goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: CNS on March 28, 2013, 10:36:05 AM
-
I do think it's funny that Conservatives still think a single kid praying by himself or herself in school is illegal.
I'm honestly pretty surprised that Kansas hasn't passed a law explicitly saying that it is legal. Then again, we might have. :dunno:
very surprised myself. I mean, we passed a law stating that Sharia law couldn't be used in our courts.
Three things:
1. Passing a law banning sharia law should be viewed as pro-gay.
2. Nobody thinks praying in school is illegal. Leftists constantly whine about all things god related being in school in any form. That is indisputable.
3. If you actually believe a Meme posted on Facebook is demonstrative of an entire wing of the US political continuum, you are a rough ridin' dimwit and, for obvious reasons, shouldn't be on goEMAW.
I really enjoyed this FSD post
The sharia law thing was not about gay or anti-gay. It is stupid because until the law of our land is sharia law, it is ridiculous to address it at all in our courts.
My point is that if KS will pass a law stating that some other law practiced outside of the us can't be used in the the US, it surprises me that KS hasn't passed other equally worthless legislation.
I think you are reading too much into ppl's take on these memes. These aren't posted as proof that any party is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), but that the ppl that pass them on thinking they are solid arguments are.
-
I do think it's funny that Conservatives still think a single kid praying by himself or herself in school is illegal.
I'm honestly pretty surprised that Kansas hasn't passed a law explicitly saying that it is legal. Then again, we might have. :dunno:
very surprised myself. I mean, we passed a law stating that Sharia law couldn't be used in our courts.
Three things:
1. Passing a law banning sharia law should be viewed as pro-gay.
2. Nobody thinks praying in school is illegal. Leftists constantly whine about all things god related being in school in any form. That is indisputable.
3. If you actually believe a Meme posted on Facebook is demonstrative of an entire wing of the US political continuum, you are a rough ridin' dimwit and, for obvious reasons, shouldn't be on goEMAW.
I really enjoyed this FSD post
The sharia law thing was not about gay or anti-gay. It is stupid because until the law of our land is sharia law, it is ridiculous to address it at all in our courts.
My point is that if KS will pass a law stating that some other law practiced outside of the us can't be used in the the US, it surprises me that KS hasn't passed other equally worthless legislation.
I think you are reading too much into ppl's take on these memes. These aren't posted as proof that any party is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), but that the ppl that pass them on thinking they are solid arguments are.
Sorry, those comments were directed at all the tards above you, not you in particular. And I don't think I'm reading too much into anything. The ironic part about this thread is that most of the people posting in it do take all of that stuff literally.
-
I do think it's funny that Conservatives still think a single kid praying by himself or herself in school is illegal.
I'm honestly pretty surprised that Kansas hasn't passed a law explicitly saying that it is legal. Then again, we might have. :dunno:
very surprised myself. I mean, we passed a law stating that Sharia law couldn't be used in our courts.
Three things:
1. Passing a law banning sharia law should be viewed as pro-gay.
2. Nobody thinks praying in school is illegal. Leftists constantly whine about all things god related being in school in any form. That is indisputable.
3. If you actually believe a Meme posted on Facebook is demonstrative of an entire wing of the US political continuum, you are a rough ridin' dimwit and, for obvious reasons, shouldn't be on goEMAW.
I really enjoyed this FSD post
The sharia law thing was not about gay or anti-gay. It is stupid because until the law of our land is sharia law, it is ridiculous to address it at all in our courts.
My point is that if KS will pass a law stating that some other law practiced outside of the us can't be used in the the US, it surprises me that KS hasn't passed other equally worthless legislation.
I think you are reading too much into ppl's take on these memes. These aren't posted as proof that any party is Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), but that the ppl that pass them on thinking they are solid arguments are.
Sorry, those comments were directed at all the tards above you, not you in particular. And I don't think I'm reading too much into anything. The ironic part about this thread is that most of the people posting in it do take all of that stuff literally.
:dunno:
Not taking anything serious here, just posting some of the more unbelievable posts I see.
-
The comments that start "I can't believe [insert political affiliation who put said meme on FB] actually believes that" or I'm surprised Kansas hasn't already made [insert political position poster doesn't like] a law" is demonstrative of someone who "doesn't get this thread" and a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Sugar Dick is just Sugar Dickin this thread up for his own amusement.
-
FSD is the only person that REALLY knows what's going on in my thread guys
I don't think you understand how important I am to the Pit. Also, dumb post
-
These types of arguments are my favorite. It would be like telling Abraham Lincoln that he should not try and change people's minds of slavery because doing so is being intolerant of their views. Makes no sense.
Then you're missing the point.
The people who like to beat the drum about how tolerant they are, seem to not be so when it comes to actually being confronted by opposing opinions. In other words, they're not tolerant in any way, shape, or form beyond what anyone else is. And no one else is drum beating about how supposedly tolerant they are but lefties.
The point: They're not so tolerant. Much like any ideologues, they accept one view. Gutfield is pointing out the irony of the first sentence.
-
These types of arguments are my favorite. It would be like telling Abraham Lincoln that he should not try and change people's minds of slavery because doing so is being intolerant of their views. Makes no sense.
Then you're missing the point.
The people who like to beat the drum about how tolerant they are, seem to not be so when it comes to actually being confronted by opposing opinions. In other words, they're not tolerant in any way, shape, or form beyond what anyone else is. And no one else is drum beating about how supposedly tolerant they are but lefties.
The point: They're not so tolerant. Much like any ideologues, they accept one view. Gutfield is pointing out the irony of the first sentence.
being tolerant of intolerant opinions would basically make you intolerant as well.
quite the pickle.
-
Whose opinion of "intolerant"? A decidedly unimportant nuance that proves goldbrick's point
-
These types of arguments are my favorite. It would be like telling Abraham Lincoln that he should not try and change people's minds of slavery because doing so is being intolerant of their views. Makes no sense.
Then you're missing the point.
The people who like to beat the drum about how tolerant they are, seem to not be so when it comes to actually being confronted by opposing opinions. In other words, they're not tolerant in any way, shape, or form beyond what anyone else is. And no one else is drum beating about how supposedly tolerant they are but lefties.
The point: They're not so tolerant. Much like any ideologues, they accept one view. Gutfield is pointing out the irony of the first sentence.
being tolerant of intolerant opinions would basically make you intolerant as well.
quite the pickle.
Conservatives and Libertarians don't tout their supposed enlightened tolerant qualities as lefties do.
Thats the difference.
-
These types of arguments are my favorite. It would be like telling Abraham Lincoln that he should not try and change people's minds of slavery because doing so is being intolerant of their views. Makes no sense.
Then you're missing the point.
The people who like to beat the drum about how tolerant they are, seem to not be so when it comes to actually being confronted by opposing opinions. In other words, they're not tolerant in any way, shape, or form beyond what anyone else is. And no one else is drum beating about how supposedly tolerant they are but lefties.
The point: They're not so tolerant. Much like any ideologues, they accept one view. Gutfield is pointing out the irony of the first sentence.
being tolerant of intolerant opinions would basically make you intolerant as well.
quite the pickle.
Conservatives and Libertarians don't tout their supposed enlightened tolerant qualities as lefties do.
Thats the difference.
i didn't realize that being for equality between race, gender, and sexual orientation was so pompous.
-
These types of arguments are my favorite. It would be like telling Abraham Lincoln that he should not try and change people's minds of slavery because doing so is being intolerant of their views. Makes no sense.
Then you're missing the point.
The people who like to beat the drum about how tolerant they are, seem to not be so when it comes to actually being confronted by opposing opinions. In other words, they're not tolerant in any way, shape, or form beyond what anyone else is. And no one else is drum beating about how supposedly tolerant they are but lefties.
The point: They're not so tolerant. Much like any ideologues, they accept one view. Gutfield is pointing out the irony of the first sentence.
being tolerant of intolerant opinions would basically make you intolerant as well.
quite the pickle.
Conservatives and Libertarians don't tout their supposed enlightened tolerant qualities as lefties do.
Thats the difference.
i didn't realize that being for equality between race, gender, and sexual orientation was so pompous.
Again, strawman.
Lefties aren't any more tolerant than anyone else. Which is why calling out their self praise for their 'tolerance' makes sense, don'tcha think?
And thats not even touching on the neverending justifications for what we should be doing under the banner of 'equality'.
-
i'd be interested in what "tolerant qualities" the right has.
-
fsd, can you explain to your pal goldbrick that this isn't the thread for this type of nonsense.
-
i'd be interested in what "tolerant qualities" the right has.
This will be generalizations as I see it but accurate in general in my opinion:
Lefties tend to see things through a racial or gender prism. When lefties think of minorities they think that its oppression of them that has led to their tendency to be low income, less success, higher crime, etc. In other words, they believe that the only way minorities can succeed is to end this oppression. That means whites (the oppressor) has to change something. By extension, minorities must be helpless to that fact. Top that with the constant equivocation of one aspect of human characteristics with another as being on the same moral level, the only differences between anyone in life must come in the form of bias or discrimination. They also define tolerance as not just putting up with your neighbor but showing dislike of your neighbors activities is a sign of bigotry/racism/homophobia etc.
Those on the right tend to put individual merit above all else, they don't factor in race nearly as much. The notion that minorities are in a worse state overall isn't a sign of oppression, its a sign of a lack of effort or repeatedly making bad decisions or a culture that doesn't emphasize the right values. That lefties tell minorities repeatedly that they are powerless is a detriment to minorities because that means they are absolved of having to try. They don't see all cultures as equally successful. The differences between people in life come from whether their decisions were sound or not. They define tolerance as putting up with your neighbor even if you hate his guts, disciplining them if you can, but not blowing them off the map.
I tend to agree with the right's outlook, obviously, not that there aren't problems with it. Racism does exist but its not as big of a problem as its made out to be. Some people do have a string of bad luck and some have it so much that they might need welfare, but I'm of the opinion that most people on welfare aren't having hard luck, they're trash individuals. The existence of successful minorities like asians flies in the face of the racism explanation. And political correctness surrounding racial issues assures me the problems will never be recognized, let alone fixed. When blacks accuse other blacks of 'being white' because they got an education, dress respectfully, and speak eloquently I would think thats a problem, but can't talk about it without being accused of racism.
This is not a full spectrum view of what people believe, but I think I've adequately explained why the notion that one is more tolerant than the other is bogus.
-
fsd, can you explain to your pal goldbrick that this isn't the thread for this type of nonsense.
I don't see much going on in the last few pages but political discussion and political pictures being posted.
In my defense.
-
EDIT: Thread got modded to a new thread, whereby making my post seem more stupid than normal.
-
The notion that minorities are in a worse state overall isn't a sign of oppression, its a sign of a lack of effort or repeatedly making bad decisions or a culture that doesn't emphasize the right values.
you're kind of a dumb racist piece of crap, aren't you? welcome to the New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit.
-
The notion that minorities are in a worse state overall isn't a sign of oppression, its a sign of a lack of effort or repeatedly making bad decisions or a culture that doesn't emphasize the right values.
you're kind of a dumb racist piece of crap, aren't you? welcome to the New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit.
When blacks accuse other blacks of 'being white' because they got an education, dress respectfully, and speak eloquently I would think thats a problem, but can't talk about it without being accused of racism.
Also, read the entirety of my post.
-
Goldy you just stated you think blacks are culturally inferior to whites, and then tried to claim racism isn't a big deal today, and did so without detecting any irony in those positions. I'd also remind you that for centuries that train of thought was that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, used to justify slavery and later Jim Crow laws.
Goldy - how can blacks be treated fairly if you and numerous other whites think they are culturally inferior? How can a black person be treated fairly if they are automatically below whites from birth because of their "culture," ?
-
Goldy you just stated you think blacks are culturally inferior to whites, and then tried to claim racism isn't a big deal today, and did so without detecting any irony in those positions. I'd also remind you that for centuries that train of thought was that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, used to justify slavery and later Jim Crow laws.
Goldy - how can blacks be treated fairly if you and numerous other whites think they are culturally inferior? How can a black person be treated fairly if they are automatically below whites from birth because of their "culture," ?
he didn't just blame cultural inferiority. he said sometimes it's plain old laziness.
-
Goldy you just stated you think blacks are culturally inferior to whites, and then tried to claim racism isn't a big deal today, and did so without detecting any irony in those positions. I'd also remind you that for centuries that train of thought was that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, used to justify slavery and later Jim Crow laws.
Goldy - how can blacks be treated fairly if you and numerous other whites think they are culturally inferior? How can a black person be treated fairly if they are automatically below whites from birth because of their "culture," ?
he didn't just blame cultural inferiority. he said sometimes it's plain old laziness.
But isn't he still claiming his view is:
[White people & their culture] > [Black people & their culture]
?
EDIT: Goldbrick can you clarify something for me - what is white culture in your opinion?
-
At what point in time do people start deserving an equal opportunity? Do we start it today? Yesterday? Since Obama was elected?
Because 60 years ago black people were basically unable to live a middle class lifestyle and acquire common assets such as a house or insurance. No one is suggesting that your grandparents give black people their house, but can we acknowledge that as a privilege you inherited and didn't earn?
-
Goldy you just stated you think blacks are culturally inferior to whites, and then tried to claim racism isn't a big deal today, and did so without detecting any irony in those positions. I'd also remind you that for centuries that train of thought was that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, used to justify slavery and later Jim Crow laws.
Goldy - how can blacks be treated fairly if you and numerous other whites think they are culturally inferior? How can a black person be treated fairly if they are automatically below whites from birth because of their "culture," ?
I think you have a faulty definition of racism. I didn't say that blacks were inferior to whites, I said that a significant reason blacks are not doing as well as they could be is because of their own doing. Blacks can be treated fairly by treating them as human beings, the same way we should treat everybody. The notion that pointing out problems in cultures is somehow akin to damning that culture is what you seem to be advocating. Look at crime statistics:
http://bjs.gov/content/pub/press/htus8008pr.cfm
"Most murders were intraracial. From 1980 through 2008, 84 percent of white homicide victims were murdered by whites and 93 percent of black victims were murdered by blacks. During this same period, blacks were disproportionately represented among homicide victims and offenders. Blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide."
Am I supposed to believe that racism did this? Is this somehow a white problem? How do you fix a problem that people refuse to even talk about? Black leaders are actually the ones spearheading attempts to correct this but every time someone who is white brings up the same stuff its suddenly racist?
Here is a video of the Philadelphia mayor that raises the exact same issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL0QFZBLca4
-
Goldbrick do you think black people are naturally more inclined to violence then whites?
Do you think that, in a perfectly equal society, blacks will murder, rape, steal, and so on at a greater rate then whites?
If your answer is no, then perhaps you should be looking at other factors that lead people to a life of crime, and not think one of the reasons is because they are black.
-
Racists don't realize how bad off things really were in the 50s
-
Goldy you just stated you think blacks are culturally inferior to whites, and then tried to claim racism isn't a big deal today, and did so without detecting any irony in those positions. I'd also remind you that for centuries that train of thought was that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, used to justify slavery and later Jim Crow laws.
Goldy - how can blacks be treated fairly if you and numerous other whites think they are culturally inferior? How can a black person be treated fairly if they are automatically below whites from birth because of their "culture," ?
he didn't just blame cultural inferiority. he said sometimes it's plain old laziness.
But isn't he still claiming his view is:
[White people & their culture] > [Black people & their culture]
?
EDIT: Goldbrick can you clarify something for me - what is white culture in your opinion?
Hard to define a culture. Ask most people what white, black, asian culture is and they balk in the same way that people generally don't define porn, you know it when you see it. What we have to rely on are statistics and tendancies of those races and cultures.
But are you going to deny that blacks attempt to shame each other by calling them 'white' when they have financial success in business, speak eloquently, etc. Even Obama got this levied at him, that he was a white puppet or talking down to black people:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/09/jesse-jackson-s/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQl_6buUggM
-
At what point in time do people start deserving an equal opportunity? Do we start it today? Yesterday? Since Obama was elected?
Because 60 years ago black people were basically unable to live a middle class lifestyle and acquire common assets such as a house or insurance. No one is suggesting that your grandparents give black people their house, but can we acknowledge that as a privilege you inherited and didn't earn?
Everyone has an adequate opportunity for success already. It will never be 'equal' in the sense that everyone has the same starting point. But the resources are all there for use, the threat of failure is a question of willpower at the moment, not racism.
Privileges I have in my raising come from a decent small town atmosphere typical of what you might find in a midwest small town. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? Or am I supposed to suggest that more towns, even urban ones, be like that so as to help insure more people of those privileges?
-
Privileges I have in my raising come from a decent small town atmosphere typical of what you might find in a midwest small town. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? Or am I supposed to suggest that more towns, even urban ones, be like that so as to help insure more people of those privileges?
you could at least acknowledge that it's a big rough ridin' advantage. I think even a big time racist like you should be able to manage that.
-
Goldbrick do you think black people are naturally more inclined to violence then whites?
Do you think that, in a perfectly equal society, blacks will murder, rape, steal, and so on at a greater rate then whites?
If your answer is no, then perhaps you should be looking at other factors that lead people to a life of crime, and not think one of the reasons is because they are black.
Black people, or any other people, are biologically not different enough from any other human beings for it to be an issue. If you're suggesting that I think blacks are stupid by nature, you're wrong.
But that doesn't mean we turn a blind eye to aspects of a culture, that a group of people have taken on, that are detrimental to them. That includes white people as much as it does others. But its blind to pretend that all actions, beliefs, etc will lead to equal results.
-
Privileges I have in my raising come from a decent small town atmosphere typical of what you might find in a midwest small town. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? Or am I supposed to suggest that more towns, even urban ones, be like that so as to help insure more people of those privileges?
you could at least acknowledge that it's a big rough ridin' advantage. I think even a big time racist like you should be able to manage that.
I did. Which is why its an idea worth spreading. And I'm being accused of racism by people like you, for attempting to do so.
-
Privileges I have in my raising come from a decent small town atmosphere typical of what you might find in a midwest small town. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? Or am I supposed to suggest that more towns, even urban ones, be like that so as to help insure more people of those privileges?
you could at least acknowledge that it's a big rough ridin' advantage. I think even a big time racist like you should be able to manage that.
I did. Which is why its an idea worth spreading. And I'm being accused of racism by people like you, for attempting to do so.
no, I accused you of being racist because you said black people are poor because they are lazy.
-
Privileges I have in my raising come from a decent small town atmosphere typical of what you might find in a midwest small town. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? Or am I supposed to suggest that more towns, even urban ones, be like that so as to help insure more people of those privileges?
you could at least acknowledge that it's a big rough ridin' advantage. I think even a big time racist like you should be able to manage that.
I did. Which is why its an idea worth spreading. And I'm being accused of racism by people like you, for attempting to do so.
no, I accused you of being racist because you said black people are poor because they are lazy.
I said that was one factor amongst the several I listed. That also applies to quite a bit of white people as well. The laziness I'm referring to has more to do with an unwillingness to change what is keeping them down. And inconveniently being told by white people, that they are powerless til whites shed their racism and oppression.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi80.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj161%2FGoldbrick%2F1342326083043_zps4357e73d.jpg&hash=30705e2e09890622624a83b41c3b109120b8e3ae)
-
At what point in time do people start deserving an equal opportunity? Do we start it today? Yesterday? Since Obama was elected?
Because 60 years ago black people were basically unable to live a middle class lifestyle and acquire common assets such as a house or insurance. No one is suggesting that your grandparents give black people their house, but can we acknowledge that as a privilege you inherited and didn't earn?
Everyone has an adequate opportunity for success already. It will never be 'equal' in the sense that everyone has the same starting point. But the resources are all there for use, the threat of failure is a question of willpower at the moment, not racism.
Privileges I have in my raising come from a decent small town atmosphere typical of what you might find in a midwest small town. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? Or am I supposed to suggest that more towns, even urban ones, be like that so as to help insure more people of those privileges?
You did not answer my question and I think it matters. When did "everyone" begin having "an adequate opportunity for success already?" Because I think we both agree that at some point in the past there was inequality, and maybe now there is some too, but now "everyone" has "an adequate opportunity for success already." At what point did that become reality?
-
Privileges I have in my raising come from a decent small town atmosphere typical of what you might find in a midwest small town. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? Or am I supposed to suggest that more towns, even urban ones, be like that so as to help insure more people of those privileges?
you could at least acknowledge that it's a big rough ridin' advantage. I think even a big time racist like you should be able to manage that.
I did. Which is why its an idea worth spreading. And I'm being accused of racism by people like you, for attempting to do so.
no, I accused you of being racist because you said black people are poor because they are lazy.
I said that was one factor amongst the several I listed. That also applies to quite a bit of white people as well. The laziness I'm referring to has more to do with an unwillingness to change what is keeping them down. And inconveniently being told by white people, that they are powerless til whites shed their racism and oppression.
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi80.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fj161%2FGoldbrick%2F1342326083043_zps4357e73d.jpg&hash=30705e2e09890622624a83b41c3b109120b8e3ae)
Everyone is capable of doing anything they want without anyone's help? That is some of the most idiotic crap I've ever heard.
-
At what point in time do people start deserving an equal opportunity? Do we start it today? Yesterday? Since Obama was elected?
Because 60 years ago black people were basically unable to live a middle class lifestyle and acquire common assets such as a house or insurance. No one is suggesting that your grandparents give black people their house, but can we acknowledge that as a privilege you inherited and didn't earn?
Everyone has an adequate opportunity for success already. It will never be 'equal' in the sense that everyone has the same starting point. But the resources are all there for use, the threat of failure is a question of willpower at the moment, not racism.
Privileges I have in my raising come from a decent small town atmosphere typical of what you might find in a midwest small town. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? Or am I supposed to suggest that more towns, even urban ones, be like that so as to help insure more people of those privileges?
You did not answer my question and I think it matters. When did "everyone" begin having "an adequate opportunity for success already?" Because I think we both agree that at some point in the past there was inequality, and maybe now there is some too, but now "everyone" has "an adequate opportunity for success already." At what point did that become reality?
Racism isn't nearly as prevalent now in the populace than it was once. I see no solid indicators that people today are largely being held back by a system or institution or racism. You can blame those, but you haven't presented one single piece of evidence to me yet. Also, if it were racism, can you explain the elephant in the room, asians?
Why are asian statistics so different from blacks? If racism is so widespread, why did it overlook them?
-
Everyone is capable of doing anything they want without anyone's help? That is some of the most idiotic crap I've ever heard.
So you believe that where you end up in life is external, I think its largely internal.
This is exactly what I mean about the dis-empowering rhetoric unleashed on people.
Can you imagine being bathed in nothing but rhetoric from your birth to adulthood that says: "Its not your fault, its society's fault. Its not your responsibility, its the governments. It's not you, it's them."
Its a license to not try. Do you ever wonder why as the country moves more leftward, things are getting worse for everybody?
-
Its not the current racism that is the biggest issue. It is generations of racism contributing to societal and cultural issues. Asians largely immigrated post-WWII and had less disadvantages to deal with as a result.
But go on believing every racial stereotype ever.
Also, congrats on having rich parents. I'm sure that has nothing to do with previous generations.
-
Also, congrats on having rich parents. I'm sure that has nothing to do with previous generations.
Every generation was made of self-made men!
-
Its not the current racism that is the biggest issue. It is generations of racism contributing to societal and cultural issues. Asians largely immigrated post-WWII and had less disadvantages to deal with as a result.
But go on believing every racial stereotype ever.
Also, congrats on having rich parents. I'm sure that has nothing to do with previous generations.
I don't have rich parents. And you do nothing more than prove my point, that we can't talk about racial issues without racial mudslinging. No one has responded to the videos or statistics I've posted.
So I'll at least repost this and have you tell me what his message was, and why you think he felt the need to say it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL0QFZBLca4
Rusty, what stands in the way of urban areas taking on a small, midwest town mindset? You yourself already admitted it was better and that was my privilege to have grown up in it. An admission that its a better environment.
-
At what point in time do people start deserving an equal opportunity? Do we start it today? Yesterday? Since Obama was elected?
Because 60 years ago black people were basically unable to live a middle class lifestyle and acquire common assets such as a house or insurance. No one is suggesting that your grandparents give black people their house, but can we acknowledge that as a privilege you inherited and didn't earn?
Everyone has an adequate opportunity for success already. It will never be 'equal' in the sense that everyone has the same starting point. But the resources are all there for use, the threat of failure is a question of willpower at the moment, not racism.
Privileges I have in my raising come from a decent small town atmosphere typical of what you might find in a midwest small town. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? Or am I supposed to suggest that more towns, even urban ones, be like that so as to help insure more people of those privileges?
You did not answer my question and I think it matters. When did "everyone" begin having "an adequate opportunity for success already?" Because I think we both agree that at some point in the past there was inequality, and maybe now there is some too, but now "everyone" has "an adequate opportunity for success already." At what point did that become reality?
Racism isn't nearly as prevalent now in the populace than it was once. I see no solid indicators that people today are largely being held back by a system or institution or racism. You can blame those, but you haven't presented one single piece of evidence to me yet. Also, if it were racism, can you explain the elephant in the room, asians?
Why are asian statistics so different from blacks? If racism is so widespread, why did it overlook them?
At what point did "everyone" have "an adequate opportunity for success already?" When did racism of the past, stop being an impediment? "It is less prevalent now than it was once." When did the decline start? Was it evenly distributed? When did it cease being a significant problem?
As far as "the Asian exception" well it is pretty much just that:
Sourcing from here and wikipedia
http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=841#12
Also via wikipedia (checked most sources through census)
according to the 2010 census about 6% of the U.S. population is Asian
There is a long history of just simply excluding Asians from even being eligible for immigration
From 2000-2010 the Asian-American population became the fastest growing group
So at the height of white racism 1880-1940's Asians were pretty much excluded from entering the U.S. and stayed in their home countries of the six biggest countries of origin:
1) China 2) The Phillipines 3) India 4) Japan 5) Korea 6) Vietnam
A significant number of immigrants from these countries were educated professionals in their country of origin and entered the U.S. during an economic boom time when the general culture of the United States promoted their inclusion and welcomed their arrival. I'll let you compare that to patterns of African-American immigration to the United States on your own time.
-
At what point in time do people start deserving an equal opportunity? Do we start it today? Yesterday? Since Obama was elected?
Because 60 years ago black people were basically unable to live a middle class lifestyle and acquire common assets such as a house or insurance. No one is suggesting that your grandparents give black people their house, but can we acknowledge that as a privilege you inherited and didn't earn?
Everyone has an adequate opportunity for success already. It will never be 'equal' in the sense that everyone has the same starting point. But the resources are all there for use, the threat of failure is a question of willpower at the moment, not racism.
Privileges I have in my raising come from a decent small town atmosphere typical of what you might find in a midwest small town. Am I supposed to feel bad about that? Or am I supposed to suggest that more towns, even urban ones, be like that so as to help insure more people of those privileges?
You did not answer my question and I think it matters. When did "everyone" begin having "an adequate opportunity for success already?" Because I think we both agree that at some point in the past there was inequality, and maybe now there is some too, but now "everyone" has "an adequate opportunity for success already." At what point did that become reality?
Racism isn't nearly as prevalent now in the populace than it was once. I see no solid indicators that people today are largely being held back by a system or institution or racism. You can blame those, but you haven't presented one single piece of evidence to me yet. Also, if it were racism, can you explain the elephant in the room, asians?
Why are asian statistics so different from blacks? If racism is so widespread, why did it overlook them?
At what point did "everyone" have "an adequate opportunity for success already?" When did racism of the past, stop being an impediment? "It is less prevalent now than it was once." When did the decline start? Was it evenly distributed? When did it cease being a significant problem?
As far as "the Asian exception" well it is pretty much just that:
Sourcing from here and wikipedia
http://www.migrationinformation.org/usfocus/display.cfm?ID=841#12
Also via wikipedia (checked most sources through census)
according to the 2010 census about 6% of the U.S. population is Asian
There is a long history of just simply excluding Asians from even being eligible for immigration
From 2000-2010 the Asian-American population became the fastest growing group
So at the height of white racism 1880-1940's Asians were pretty much excluded from entering the U.S. and stayed in their home countries of the six biggest countries of origin:
1) China 2) The Phillipines 3) India 4) Japan 5) Korea 6) Vietnam
A significant number of immigrants from these countries were educated professionals in their country of origin and entered the U.S. during an economic boom time when the general culture of the United States promoted their inclusion and welcomed their arrival. I'll let you compare that to patterns of African-American immigration to the United States on your own time.
Again, I didn't say racism didn't exist in the past. You have said that racism is still the reason people are held back NOW. If its racism, asians should not be successful even NOW.
Referrencing the past is a non-issue. I want to know why one culture/race is exceeding while another is not moving.
-
Everyone is capable of doing anything they want without anyone's help? That is some of the most idiotic crap I've ever heard.
So you believe that where you end up in life is external, I think its largely internal.
This is exactly what I mean about the dis-empowering rhetoric unleashed on people.
Can you imagine being bathed in nothing but rhetoric from your birth to adulthood that says: "Its not your fault, its society's fault. Its not your responsibility, its the governments. It's not you, it's them."
Its a license to not try. Do you ever wonder why as the country moves more leftward, things are getting worse for everybody?
(https://goemaw.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmsnbcmedia.msn.com%2Fj%2FMSNBC%2FComponents%2FPhoto%2F_new%2Fpb-130108-syria-refugee-flooding-jsa-6.photoblog900.jpg&hash=0a5bb75cab4b1d2c3359ccb21bd095905b77656c)
All this little refugee camp needs is a little empowerment! Who should we bring in for our empowerment conference? Joel Olsteen? Maybe a little churchy. How about Tony Robbins? Is he still big? Maybe we can get Clarence Thomas or Herman Cain in there to tell their tales of boot strap raising, lest a white speaker be accused of being racist.
-
Dude, we're talking about the US. Never have I spoken to the matters of other countries. I'd readily agree that there are large, systemic issues outside the US, but the notion that your fate is external in the US is laughable.
-
he didn't just blame cultural inferiority. he said sometimes it's plain old laziness.
you don't think laziness is cultural? what about industriousness? i have a hard time imagining what you'd define it as, if not a cultural trait.
-
You did not answer my question and I think it matters. When did "everyone" begin having "an adequate opportunity for success already?" Because I think we both agree that at some point in the past there was inequality, and maybe now there is some too, but now "everyone" has "an adequate opportunity for success already." At what point did that become reality?
there has always been inequality (material and of opportunity) amongst people, and there will always be inequality. why is this more problematic when correlated with race or some other tribal identifier than when uncorrelated?
-
MODS, thanks for moving this. I felt kind of bad about junking up the pictures with serious discussion thread.
-
First, I never said" You have said that racism is still the reason people are held back NOW. If its racism, asians should not be successful even NOW."
Since I'm mostly talking to myself at this point, I'll say that I think that history matters and context matters. So comparing the history of African-Americans to the history of Asian-Americans is dumb. They are almost completely different in every way imaginable. And racism isn't some sort of acontextual evil from satan, it is also contextual. So your repeated non-sequitor about how racism would impact Asian-Americans in precisely the same way that it would impact African-Americans is without merit and you don't even pretend to provide any reason for why that would be other than: "racism." So I'd invite you to re-read my ample post on the great differences in context between African and Asian immigration and assimilation in the United States.
And since we both agree racism existed in the past, than can we acknowledge that it has some lingering effects? You still haven't managed even say when you believe racism finally went away, which is pretty central to my entire point and you won't even acknowledge that I'm saying it. Pretty frustrating.
-
Its not the current racism that is the biggest issue. It is generations of racism contributing to societal and cultural issues. Asians largely immigrated post-WWII and had less disadvantages to deal with as a result.
But go on believing every racial stereotype ever.
Also, congrats on having rich parents. I'm sure that has nothing to do with previous generations.
I don't have rich parents.
Your parents are rough ridin' lazy
-
You did not answer my question and I think it matters. When did "everyone" begin having "an adequate opportunity for success already?" Because I think we both agree that at some point in the past there was inequality, and maybe now there is some too, but now "everyone" has "an adequate opportunity for success already." At what point did that become reality?
there has always been inequality (material and of opportunity) amongst people, and there will always be inequality. why is this more problematic when correlated with race or some other tribal identifier than when uncorrelated?
I don't think it does. But we're still trying to establish facts and define terms. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
-
First, I never said" You have said that racism is still the reason people are held back NOW. If its racism, asians should not be successful even NOW."
Since I'm mostly talking to myself at this point, I'll say that I think that history matters and context matters. So comparing the history of African-Americans to the history of Asian-Americans is dumb. They are almost completely different in every way imaginable. And racism isn't some sort of acontextual evil from satan, it is also contextual. So your repeated non-sequitor about how racism would impact Asian-Americans in precisely the same way that it would impact African-Americans is without merit and you don't even pretend to provide any reason for why that would be other than: "racism." So I'd invite you to re-read my ample post on the great differences in context between African and Asian immigration and assimilation in the United States.
And since we both agree racism existed in the past, than can we acknowledge that it has some lingering effects? You still haven't managed even say when you believe racism finally went away, which is pretty central to my entire point and you won't even acknowledge that I'm saying it. Pretty frustrating.
In my first lengthy post I already said there was racism. It exists, it absolutely does. But its a small factor in life. Its not holding people back. That lingering effect is no longer a prime infliction on anybody.
You've created a far too simple explanation about racism that is not falsifiable and takes special privileges any where it begins to not make sense. So according to you, people are not only racist, they just suddenly exhibit a different kind of racism with asians than they do with others? wtf?
This is a 'just so' fantasy. You observe something and then force a vague idea of racism on it equipped with all the trappings of an inconsistent theory.
And you haven't responded to any of my videos nor the crime statistics, nor addressed what you think happens to somebody when told their entire lives that their fate is out of their hands. Gotta do real life crap but I'll be back later today.
-
I don't think it does. But we're still trying to establish facts and define terms. Let's not get ahead of ourselves.
i only ask because goEMAW's oligarchical five hive attack any hint of racist or purportedly racist expression on this board, but think it's humorous to dismissively discuss the cultural habits of "poors".
-
he didn't just blame cultural inferiority. he said sometimes it's plain old laziness.
you don't think laziness is cultural? what about industriousness? i have a hard time imagining what you'd define it as, if not a cultural trait.
oh, I definitely think it can be a cultural trait.
-
First, I never said" You have said that racism is still the reason people are held back NOW. If its racism, asians should not be successful even NOW."
Since I'm mostly talking to myself at this point, I'll say that I think that history matters and context matters. So comparing the history of African-Americans to the history of Asian-Americans is dumb. They are almost completely different in every way imaginable. And racism isn't some sort of acontextual evil from satan, it is also contextual. So your repeated non-sequitor about how racism would impact Asian-Americans in precisely the same way that it would impact African-Americans is without merit and you don't even pretend to provide any reason for why that would be other than: "racism." So I'd invite you to re-read my ample post on the great differences in context between African and Asian immigration and assimilation in the United States.
And since we both agree racism existed in the past, than can we acknowledge that it has some lingering effects? You still haven't managed even say when you believe racism finally went away, which is pretty central to my entire point and you won't even acknowledge that I'm saying it. Pretty frustrating.
In my first lengthy post I already said there was racism. It exists, it absolutely does. But its a small factor in life. Its not holding people back. That lingering effect is no longer a prime infliction on anybody.
You've created a far too simple explanation about racism that is not falsifiable and takes special privileges any where it begins to not make sense. So according to you, people are not only racist, they just suddenly exhibit a different kind of racism with asians than they do with others? wtf?
This is a 'just so' fantasy. You observe something and then force a vague idea of racism on it equipped with all the trappings of an inconsistent theory.
And you haven't responded to any of my videos nor the crime statistics, nor addressed what you think happens to somebody when told their entire lives that their fate is out of their hands. Gotta do real life crap but I'll be back later today.
When did racism stop being a problem? I'm not talking about difficult to quantify, who knows what is inside people's hearts stuff. I am talking about at what point did widespread institutional barriers to entry in things like housing, the workplace and school cease to exist for African-Americans in the United States?
I already addressed why Asians are different. I am not talking about whether or not you or anybody else is biased or harbors racism in their heart. I stuck to very easily defended factual statements about the context of entry for Asian American immigrants and the relevant laws that impacted their entry in to the US.
This isn't some "vague" idea of racism. Quite the contrary. I've been pretty specific. I went into some detail about the context of Asian-Americans. I don't know if you are purposefully ignorant of what I'm saying or if this is part of your style of debate. But I again, would really like to hear you explain when INSTITUTIONAL racism stopped being a problem.
I haven't responded to your videos or points about crime because you won't respond to my central question.
-
Stop and frisk is about the clearest example of institutional racism and its occurring 50 years post-civil rights in the middle of the most liberal city in America.
-
oh, I definitely think it can be a cultural trait.
so then, what was your point?
-
Goldy you just stated you think blacks are culturally inferior to whites, and then tried to claim racism isn't a big deal today, and did so without detecting any irony in those positions. I'd also remind you that for centuries that train of thought was that blacks were genetically inferior to whites, used to justify slavery and later Jim Crow laws.
Goldy - how can blacks be treated fairly if you and numerous other whites think they are culturally inferior? How can a black person be treated fairly if they are automatically below whites from birth because of their "culture," ?
he didn't just blame cultural inferiority. he said sometimes it's plain old laziness.
But isn't he still claiming his view is:
[White people & their culture] > [Black people & their culture]
?
EDIT: Goldbrick can you clarify something for me - what is white culture in your opinion?
Hard to define a culture. Ask most people what white, black, asian culture is and they balk in the same way that people generally don't define porn, you know it when you see it. What we have to rely on are statistics and tendancies of those races and cultures.
But are you going to deny that blacks attempt to shame each other by calling them 'white' when they have financial success in business, speak eloquently, etc. Even Obama got this levied at him, that he was a white puppet or talking down to black people:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2007/09/jesse-jackson-s/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TQl_6buUggM
Now the question here is - why would they do that? Is it because blacks are genetically and naturally worse than whites? From all the responses I've seen, no one is arguing that.
Maybe that happens because African-Americans are much more disproportionately to be born to families who live at or below the poverty line. Do you think that might be the main cause as to why blacks commit a higher rate of crime than other ethnicities?
-
oh, I definitely think it can be a cultural trait.
so then, what was your point?
I was clarifying what Goldie said. He separated laziness from other cultural traits for some reason. The just made him seem more racist to me.
-
Stop and frisk is about the clearest example of institutional racism and its occurring 50 years post-civil rights in the middle of the most liberal city in America.
Pretty unfair to bring up something that far in the past Paul, let's let him define when racism stopped existing first. I bet it was way after that relic of a previous racist era.
-
he didn't just blame cultural inferiority. he said sometimes it's plain old laziness.
you don't think laziness is cultural? what about industriousness? i have a hard time imagining what you'd define it as, if not a cultural trait.
oh, I definitely think it can be a cultural trait.
If we are defining "laziness" as an individual who is lacking in motivation then you have to look at the underlying factors that drive or inhibit motivation.
Things that undeniably inhibit motivation:
Poverty.
For these people what you perceive as "laziness" is an the expression, in part, of the hopelessness, depression, lack of opportunity, etc that are imbedded in individuals who grow up in poverty.
-
he didn't just blame cultural inferiority. he said sometimes it's plain old laziness.
you don't think laziness is cultural? what about industriousness? i have a hard time imagining what you'd define it as, if not a cultural trait.
oh, I definitely think it can be a cultural trait.
If we are defining "laziness" as an individual who is lacking in motivation then you have to look at the underlying factors that drive or inhibit motivation.
Things that undeniably inhibit motivation:
Poverty.
For these people what you perceive as "laziness" is an the expression, in part, of the hopelessness, depression, lack of opportunity, etc that are imbedded in individuals who grow up in poverty.
I totally agree.
-
First, I never said" You have said that racism is still the reason people are held back NOW. If its racism, asians should not be successful even NOW."
Since I'm mostly talking to myself at this point, I'll say that I think that history matters and context matters. So comparing the history of African-Americans to the history of Asian-Americans is dumb. They are almost completely different in every way imaginable. And racism isn't some sort of acontextual evil from satan, it is also contextual. So your repeated non-sequitor about how racism would impact Asian-Americans in precisely the same way that it would impact African-Americans is without merit and you don't even pretend to provide any reason for why that would be other than: "racism." So I'd invite you to re-read my ample post on the great differences in context between African and Asian immigration and assimilation in the United States.
And since we both agree racism existed in the past, than can we acknowledge that it has some lingering effects? You still haven't managed even say when you believe racism finally went away, which is pretty central to my entire point and you won't even acknowledge that I'm saying it. Pretty frustrating.
In my first lengthy post I already said there was racism. It exists, it absolutely does. But its a small factor in life. Its not holding people back. That lingering effect is no longer a prime infliction on anybody.
You've created a far too simple explanation about racism that is not falsifiable and takes special privileges any where it begins to not make sense. So according to you, people are not only racist, they just suddenly exhibit a different kind of racism with asians than they do with others? wtf?
This is a 'just so' fantasy. You observe something and then force a vague idea of racism on it equipped with all the trappings of an inconsistent theory.
And you haven't responded to any of my videos nor the crime statistics, nor addressed what you think happens to somebody when told their entire lives that their fate is out of their hands. Gotta do real life crap but I'll be back later today.
When did racism stop being a problem? I'm not talking about difficult to quantify, who knows what is inside people's hearts stuff. I am talking about at what point did widespread institutional barriers to entry in things like housing, the workplace and school cease to exist for African-Americans in the United States?
I already addressed why Asians are different. I am not talking about whether or not you or anybody else is biased or harbors racism in their heart. I stuck to very easily defended factual statements about the context of entry for Asian American immigrants and the relevant laws that impacted their entry in to the US.
This isn't some "vague" idea of racism. Quite the contrary. I've been pretty specific. I went into some detail about the context of Asian-Americans. I don't know if you are purposefully ignorant of what I'm saying or if this is part of your style of debate. But I again, would really like to hear you explain when INSTITUTIONAL racism stopped being a problem.
I haven't responded to your videos or points about crime because you won't respond to my central question.
Entry is a problem where? The last few decades has been a slow dwindling of nation wide open racism and there will never be a single identifiable point with which to reference any more than there would be a point at which it started. You, so far, have not offered any goal or expectation as to when we should be seeing upward movement. Nothing about what you've put forth so far is even falsifiable because you haven't put forth a solution.
If you're going to blame poverty for all the problems in the black community than when does it get better? When does it even get the appearance of getting better? Doesn't poverty just continue endlessly here? Should we throw money at it?
You are doing exactly what leftists should be criticized for. You blame something external (usually white people) so as to absolve a group of any and all responsibility. You don't seem to even understand the fact that taking on guilt for something you aren't at fault for is a bad thing.
So let me hear your recipe about what should be done to help the black community. I've put forth a change in cultural to get rid of the detrimental aspects, you've put forth jack crap.
-
Stop and frisk is about the clearest example of institutional racism and its occurring 50 years post-civil rights in the middle of the most liberal city in America.
Its a touchy issue. But the crime statistics I linked to earlier illustrate why this has a rational basis to it and can easily be argued that its not racism, its basic logic.
-
Now the question here is - why would they do that? Is it because blacks are genetically and naturally worse than whites? From all the responses I've seen, no one is arguing that.
Maybe that happens because African-Americans are much more disproportionately to be born to families who live at or below the poverty line. Do you think that might be the main cause as to why blacks commit a higher rate of crime than other ethnicities?
So consistent, long term poor behavior is excused because of poverty?
Maybe its detrimental aspects of their culture that are keeping them poor?
-
Entry is a problem where? The last few decades has been a slow dwindling of nation wide open racism and there will never be a single identifiable point with which to reference any more than there would be a point at which it started.
Great. So we have "few decades" and "slow dwindling" it would appear with that you seem to acknowledge then that some lingering effect might remain that would influence people even as conditions improve. Now, I think there are really clear examples of progress made in the areas of rights and protections for African-Americans. The Voting Rights Act, The Civil Rights Act, Title I and their regulatory impacts on education and HUD were enormously successful in providing access to many of the institutions that whites have taken for granted. Why is this important to note? Those things happened in the 1960's! Well, it is a well established sociological fact that things like educational attainment and income and positively correlated with that of your parents. So at some point, this had an impact. There are other markers of where the culture was like Loving v. Virginia but I'm more concerned with the readily available and easily agreeable institutional protections that were put in place to end the persistent and systemic discrimination that faced African-Americans in the previous 300 years of their existence in America.
Now, my parents were born in the 1940's and 1950's so literally 1 generation ago this discrimination was common place. What affect might this have had?
Well, to take just one example. There exists a persistent historical gap in homeownership between whites and African-Americans. A home is the biggest asset and the largest common vehicle through which to transfer wealth from one generation to another. Now, the gap (the difference between African-American and White homeownership) was roughly the same in 1900 as it was in 2000, but both groups had tons more homes. The gap widened in the post-war era to the 1970's as 1) African-Americans moved from the South to the upper midwest and Northeast and from rural to urban settings where homeownership rates are lower than in suburban and rural areas. African-Americans have very low income to wealth ratios (meaning, even though their income is middle class, their balance books tend not to be, they are not accumulating wealth at anywhere near the same rate as their white counterparts). Now I don't think there is a continuing racist conspiracy against African-Americans, but this crap matters. When your grandparents die, you can expect to have assets that will be divided up amongst your kin even if they weren't particularly wealthy. In the meantime, you had all the benefits that go along with homeownership and its accompanying positive correlations with solid life outcomes.
http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-income-table-2-5-median-family-income/ (http://stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-income-table-2-5-median-family-income/)
http://www.nber.org/reporter/winter06/collins.html (http://www.nber.org/reporter/winter06/collins.html)
You, so far, have not offered any goal or expectation as to when we should be seeing upward movement. Nothing about what you've put forth so far is even falsifiable because you haven't put forth a solution.
I don't know what you mean by "upward movement" but hell yes black people are doing better than they were 30, 50, 100 years ago. The recession has hurt them harder than almost anyone, but yeah they are doing better. Educational attainment, income, hell even the incarceration rate has declined in the past 10 years among AA.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/01/1656251/african-american-incarceration-rates-drop-report-finds/?mobile=nc (http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/03/01/1656251/african-american-incarceration-rates-drop-report-finds/?mobile=nc)
If you're going to blame poverty for all the problems in the black community than when does it get better? When does it even get the appearance of getting better? Doesn't poverty just continue endlessly here? Should we throw money at it?
Poverty and inequality is absolutely a real and growing problem in the United States. It is a really complicated problem, and there are a lot of proposals. I really don't have a solution to it, but I don't think it is inevitable within the United States at the current level. I think there are steps we could take to reduce it even if I'm not sure what the most effective steps would be.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_US_Gini_Coefficient_for_Household_Income_%281967_-_2007_%29.png (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:The_US_Gini_Coefficient_for_Household_Income_%281967_-_2007_%29.png)
You are doing exactly what leftists should be criticized for. You blame something external (usually white people) so as to absolve a group of any and all responsibility. You don't seem to even understand the fact that taking on guilt for something you aren't at fault for is a bad thing.
I never said that people should be absolved of personal responsibility. I definitely don't think a group should be blamed or absolved of blame. I do think that there is ample evidence that people other than myself were responsible for some pretty awful actions not only on the individual level, but also using the power of the state to enforce discrimination. I think that has a real effect (but is not the entire story). I don't feel personally responsible for things I didn't do, but in an amorphous sense, I think there should be a collective acknowledgement of the historical facts and to that end I think it is important to remember the good parts of U.S. history, but also the bad parts.
So let me hear your recipe about what should be done to help the black community. I've put forth a change in cultural to get rid of the detrimental aspects, you've put forth jack crap.
Are you asking the state to bring cultural change to a select class of the population, or just for people to do that themselves. I'm all for people changing for the better, so I'll sign on for that, but I'm not for the U.S. government leading a cultural revolution. I, again, am going to be pretty cautious about suggesting a "fix" because, you know, the world is pretty complicated. But I think poverty should be the focus, not race per se.
-
I thought this was very interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
I think eliminating private schools would be an interesting approach to improve the poverty situation in America. But I don't think it would ever happen.
-
African-Americans have very low income to wealth ratios (meaning, even though their income is middle class, their balance books tend not to be, they are not accumulating wealth at anywhere near the same rate as their white counterparts). Now I don't think there is a continuing racist conspiracy against African-Americans, but this crap matters. When your grandparents die, you can expect to have assets that will be divided up amongst your kin even if they weren't particularly wealthy. In the meantime, you had all the benefits that go along with homeownership and its accompanying positive correlations with solid life outcomes.
This seems to be the crux of your first part of the argument here.
Yes, generational wealth will matter. And what also effects the amount of wealth you are accumulating? Decisions you make. Do you really think that previous generations' wealth provide nearly as much of a crutch as what you're saying? I'd say thats a small factor at best, the bigger factor still remaining that you will be in a similar upbringing to what made your previous generation successful in the first place, that is the midwestern, small town values alluded to earlier in this thread. And the 1960's was half a century ago.
I meant upward movement as in relational movement as compared to others. The incarceration rate looks promising although its still massive but I don't see the gains relationally.
Poverty and inequality is absolutely a real and growing problem in the United States.
Poverty is a problem. Haven't said otherwise. I've said that its those detrimental cultural traits that are keeping too many blacks in poverty. You seem to be attributing it all to a vicious cycle of 'they are poor so their kids are poor' on and on til infinity.
I never said that people should be absolved of personal responsibility. I definitely don't think a group should be blamed or absolved of blame. I do think that there is ample evidence that people other than myself were responsible for some pretty awful actions not only on the individual level, but also using the power of the state to enforce discrimination. I think that has a real effect (but is not the entire story). I don't feel personally responsible for things I didn't do, but in an amorphous sense, I think there should be a collective acknowledgement of the historical facts and to that end I think it is important to remember the good parts of U.S. history, but also the bad parts.
There is acknowledgement of bad parts of US history and then there is attributing something with an eternal baggage. That the country has a racist history is not in doubt, that its racism or a simple 'poverty begets poverty' explanation is, in my opinion, weak for an explanation. Its beyond those, its a question of identity and values. If you have poverty for a while and internalize the notion that you and your culture are 'poor' you'll forego the values/actions that are needed to get you out. Poor decision making. This is why I bring up the bullshit about doing well for yourself as a black man is 'acting white'.
I'm of the opinion that the state should largely stay out of social issues. People should handle this amongst themselves.
And I had a longer response here but I'm pretty butt frustrated about the fact that I hit post and had some sort of internal server failure and the back button didn't resurrect my crap.
-
I thought this was very interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
I think eliminating private schools would be an interesting approach to improve the poverty situation in America. But I don't think it would ever happen.
Teachers in Finland are required to obtain a three-year master's degree, state-funded, before teaching. These education positions are highly coveted, Sahlberg said. For example, only one in 10 primary-school teacher applicants are accepted.
"It's harder to get into primary school education than a medical program," he said.
-
I thought this was very interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
I think eliminating private schools would be an interesting approach to improve the poverty situation in America. But I don't think it would ever happen.
Teachers in Finland are required to obtain a three-year master's degree, state-funded, before teaching. These education positions are highly coveted, Sahlberg said. For example, only one in 10 primary-school teacher applicants are accepted.
"It's harder to get into primary school education than a medical program," he said.
SOCIALISM!!!
-
I thought this was very interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
I think eliminating private schools would be an interesting approach to improve the poverty situation in America. But I don't think it would ever happen.
Teachers in Finland are required to obtain a three-year master's degree, state-funded, before teaching. These education positions are highly coveted, Sahlberg said. For example, only one in 10 primary-school teacher applicants are accepted.
"It's harder to get into primary school education than a medical program," he said.
SOCIALISM!!!
I think if the most educated, critically selected members of our society were also our teachers we'd be in a good situation no matter what type of system we were running.
Good luck with the teacher's unions.
-
I thought this was very interesting:
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/12/what-americans-keep-ignoring-about-finlands-school-success/250564/
I think eliminating private schools would be an interesting approach to improve the poverty situation in America. But I don't think it would ever happen.
Teachers in Finland are required to obtain a three-year master's degree, state-funded, before teaching. These education positions are highly coveted, Sahlberg said. For example, only one in 10 primary-school teacher applicants are accepted.
"It's harder to get into primary school education than a medical program," he said.
SOCIALISM!!!
I think if the most educated, critically selected members of our society were also our teachers we'd be in a good situation no matter what type of system we were running.
Good luck with the teacher's unions.
ha ha, you're such a freaking loon
-
I guess I'm not even really sure what you are asserting is the acute problem any more. My mission was to get you to acknowledge that poverty and historical, institutional racism are real problems. So I guess at this point I'm not sure what else there is to say from either side.
We don't really have to guess at a lot of this stuff. I mean I'm not going to write a dissertation on it, but there are people that have. People have quantified the likelihood of all kinds of life outcomes based upon your parents. This is hard data. I don't think it is "culture of poverty to infinity" but I do think that it is important. I think access to credit is an enormous issue and access to quality pre-k to college education is really important.
Some things are cultural, but they are less pernicious than you seem to make them. For instance, I was just reading the other day a blog post by Matt Yglesias that smart kids from poverty tend to attend schools with lower academic reputations than their rich peers. Now normally this would seem like common sense, but ivy schools have multi-BILLION dollar endowments. They provide merit and need based scholarships all the time. So in reality, we have another example where even for the kids best situated to make it out of the cycle of poverty, they are not wise to how the college admissions process really works and thus probably are not maximizing their access to the most elite circles. This is stuff at the margins, I don't think it is a smoking gun. But it is a symptom of the struggle for access by even poor kids doing what they should be doing.
I guess I do just think that a lot of things are out of the control of people. I look at my own family and see how divorce and abuse made it extremely difficult for the children of those marriages to excel. On the whole, the most stable families that stayed together produced wealth for themselves and much better outcomes for their kids. I think absolutely that marriage before kids, not getting divorced, getting an education, saving, using family planning etc. all pretty "conservative" values are really important. But those aren't 1) easily transferable to kids when the parents didn't follow through 2) just because they are positively correlated with good outcomes doesn't mean they can really be separated from the "culture" or individual that makes those calls
So I guess I'll finish by saying, I think it is really difficult to try to engineer social change, that it is usually really incremental and that the past matters a lot. I guess that makes me a liberal.
-
ha ha, you're such a freaking loon
Loon seems tame compared to racist.
-
I think it is really difficult to try to engineer social change, that it is usually really incremental and that the past matters a lot. I guess that makes me a liberal.
i don't think your final statement follows from your first statement at all.
-
holy crap, Joe Montgomery is so proud right now guys
-
I think it is really difficult to try to engineer social change, that it is usually really incremental and that the past matters a lot. I guess that makes me a liberal.
i don't think your final statement follows from your first statement at all.
;)
-
I think it is really difficult to try to engineer social change, that it is usually really incremental and that the past matters a lot. I guess that makes me a liberal.
i don't think your final statement follows from your first statement at all.
it's easier to do harm than good?
I mean it would be pretty easy to eff over an ethnic group with legislation, but building them back up to equality is a little tricky.
-
I think it is really difficult to try to engineer social change, that it is usually really incremental and that the past matters a lot. I guess that makes me a liberal.
i don't think your final statement follows from your first statement at all.
it's easier to do harm than good?
I mean it would be pretty easy to eff over an ethnic group with legislation, but building them back up to equality is a little tricky.
I interpreted it as liberal vs. difficult to engineer social change. I was using the dichotomy as a rhetorical device. But I agree with what you said too.
-
I think access to credit is an enormous issue and access to quality pre-k to college education is really important.
Remove the words 'access to' and then you have something that is value that I'm getting at regarding the need to be rabidly instilled. People have access right now.
Some things are cultural, but they are less pernicious than you seem to make them.
I think otherwise. I don't see us reconciling this point.
So I guess I'll finish by saying, I think it is really difficult to try to engineer social change,
Not really. You have to have an open discussion and it has to be pounded by media and entertainment. Gay marriage is an example of something that was unspeakable not long ago and after relentless attention from those avenues, is no longer so.
-
it's easier to do harm than good?
I mean it would be pretty easy to eff over an ethnic group with legislation, but building them back up to equality is a little tricky.
I interpreted it as liberal vs. difficult to engineer social change. I was using the dichotomy as a rhetorical device. But I agree with what you said too.
i just meant that someone could agree with everything kk expressed and it would offer little insight into where that person fell on the conservative/liberal spectrum.
-
Holy crap I missed this whole thread. :lick:
-
I think access to credit is an enormous issue and access to quality pre-k to college education is really important.
Remove the words 'access to' and then you have something that is value that I'm getting at regarding the need to be rabidly instilled. People have access right now.
Some things are cultural, but they are less pernicious than you seem to make them.
I think otherwise. I don't see us reconciling this point.
So I guess I'll finish by saying, I think it is really difficult to try to engineer social change,
Not really. You have to have an open discussion and it has to be pounded by media and entertainment. Gay marriage is an example of something that was unspeakable not long ago and after relentless attention from those avenues, is no longer so.
Curious because not :cyclist: ... Was gay marriage even discussed at all 20 years ago? 30?