origin in order to assimilate to what their white employers want?

right so round and round we go. Deshawn, in this case, is perceived negatively because of the social status, not so much race. Deshawn apparently first became popular in the late 60s (which apparently was of Irish origin, lol what), much later than Steve or Greg of "greek" origin.

Literally EVERY ETHNIC GROUP went through the same name-related discrimination historically in the States. From the Italians, to the Irish, to the Germans, the Jews, East Asians, South Asians, East Europeans. All of these groups were shunned because of their low social status and the jobs they did were less than "prestigious" and "professional". But they worked through it. At the turn of the 19th century the Chinese were treated worse than Blacks in Cali. So the Chinese did the crappy and shady jobs to survive, yet at the same time they improved their cognitive abilities to surpass even the Whites in standardized exams. So when the openly discriminatory policies were finally removed post war, the Chinese population flourished.

But what do we see when it comes to Black exam scores? OMG the exams are RACIST, OMG the structure is RACIST, OMG why you impose your whiteness on us.

As a result the homegrown American Blacks NEVER completed the path, they are stuck in limbo, no KEPT in limbo.

Ever heard of Marva Collins? She taught her low-income black pupils the "white" (aka classical, greek, socratic) way, she essentially removed all of the bs PoMo bits in other black schools (aka you do you) but instead taught them YOU are responsible for your own life, not the govt, not the "white saviors", not racism, just YOU.

There is almost a formulaic path for each ethnic group to become fully integrated and overcome stigma and discrimination in the long run. Booker Washington saw it and wanted to fix it for the long haul, but no, it's much easier for militants like "Willie" (Kendi's word, not mine) Du Bois and race hustlers like Davis and Coates to call upon grievance and resentment for a quick fix in the form of EQUITY, welfare and pity.

It. Does. Not. Work.
It. Has. Never. Worked. Anywhere. In. The. World.


Blacks are equally capable like everyone else to thrive in the absence of government interventions, just look at all the recent Black immigrants (incidentally, these areas were not tainted by bs "anti-racist" policies). It is the homegrown American Blacks that are lagging in almost EVERY regard, these anti-racist (more like extremely racist) policies championed by the identitarian left dont work. the longer you do it, the worse their condition will become.

The more you want to emphasize how "unique" you are, the more you want to show your "differences" with your immutable characteristics, your unique history, your unique culture, the more you are pushing everyone else away.

Just compare their conditions today to when the SoJ movement first began in 2010. Things are worse for them today than 10 years ago. But you know who benefited from all this? The damn race hustlers, the damn CRT "scholars", the damn "journalists" who went through various PoMo "studies". Their employment positions have increased by almost 1000%.

There is a reason why "white left" aka left-leaning whites who went through PoMo studies in higher ed see racism as a bigger problem than how minorities view them (by almost a factor of 2). It's monetary. These damn race hustlers' livelihood DEPEND on racism being perceived a bigger problem than it actually is.

So your basic stance is "EVERY migrant group coming to America is crapped on and stuck in a giant hole by white people.  Everyone else dug themselves out of this hole so if black people can't, it's their own damn fault".  Is that pretty much the gist of it?

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #946 on: March 25, 2019, 04:17:00 PM »
First of all, "a large body of social science evidence on racial discrimination operates under a misguided assumption that all black names are alike, and the findings from correspondence audits are likely sensitive to name selection"

Note how the key misguided assumption is "all black names are alike". This ties back to the corrupted collective mentality in the PoMo Left, all minorities (because of intersectionality and oppression) must share similar characteristics. But it's not true.

https://www.sociologicalscience.com/download/vol-4/september/SocSci_v4_469to489.pdf

I agree with you, all black names are not alike.  There are a wide variety of names that people of any ethnicity take.  I think that we can agree however, that there are startlingly few white guys named DeShawn.  The basic premise of the study (to figure out if names commonly associated with a particular ethnicity are treated differently by employers) is therefore still valid.


Secondly, the Names Signaling has just as much to do with social status than as race
https://www.bustle.com/p/a-new-study-on-name-discrimination-suggests-names-signaling-race-are-also-linked-to-social-status-2348497

Yes, I'm well aware of this and agree.  As black people make up significantly more of the lower rungs of social status in America, this is certainly to be expected.


Finally, white sounding names "problem" is something ALL immigrants encounter, including asians, latinos, and eastern europeans. even Jews.
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/01/immigrants-american-sounding-first-names/579367/

Woah, hold your horses here.

DeShawn is an American name, not an immigrant name.  It has roots in America, not Europe, not Africa, not Asia.  The name is significantly more popular in the African American community than anywhere else . . . but is arguably more American than a name like "Steven" or "Greg", both of which originated in Greece.


Having a name that are familiar to employers is a SIGN of assimilation and candidate's willingness to integrate into the society. Don't just scream racism at everything, it can often be explained within the non-racist framework. Are you going to go full anti-racist and claim that the "assimilation" is racist now?

As mentioned, a name like Deshawn is a traditional, American created name.  It's just a name that was popular in the black rather than white community.  Can you explain why you believe that black Americans with American names should change their names to one of a European origin in order to assimilate to what their white employers want?

right so round and round we go. Deshawn, in this case, is perceived negatively because of the social status, not so much race. Deshawn apparently first became popular in the late 60s (which apparently was of Irish origin, lol what), much later than Steve or Greg of "greek" origin.

Literally EVERY ETHNIC GROUP went through the same name-related discrimination historically in the States. From the Italians, to the Irish, to the Germans, the Jews, East Asians, South Asians, East Europeans. All of these groups were shunned because of their low social status and the jobs they did were less than "prestigious" and "professional". But they worked through it. At the turn of the 19th century the Chinese were treated worse than Blacks in Cali. So the Chinese did the crappy and shady jobs to survive, yet at the same time they improved their cognitive abilities to surpass even the Whites in standardized exams. So when the openly discriminatory policies were finally removed post war, the Chinese population flourished.

But what do we see when it comes to Black exam scores? OMG the exams are RACIST, OMG the structure is RACIST, OMG why you impose your whiteness on us.

As a result the homegrown American Blacks NEVER completed the path, they are stuck in limbo, no KEPT in limbo.

Ever heard of Marva Collins? She taught her low-income black pupils the "white" (aka classical, greek, socratic) way, she essentially removed all of the bs PoMo bits in other black schools (aka you do you) but instead taught them YOU are responsible for your own life, not the govt, not the "white saviors", not racism, just YOU.

There is almost a formulaic path for each ethnic group to become fully integrated and overcome stigma and discrimination in the long run. Booker Washington saw it and wanted to fix it for the long haul, but no, it's much easier for militants like "Willie" (Kendi's word, not mine) Du Bois and race hustlers like Davis and Coates to call upon grievance and resentment for a quick fix in the form of EQUITY, welfare and pity.

It. Does. Not. Work.
It. Has. Never. Worked. Anywhere. In. The. World.


Blacks are equally capable like everyone else to thrive in the absence of government interventions, just look at all the recent Black immigrants (incidentally, these areas were not tainted by bs "anti-racist" policies). It is the homegrown American Blacks that are lagging in almost EVERY regard, these anti-racist (more like extremely racist) policies championed by the identitarian left dont work. the longer you do it, the worse their condition will become.

The more you want to emphasize how "unique" you are, the more you want to show your "differences" with your immutable characteristics, your unique history, your unique culture, the more you are pushing everyone else away.

Just compare their conditions today to when the SoJ movement first began in 2010. Things are worse for them today than 10 years ago. But you know who benefited from all this? The damn race hustlers, the damn CRT "scholars", the damn "journalists" who went through various PoMo "studies". Their employment positions have increased by almost 1000%.

There is a reason why "white left" aka left-leaning whites who went through PoMo studies in higher ed see racism as a bigger problem than how minorities view them (by almost a factor of 2). It's monetary. These damn race hustlers' livelihood DEPEND on racism being perceived a bigger problem than it actually is.

So your basic stance is "EVERY migrant group coming to America is crapped on and stuck in a giant hole by white people.  Everyone else dug themselves out of this hole so if black people can't, it's their own damn fault".  Is that pretty much the gist of it?

Looks like you don't know how to read. I said they were KEPT in limbo, BY the white-lefts, aka race hustlers, because it benefits them.

These hustlers (are you one of them?) are putting the Blacks down ON PURPOSE via their bs "anti-racist" policies. What Marva Collins did worked, Booker Washington saw the answer 100 fucking years ago. It is time Blacks are unchained from their slavers dressed as white saviors so they can flourish.

Stop saying how everything is racist (problematizing), focus on boosting black's exam scores, focus on restoring Confidence via RESPONSIILITY, focus on the positive part of black history.

Ever heard of United States Colored Troops in the Civil War? Those guys were bad ass. 54th Regiment Mass. ? Man those guys almost single handedly earned respect from union troops and fear from the confederates.

Stop perpetuating myths and legends about Mansa Musa. The future is forward, not backward. Talk more about how contemporaries like Obama, Sowell, Robinson Jr. overcame their respective challenges.

I am going to end with a quote from Sowell:

Racism is not dead, but it is on life support-kept alive by politicians, race hustlers and people who get a sense of superiority by denouncing others as 'racists.'
-Thomas Sowell (allegedly anyway)

Tyson

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2512
  • Age: 48
  • Location: Denver, Colorado
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #947 on: March 25, 2019, 04:47:48 PM »
I don’t understand.  First you say that white people can’t and shouldn’t try to help black people.  But then you say we should help them by teaching them responsibility for themselves.  I dunno man, that sounds like some white savior stuff you’re spouting.

anisotropy

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 681
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #948 on: March 25, 2019, 04:59:47 PM »
I can see now why you recommended the sapiens book, seems you both share the "fuzzy world view hobbled by political correctness" - WaPo.

The help white-left prescribed, namely, problematizing everything, excessive welfare (it was even foretold way back in the 60s it would end up ruin the black population and exacerbate the issue), the soft bigotry of low expectations, the focus on grievance, oppression, racism. made things way worse. The only group of ppl that benefited from this turned out to be the white-lefts who had prescribed them, what a coincidence no?

The help I am proposing, is the path that EVERY other migrant group in the States had gone through, and worked every single time. The change must ultimately come from within, ie, endogenous, not externally.

It makes sense to me that you don't understand the differences. After all, It Is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it; it is even more difficult when his online "woke" status depends on his not understanding it.

;)

bacchi

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4712
Re: Liberals vs Conservatives - why does it have to be this way?
« Reply #949 on: March 25, 2019, 05:22:35 PM »
I don’t understand.  First you say that white people can’t and shouldn’t try to help black people.  But then you say we should help them by teaching them responsibility for themselves.  I dunno man, that sounds like some white savior stuff you’re spouting.

It's typical why-racism-doesn't-exist mixed in with it's-their-own-fault and private-schools-rule talk from the conservative boards. Sowell is a favorite of Tucker (he's black! he wrote that there is no pay inquality!). So is Marva Collins. (She hasn't taught for years so the "you do you" mention is an odd anachronism.) Collins is a favorite of anti-public education fans because she decried public education. Of course, Collins also never published any of her substantially improved test scores either. When asked to expand her idea to other schools, she declined. Too bad. If it really worked as advertised, it would've changed poor America decades ago.

Booker T. is an interesting mention, too. During post-Reconstruction, the south kept saying they weren't racist...they just didn't want black people in their schools or their restaurants or their bathrooms. But they weren't racist! It's those carpet-bagger liberals who are racist (sound familar?). Washington gave up, said "Fuck you" to the south, and went his own way (because obviously the south wasn't going to help black people).

And now Booker T. Washington is applauded by modern day segregationists everywhere. "He's black! He said black people should be separate!" What he was really saying was, "You're all a bunch of racist muthafuckers -- and won't admit it -- so just leave us alone."

Of course, separating themselves from southerners, and not working for civil rights, didn't help. The Klan came anyway.