|
|
Just from observation I find anti-Trumpers to be mentally unfit. They project all kinds of untrue things unto him and convince themselves they are true. They are delusional, at best, and lean to being deranged lunatics. What is particularly interesting is that President Donald Trump is straight-forward and DOES what he SAID he would do. Maybe libtards find honesty to be a mental disorder. That's understandable since libtardism is a big lie.
https://www.thenation.com/article/do...and-dangerous/Originally Posted by dawg80
Of course! because the Iranians are such good people. Why, they eliminated poverty in an entire region of Yemen. Yes, they did. They did that by eliminating the people who were living in poverty. Hey, that's one way to fix the problem, eh!
Possibly because many of our nation's policies supposedly intended to help families economically actually perpetuate the cycle of poverty. If "POC" are "disproportionately in this socioeconomic situation," maybe these policies are "systemic racism."
Now, IMHO, your post makes perfect sense. I fear, however, that our politically "liberal" fellow alums will not empathize. (As far as I know, a definition of empathy is to have the ability to understand another person's perspective, and should not be confused with compassion, IMO.) Political "liberalism" as we have come to know it is a misnomer, as there is nothing liberating about the "philosophy." My observation is that these so called "liberals" will not consider your view as valid, as it challenges their "conservaphobia."
No and yes. Does that make me a racist? What does that have to do with "systemic racism," anyway. Were I British, wouldn't that shape my experience? Wouldn't that have made my experience different? I guess I'm just not smart enough, but I don't see what you are trying to get at. Is it that white Americans should feel guilty about slavery? How would that be helpful?
Of course that doesn’t make you a racist. And it is not about feeling guilty - that is the strawman of conservatism. You shouldn’t feel guilty but you should recognize your white privilege. Systemic racism is about how recognizing that certain races don’t have it as fortunate and therefore there is still work to be done in getting to a system that is equal for all.
That's what "the great society" and desegregation was about. Federal mandates slowed the process and continued federal mandates will do the same. Socialist democrats heads explode when studies suggest private investment into a better way of living. They wont' allow it. See the irony? The very people screaming for a change don't really want a change. They just want to control the purse strings of mo money.
What is stopping private investment now?
Government and the corruption it invites, but some like the church still get involved and are successful. Voucher programs can work for education, but you don't have to look farther than Monroe or Ruston to see the corruption involved in those programs. That's more evidence that many of the people screaming for change really don't want change.
Obama's stimulus package threw $800 Billion at some of the problems. That is the model socialist democrats scream for, but it has never worked to dig them out of the pits.
What makes it "racism" is that outcomes vary by race. But your take on the issue illustrates why I think the academic term "systemic racism" is unhelpful in fostering understanding and conversation in the public square, since the the word "racism" is heavily laden with moral valence. More helpful might be something like "systemic inequality" or "residual inequality."
A metaphor that has helped me conceptualize residual inequality is thinking of the United States as a relay race. To keep it simple, let's just focus on voting rights, under the hopefully obvious premise that people who vote have at least some influence on the behavior of government and that laws that are passed are going to (at least to some extent) benefit those who vote (as this premise is the foundation for having a representational government in the first place). Focusing just on the right to vote and just the last, say, 300 years (yards for illustration) of our history, the rules of the race (actual laws) initially allowed only White males who owned property to run. Shortly after that, White males who did not own property were also allowed to begin running. Those who made the laws were the first to benefit from them, so within a few dozen years you had the foundation of our entire system of laws as it exists today, but it was designed by--and therefore designed to benefit--White males, and White male property owners the most.
After the White males reached about 170 yards, the rules started to open up to allow Black males also to vote. However, other rules were put in place that severely limited the actual ability of Blacks to vote. So, let's say, for the sake of the metaphor, that Black males were allowed to leave the starting line and begin the race, but their lane was filled with obstacles to slow or completely halt their progress at that point. After the White males reached about 200 yards, women were allowed to begin voting. Finally, after the White males reached the 250 yard mark, the obstacles were cleared from the Blacks' lane.
So now, for the first time in our history, everyone has a level playing field and is free to run as fast as they can toward the American dream. But although the field is now level, we are all at different degrees of progress. The race is a relay, so as a White male, I received my baton about 200 yards further down the track than a Black female born the same day in the same hospital I was.
This is very simplified, but illustrates the foundation. The entire system of laws reflects those who voted for the laws, and implicitly benefits them (in much the same way that if I, at 5'6", were elected to decide how tall kitchen counters should be for the entire nation, someone who is 6'6" is going to be disadvantaged; even if it's not my goal to disadvantage them, but my design is going to be influenced by my worldview). From here you could begin to trace the effects of specific laws over time. And even though overtly racist (in the moral sense) have been purged from the system, their traces are still there and exert an influence. (For just one example, in most of the country, penalties were codified to be more severe for Blacks than for Whites for the same offense. This is one of the reasons Blacks are still more likely to receive a heavier sentence than Whites for the same offense. The stated rationale for the harsher penalties back in the day was that Blacks are inherently more dangerous. This overtly racist sentiment is a sort of ghost that still haunts our legal system.)
What makes this residue so powerful is that for a HUGE number of variables, your parents' status is the biggest predictor of where you'll end up (e.g., intelligence is correlated with parents' education level, so the generations of White males in my family who had access to any kind of school gives me a leg up).
For the record, about 25 years ago my arguments on these topics were all along the lines of what Dawg80 has been posting in the thread. I'm not a "libtard" or whatever. My thinking shifted due to things I observed in real life, which led me to do my own research and draw my own conclusions on the matter.
People like you are dangerous and will lead the country into a race war with this warped reality.
We don't have a race problem, we have a poverty problem. Ironically enough, the welfare society the Democrats have created is primarily responsible for the cycle of poverty a lot of urban blacks are trapped in. The reality is employers mainly care if you can make them money; police leave you alone if you aren't stealing or shooting people; and the vast majority of white people, do not give a crap what race you are! This is the message society should be conveying instead of your sinister plot that the white man is out to get them.
I don't even know what you mean. To me, you are using "buzz words" that mean absolutely nothing. Integration of schools was supposed to solve all of that. Admittedly, it is a small sample, but in my small hometown the standards today are less than they were when I was in HS. Education eventually gravitated to the lowest common denominator. Why, I know not, but that is what happened. Much after I graduated and was living in another state, the education system started magnet schools where enrollment was based on merit, i.e. grades. After a few years, someone filed a lawsuit saying minorities were not equally represented. The solution was to institute separate standards. Draw your own conclusion. Mine is the decision makers assumed that minorities can't compete by the same standard, so instead of bringing these students up to speed, let's lower the standard for them. Now THAT seems like so called "systemic racism." A quick, easy solution that appeased those filing the lawsuit and, I assume, the equivalent of the Justice Department, but helped no one and hurt everyone.
What percentage of the students were black before they changed their standards?
Wrong Brian96!
Every black born since 1965 has known nothing but guvmint-mandated advantages. If they fail to take advantage of those advantages that's on them.
A more accurate analogy, using your example, is blacks have a guvmint vehicle sitting there and the driver tells blacks running in your relay race, "hop on board, I'll drive you into the lead!"
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
