Considering I have only discussed race/sex/gender as a way to better understand how we can be integrated, it’s not remotely appropriate.
I don't understand this... what is there to discuss? Do you not have any female friends, or friends who are of different races? What is it that you need to understand?
People are all equal... they are, there's nothing to discuss. The only difference between people is attitude.
Originally posted by rinselberg: I am thinking about it from the perspective of today.
You are thinking in the perspective of what you have been told to think today.
quote
Originally posted by rinselberg: "Colored person" came into vogue as a more respectful wording than "negro." But as time went by, "colored person" came to be rather widely perceived as yet another dismissive and not particularly respectful way of saying it, and so now we have "person of color" which has a formality and a "feeling" of respectfulness that goes one better than "colored person." It elevates the idea of "color" and transforms it into something more than a mere visual descriptor of the amount of melanin in a person's complexion.
Under most of the circumstances that I can imagine--it actually doesn't happen that often for me--I would be more likely to want to refer to a "person of color" as a "black" man, woman (or whatever) than a "colored person"--or a "person of color" which would only come to mind within a kind of formalized or official context.
Of course, if it's not that color, but some other color, I would think of saying he or she is Asian-looking, or Southeast Asian-looking. Or "Indian" although that could get into a follow-up about whether it's the Indian subcontinent or "Indian" as in Indigenous American.
Maybe it's different out there in armadillo country.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-17-2021).]
In Texas, I think they just say "Y' ain't from 'round here, are ya?"
Willie, that is one word. yaint.
It's an East Texas thing. Out West around the Concho and Pecos, it's more like [spit down between the newcomer's feet, then] "Who are ya, where the hell did ya come from and how'd you get so dumb?"
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-17-2021).]
I don't understand this... what is there to discuss? Do you not have any female friends, or friends who are of different races? What is it that you need to understand?
People are all equal... they are, there's nothing to discuss. The only difference between people is attitude.
If you're a victim, you will always be a victim.
If only everyone believed this, we wouldn't have any issues. I agree with you. Unfortunately, history shows that people haven't always thought this way, and people still don't always think this way. This creates a real (not just perceived due to attitude) imbalance of power.
Like I said, one of the "options" for "how to solve this" is to do nothing and wait. I believe equality of opportunity will eventually come without any actions, albeit slowly. I don't even think it's a bad decision. The only thing I was suggesting, was that Social Justice isn't the craziest idea in the world--it's responding to real concerns. Sometimes it goes too far, but when you understand the background of it, it's a lot easier to find that compromise vs. just pretending the issue doesn't exist at all.
To put it simply: - If I were to say "Social Justice is a disease, and racist in nature. People are equal, so it's not worth the conversation," then you are ignoring current issues where people aren't equal due to recent policies. - If I were to say "We should not act on existing imbalance of power. Yes, it sucks that there are still waves from past policies and decisions, but we shouldn't make bad decisions today because of bad decisions yesterday," then you are acknowledging the current issues, but you have a personal stance that any Social Justice decisions implemented today are the wrong idea.
I'd suggest that second option is a lot more powerful.
The solution does not lie with government, as nearly everything government touches is made worse.
And therein lies one of the most (if not the very most) egregious failings of our society in my lifetime. From LBJ's "Great Society" to Hillary Clinton's "It Takes a Village", the left has sought to supplant the roll of the family with the government.
To put it simply: - If I were to say "Social Justice is a disease, and racist in nature. People are equal, so it's not worth the conversation," then you are ignoring current issues where people aren't equal due to recent policies.
- If I were to say "We should not act on existing imbalance of power. Yes, it sucks that there are still waves from past policies and decisions, but we shouldn't make bad decisions today because of bad decisions yesterday," then you are acknowledging the current issues, but you have a personal stance that any Social Justice decisions implemented today are the wrong idea.
I'd suggest that second option is a lot more powerful.
I choose the one that is true, (the bold) not the one, or any because it has some sort of power, or makes some people feel better.
Its no doubt that racism is a tool for power, thats why they insist on using it.
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 (also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245) AND
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) at 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.), enacted 1974
AND
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 12 U.S.C. ch. 29 §§ 2801-2811 enacted 1975 AND
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, P.L. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1147, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act , 12 U.S.C. § 2901 enacted 1977
The "CRA" has also been updated / revised in 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2007 and 2008
............................
Got any more of your "recent policies"?
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-19-2021).]
The Civil Rights Act of 1968 (also enacted 18 U.S.C. § 245) AND
The Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) at 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq.), enacted 1974
AND
The Home Mortgage Disclosure Act 12 U.S.C. ch. 29 §§ 2801-2811 enacted 1975 AND
The Community Reinvestment Act (CRA, P.L. 95-128, 91 Stat. 1147, title VIII of the Housing and Community Development Act , 12 U.S.C. § 2901 enacted 1977
The "CRA" has also been updated / revised in 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994, 1995, 1999, 2005, 2007 and 2008
............................
Got any more of your "recent policies"?
Yes, Randy. I consider the dates you’re listing on these to be recent. Many here were alive for these.
Yes, Randy. I consider the dates you’re listing on these to be recent. Many here were alive for these.
Does it hurt when you twist yourself into a pretzel like that to avoid responsibility for your ignorance?
NO FEDERAL OR STATE GOVERNMENT AGENCY, NOR ANY FEDERALLY CHARTERED BANK OR CREDIT UNION, HAS PRACTICED REDLINING FOR ALMOST 50 YEARS.
After all these years though it's still the popular go-to shibboleth for ignorant SJWs and people with piss-poor credit history and / or insufficient income to qualify as a reasonable credit risk anywhere.
quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
current issues where people aren't equal due to recent policies.
Now that your nonsensical 1960s response "redlining" has been dealt with, I'll ask you again; WHAT "RECENT POLICIES" do you allege are making people unequal?
This is where you young SJWs get into trouble,
You're fine while spewing out a bunch of propaganda BS and word salad nonsense but you're totally inept when you have to answer with facts instead of feelings.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-19-2021).]
Originally posted by randye: Now that your nonsensical 1960s response "redlining" has been dealt with, I'll ask you again; WHAT "RECENT POLICIES" do you allege are making people unequal?
This is where you young SJWs get into trouble,
You're fine while spewing out a bunch of propaganda BS and word salad nonsense but you're totally inept when you have to answer with facts instead of feelings.
Lmao, Randy, step away from the keyboard, you’ve built yourself up into a frenzy!
You’ve quoted me. Where did I say governments and banks have been redlining people as a matter of policy in the last 50 years?
I didn’t say that. Use facts now, not feelings. Did I say that?
What I did say, was that people are still not equal today because of recent policies. That’s what I said, and it is true. You somehow think that because we passed legislation banning redlining recently, that all of the actions taken by those policies has no impact? You believe that the area you grew up in has no impact on your life?
Now, redlining does still occur. It’s all implicit now, not explicit, but just look at settlements over it even in the last decade.
Yes I did and, just like all SJW Leftists, you refuse to take responsibility for your own words.
You cannot name a single "recent policy that is making people unequal".
It must be exhausting and sad being a racist like you and seeing your world as nothing but victimspeople of color and oppressors....
...and by the way, I'm as dispassionate about you as I am about an errant bug on the bottom of my shoe, but thanks for making my point about you SJWs and your preoccupation with feelings.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-19-2021).]
...and by the way, I'm as dispassionate about you as I am about an errant bug on the bottom of my shoe, but thanks for making my point about you SJWs and your preoccupation with feelings.
I’m sure you are, Randy. That’s why you get all worked up when you think you’ve “won” the internet argument, then stop replying altogether when facts prove you wrong.
I did name recent policies, and they have lasting effects. Plenty of research will show that.
No. Like a "recent policy." As cited by theBDub when he was called upon to list or describe some recent policies that are relevant in the context of the discussion.
Oh, yeah, the lengthy and detailed response listing the myriad recent policies holding go time back? Quite the list wasn't it? Chock full of detail, it was.
Perhaps you could flesh the list out with some cut and paste from your favorite propaganda outlet.
The history of redlining is long and extensive. "Redlining" would have been the first word to come to my mind, in the same context as when theBDub messaged it here.
I do not harbor any thoughts of trying to become a political or Social Justice activist. "A man's got to know his limitations." But if I were going to delve deeper into this topic, here are two of the first places I would look to, to become better informed and to look for ideas and inspiration; to better understand all the "buzz" about Social Justice on mainstream media and also the Republican establishment and Republican populist-leaning media venues.
"The Color of Money--Black Banks and the Racial Wealth Gap" Mehrsa Baradaran; Belknap Press; 2019.
quote
When the Emancipation Proclamation was signed in 1863, the black community owned less than one percent of the United States’ total wealth. More than 150 years later, that number has barely budged. The Color of Money pursues the persistence of this racial wealth gap by focusing on the generators of wealth in the black community: black banks. Studying these institutions over time, Mehrsa Baradaran challenges the myth that black communities could ever accumulate wealth in a segregated economy. Instead, housing segregation, racism, and Jim Crow credit policies created an inescapable, but hard to detect, economic trap for black communities and their banks.
The catch-22 of black banking is that the very institutions needed to help communities escape the deep poverty caused by discrimination and segregation inevitably became victims of that same poverty. Not only could black banks not “control the black dollar” due to the dynamics of bank depositing and lending but they drained black capital into white banks, leaving the black economy with the scraps.
Baradaran challenges the long-standing notion that black banking and community self-help is the solution to the racial wealth gap. These initiatives have functioned as a potent political decoy to avoid more fundamental reforms and racial redress. Examining the fruits of past policies and the operation of banking in a segregated economy, she makes clear that only bolder, more realistic views of banking’s relation to black communities will end the cycle of poverty and promote black wealth.
"A Homestead Act for the 21st Century" Mehrsa Baradaran for The Great Democracy Initiative; May 2019.
quote
The goal of the 21st century Homestead Act is to counteract the longstanding legacy of racially discriminatory housing policies by revitalizing distressed communities through public investment. The basic structure of the program is a wholesale transfer of land to residents who meet certain criteria. Accompanied by a holistic plan at the city level to revitalize the community through public investments in infrastructure and jobs, this proposal would benefit people who live in select small and medium-sized cities that are experiencing high vacancies.
I love it that the Pennock's forum's "dependables" are still cackling about "HRC" like a driver that's fixated on his rearview mirror as he speeds into a concrete barrier that's just in front of him. If all the cackling from this group of forum members during the last umpteen years and especially the last five years had any quantum of truth in it, I wouldn't be here to remind people that Trump is "one and done." Trump is "one and done" and Biden is about to unpack his robinette as he begins his residence in the world's most famous long term care facility on Pennsylvania Avenue.
Jade Helm abides
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 01-20-2021).]
I wouldn't be here to remind people that Trump is "one and done." Trump is "one and done"
And The Anointed One thankfully, wasn't even one,... done she was, before she was one. She still influences left politics greatly tho. She admonished Biden, before the Nov election (in August I believe) to 'Never concede under any circumstances no matter how the vote comes out'.
Oddly enough, she didn't get a media spanking for that remark, but boy, when Trump said he would not concede, the media cut those peach & willow tree switches, jerked off their belts, pulled down the razor straps and gave him a real whuppin.... and they still are.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 01-20-2021).]
If hiring and promoting based on race doesn't correct the issue...and isn't what is wanted... why is that what it seems like we are now told we should be doing "systemically"?
Originally posted by 2.5: If hiring and promoting based on race doesn't correct the issue...and isn't what is wanted...why is that what it seems like we are now told we should be doing "systemically"?
Racial "equity of outcomes". We've talked about it here in this thread. Its essentially affirmative action. Racism. This wasn't noticed as a topic in this thread?.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-21-2021).]
I think that there are other ideas in the Social Justice "folder" that are distinct from "Affirmative Action" or race-based preferential hiring and promotions.
But guess what? I'm out of time. Not even enough time to elaborate on that opening.
snippets: "for too many, the American Dream remains out of reach. Entrenched disparities in our laws and public policies, and in our public and private institutions, have often denied that equal opportunity to individuals and communities. Our country faces converging economic, health, and climate crises that have exposed and exacerbated inequities, while a historic movement for justice has highlighted the unbearable human costs of systemic racism. Our Nation deserves an ambitious whole-of-government equity agenda that matches the scale of the opportunities and challenges that we face. ... closing racial gaps in wages, housing credit, lending opportunities, and access to higher education would amount to an additional $5 trillion in gross domestic product in the American economy over the next 5 years. .. Consistent with these aims, each agency must assess whether, and to what extent, its programs and policies perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and other underserved groups. .. The term “underserved communities” refers to populations sharing a particular characteristic, as well as geographic communities, that have been systematically denied a full opportunity to participate in aspects of economic, social, and civic life, as exemplified by the list in the preceding definition of “equity.” .. Sec. 3. Role of the Domestic Policy Council. The role of the White House Domestic Policy Council (DPC) is to coordinate the formulation and implementation of my Administration’s domestic policy objectives. Consistent with this role, the DPC will coordinate efforts to embed equity principles, policies, and approaches across the Federal Government. .. .. (a) The Director of OMB shall identify opportunities to promote equity in the budget that the President submits to the Congress. ... Sec. 9. Establishing an Equitable Data Working Group. Many Federal datasets are not disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability, income, veteran status, or other key demographic variables. This lack of data has cascading effects and impedes efforts to measure and advance equity. A first step to promoting equity in Government action is to gather the data necessary to inform that effort. ... (ii) support agencies in implementing actions, consistent with applicable law and privacy interests, that expand and refine the data available to the Federal Government to measure equity and capture the diversity of the American people."
-
Hook line and sinker
Categorize, oppressed vs oppressor, a new kind of socialism, divide and conquer...
On a side note, isnt this attempt a sort of larger scale version of how the housing crash happened? Loan to people based on factors that did not include ability to repay? I mean one can assume rules like these would just mean, hey no more descriminaton (even though it was already illegal) but It is pretty clear to me that this actually means affirmative action.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-21-2021).]
You're making me think of a baseball umpire that's trying to call a game before the game is played. Before the very first pitch.
quote
Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.
You're making me think of a baseball umpire that's trying to call a game before the game is played. Before the very first pitch.
"Sec. 11. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or
(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) Independent agencies are strongly encouraged to comply with the provisions of this order.
(d) This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person."
Well, its been being pitched for years, some folks are swinging at it now.
I see a conflict here, others don't?
Also this is just the Gov. Companies, schools, employers, in many places are embracing the same conflicting ideas.
Unstoppable force meets an immovable object? Maybe some redefiningwill be required to grease the wheels? Yes I do many times see issues early, and yes that can result in others not seeing it. Its worth talking about even if the it ends with, "well lets all hope for the best".
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 01-21-2021).]
[b] Yes I do many times see issues early, and yes that can result in others not seeing it. Its worth talking about even if the it ends with, "well lets all hope for the best".
Having insight has it's challenges. Most people judge by their own limitations and have to be reminded that other people have different, and just as likely, better abilities.
Hmm. Seems like a perfect choice to represent the Harris/Biden administration.
she didn't get a media spanking for that remark, but boy, when Trump said he would not concede, the media cut those peach & willow tree switches, jerked off their belts, pulled down the razor straps and gave him a real whuppin.... and they still are.
