Describe to me how one creates racial equity of outcome in a department (for example), without hiring or promoting, or firing based on race? Then describe to me how that is not discrimination based on race. (Which is illegal)
You've excreted plenty of your OPINIONS but, like all young SJW Leftists, you confuse them with facts.
Specifically in this comment, I was referring to other threads where you say something, incorrectly, then just stop replying when shown you are wrong.
But if you want to talk on this topic...
quote
Originally posted by randye:
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.
Though redlining, the process of identifying areas of predominantly Black populations for organized discrimination, especially in housing, is explicitly illegal today, redlining continues to have lasting effects. Some say it's still happening, but in different language/terms: "Fifty years after the federal Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in lending, African Americans and Latinos continue to be routinely denied conventional mortgage loans at rates far higher than their white counterparts. This modern-day redlining persisted in 61 metro areas even when controlling for applicants’ income, loan amount and neighborhood, according to a mountain of Home Mortgage Disclosure Act records analyzed by Reveal from The Center for Investigative Reporting." (quote).
Those people then go on to lead more financially successful lives, and they live in areas with higher property taxes, which feed into their own children's schools, and their children have those resources. Meanwhile, people who didn't have access to those resources as a child had an unequal opportunity for success through education, which led to less financially successful lives. They could not afford to leave their area, and their children go to the same school they grew up in, going through the same cycle over and over.
This is a cycle, a vicious cycle. Redlining continues to have lasting effects. Again, many here were alive for it. Hell, your children may have been alive for it. To pretend like this isn't a recent phenomenon, or that it hasn't had lasting effects, is to put blinders on.
An analogy might be if you were asked to race a Black man for a one-mile run. But he was held back for 5 minutes before he was allowed to start racing. Just because at 5:01, you are both "allowed to run" doesn't mean it was an equal race. Another one, you and your family are asked to dig a hole 10 miles deep over many years. You get started right away, but the government tells the Black family they cannot yet start. You dig a few years, and hand it off to your child to continue, the other family finally gets started. Your child could be lazy, hand it off to their child, who could also be lazy, and still dig down further due to the head start. Pretending like everything was "equal" just because the law said we now had to treat people equally completely ignores history and the lasting effects of racism.
People invest in primary residence housing where values are stable and schools are good. They avoid areas of wife-beater wearing teens of any skin color invest in booming car stereos.
Real Estate agents want an easy sale.
Bank lenders want (at least) stable values with punctual payments.
Pawn shops, rent to own centers, paycheck loan places and rent-your-car-rim places invest in a less desirable area.
Are advertisers racist for targeting based on race?
People invest in primary residence housing where values are stable and schools are good. They avoid areas of wife-beater wearing teens of any skin color invest in booming car stereos.
Real Estate agents want an easy sale.
Bank lenders want (at least) stable values with punctual payments.
Pawn shops, rent to own centers, paycheck loan places and rent-your-car-rim places invest in a less desirable area.
Are advertisers racist for targeting based on race?
I'm going to ignore your dog whistle on wife-beaters and booming car stereos and speak to your other statements. Yes, actions taken today that don't take race into account at all still foster inequality due to prior policies that changed the "startling line" for so many people.
It's not wrong for a real estate agent to want an easy sale. It's not wrong for a bank lender to want punctual payments. It is wrong for us to collectively ignore that past decisions still have lasting impact today. Though we say we are all equal, that is a convenient delusion that ignores generations of White supremacy.
I'm going to ignore your dog whistle on wife-beaters and booming car stereos and speak to your other statements. Yes, actions taken today that don't take race into account at all still foster inequality due to prior policies that changed the "startling line" for so many people.
It's not wrong for a real estate agent to want an easy sale. It's not wrong for a bank lender to want punctual payments. It is wrong for us to collectively ignore that past decisions still have lasting impact today. Though we say we are all equal, that is a convenient delusion that ignores generations of White supremacy.
How do we fix it? All decisions are suboptimal.
We aren't equal. Whites aren't allowed to be.
Black men got the right to vote before White women.
Most of the booming car stereos round here are White twerps screaming for attention and creds. No clear dog whistle for racism here. It's cultural. It's lifestyle choices.
White Supremacy isn't what holds people back. It's an excuse to hold Whites back.
Now, are there cultural preferences of the past that people today are using as excuses to hold other people back and so they call everything White Supremacy?
People also conflate segregation with White Supremacy. It just means separate. It can start equal and end in a very diff place.
Regarding equal and separate, if you ever read the 3-4 sentences of the decision and opinion deciding Brown vs. Board of Ed you'll find it doesn't say what people think it says. It says Black kids are deprived if they can't be in classes with Whites. WTH? It says even if everything is equal from teachers to buildings to material, presentation, money, everything, then Blacks are deprived unless Whites are there with them. Not more well rounded. It reads they're disadvantaged. There are no decisions I know of for Whites like this.
Hispanics are going to elbow Blacks out of preferential positions in your and even my lifetime.
Though we say we are all equal, that is a convenient delusion that ignores generations of White supremacy.
You young SJW's witlessly follow the edicts of cultural Marxism which is sexist (against men), racist (against Whites), dislikes "cis" (straight people), is intolerant of religion (Christianity), degrades patriots (over globalists) and has disdain for the nuclear family (over "alternative" families).
Despite all of your bleating and bloviating about white people as the proximate cause of all of your imagined evils that you think exist in this country today, the reality is that you live in the most free, equal, inclusive and least racist country on the face of the planet today.
I suspect that your obvious ignorance of that is partly due to the fact that you're likely not well travelled around this world to see real racism and inequality first hand and largely due to the "fire hose" of Marxist anti-American propaganda that you have been fed that leads you to wrongly believe and insist that American is some sort of racial and cultural hell-hole.
Add all of that to a big heapin' helpin' of youthful arrogance and narcissism and we have "useful idiot" SJWs with the fanaticism of Mao's Red Guards, accompanied by legions of larval Wesley Mouch replicas.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-22-2021).]
Calling someone's comments a "dog whistle" is the SJW's way of calling you a racist while simultaneously trying to denigrate and diminish what you said no matter how you intended it or how innocuous it was.
I don't know why theBDub has so much white shame. I have none, because ... I have white privilege. I have had two wives. First one, 13 years, three children, was a person of Mexican color, born in Monterrey, Mexico. We speak still yet she is more of a good friend of her replacement, my present wife of twenty years.
For the theBDub to come in and accuse us of person of color racism, gee I don't have a clue. That he says it exists, he admitted of being naive. He has said he was working on that. I think he has made good progress.
Perhaps, theBDub should join a white supremacy board and council them in their ways.
I was struggling trying to understand what "redlining" was. I have come to understand that it is what Twatter and FaceSpace does.
America. Land of the free. Home of the Victims.
[This message has been edited by cliffw (edited 01-22-2021).]
You young SJW's witlessly follow the edicts of cultural Marxism which is sexist (against men), racist (against Whites), dislikes "cis" (straight people), is intolerant of religion (Christianity), degrades patriots (over globalists) and has disdain for the nuclear family (over "alternative" families).
Despite all of your bleating and bloviating about white people as the proximate cause of all of your imagined evils that you think exist in this country today, the reality is that you live in the most free, equal, inclusive and least racist country on the face of the planet today.
I suspect that your obvious ignorance of that is partly due to the fact that you're likely not well travelled around this world to see real racism and inequality first hand and largely due to the "fire hose" of Marxist anti-American propaganda that you have been fed that leads you to wrongly believe and insist that American is some sort of racial and cultural hell-hole.
Add all of that to a big heapin' helpin' of youthful arrogance and narcissism and we have "useful idiot" SJWs with the fanaticism of Mao's Red Guards, accompanied by legions of larval Wesley Mouch replicas.
Lots of suppositions in here, but nothing regarding redlining. That must have just been too much.
You have entirely the wrong idea of my beliefs. It's almost incredible how you've managed to completely misread me, just because of your own preconceptions.
Whites are decreasing. Black and Brown skinned people aren't. So don't worry. Blacks and Browns are already a vast majority in the world and get preferential treatment by law. Because a White majority gave it to them. Will it ever be good enough? Not even after Whites are genocides will it be enough.
Describe to me how one creates racial equity of outcome in a department (for example), without hiring or promoting, or firing based on race? Then describe to me how that is not discrimination based on race. (Which is illegal)
No one took me up on the question. It seems like if we can't answer this, a lot of other considerations don't matter much.
Once one has that answer, then exrapolate the concept to:
"individuals who belong to underserved communities, such as Black, Latino, Indigenous and Native American, Asian Americans Pacific Islanders other persons of color; members of religious minorities; lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ+) persons; persons with disabilities; persons who live in rural areas; persons otherwise adversely affected by persistent poverty or inequality. "
- also, who gets to make the definitions and decisions on what qualifies and why?
..and how are they going to figure out promoting a certain gender, if you can choose your own?
Lots of suppositions in here, but nothing regarding redlining. That must have just been too much.
Too much?
That's hilarious.
Son you're 50 years late and not nearly enough with your redlining delusion.
Then you piddle out an article founding it's premise on a SCOTUS case from 48 YEARS AGO that the plaintiff LOST which perfectly illustrates the point against your delusion and, as if that wasn't enough, you spew a smattering of more opinion articles , which you doubtless believe to be "facts".
Do you even read and understand the excrement you quote, because It sure as hell looks like just a bunch of random, disjointed, "copy pasta" that you throw at the wall like wet spaghetti and hope it somehow sticks,....but what the hell right?, the title looked good enough....
quote
Originally posted by theBDub:
You have entirely the wrong idea of my beliefs.
Nope.
You have made your racist, SJW, beliefs abundantly and disgustingly clear over and over again in this thread.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-23-2021).]
Except that has changed years ago. In my county more money per student goes to areas with the lowest property taxes. The poorest schools get the most money. And guess what? Those students still under perform the more affluent schools. Maybe you are assigning race to issues that are mainly cultural.
It's like Chicago calling it "gun violence" when black people shoot other black people. Maybe, just maybe, it's not the gun's fault. Maybe it's actually the person pulling the trigger's fault. And maybe, just maybe, it's cultural, not racist. But that doesn't follow the party line so disregard. Remember, if you vote trump, "you ain't black" -Uncle Joe.
Son you're 50 years late and not nearly enough with your redlining delusion.
Then you piddle out an article founding it's premise on a SCOTUS case from 48 YEARS AGO that the plaintiff LOST which perfectly illustrates the point against your delusion and, as if that wasn't enough, you spew a smattering of more opinion articles , which you doubtless believe to be "facts".
Do you even read and understand the excrement you quote, because It sure as hell looks like just a bunch of random, disjointed, "copy pasta" that you throw at the wall like wet spaghetti and hope it somehow sticks,....but what the hell right?, the title looked good enough....
---
Nope.
You have made your racist, SJW, beliefs abundantly and disgustingly clear over and over again in this thread.
San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez formed the decision that education was not a right outlined in the constitution. It did not say that it was not unfair, or that it didn't result in unfairness.
Do you have any actual factual disagreements with anything I posted? Or do you just disagree with me posting links further explaining how redlining is still causing issues today, while you post none for yourself?
Describe to me how one creates racial equity of outcome in a department (for example), without hiring or promoting, or firing based on race? Then describe to me how that is not discrimination based on race. (Which is illegal)
The only way to do so would be to affect change in the community (education, crime, etc.) to create equality of opportunity, so the applicants were representative of the population.
To directly answer it, you can't. But I'd argue racial equity of outcome is the wrong target.
[This message has been edited by theBDub (edited 01-26-2021).]
Isnt it Kamala who has a video absolutely stating equity of outcome is the goal of this movement?
Wouldn't your affirmation of the movement just be one of the hand holds for people like her to gain the greater goal that is in her video? And thusly, even though you say it's not your goal, you are one of the tools used for ultimate quotas of equal outcome?
Isnt it a common ploy to claim not supporting a goal but really just pushing the pile toward the ultimate goal?
"Equitable treatment means we all end up at the same place." - Kamala Harris
San Antonio ISD v. Rodriguez formed the decision that education was not a right outlined in the constitution. It did not say that it was not unfair, or that it didn't result in unfairness.
The loser in every civil lawsuit and the convicted criminal in every criminal case shouts "IT'S UNFAIR".
Coincidentally, every child that is denied what they want also shouts "IT'S UNFAIR"
Despite your gossamer thin denials, all of your arguments in this thread so far come from either your racist perspective or from your childish notion of "fairness" of outcome.
Coincidentally, both of those traits are endemic to young SJWs.
[This message has been edited by randye (edited 01-26-2021).]
The loser in every civil lawsuit and the convicted criminal in every criminal case shouts "IT'S UNFAIR".
Coincidentally, every child that is denied what they want also shouts "IT'S UNFAIR"
The point is that your take on the SCOTUS case was addressing the wrong argument.
I didn’t say education was a right. I said unequal access to education contributes to inequality.
I guess that’s a “no” for factual disagreements. If you’re going to disagree, you should address the content of my posts, not this straw man you’ve concocted in your head.
You're a perfect example of why I say to NEVER allow a Leftist, (especially a racist, SJW, Leftist) to frame the argument.
A Leftist's basis in argument is as fickle as a teenage girl's moods and just as prone to hyperbole and hysteria.
By the way "straw man" is highly offensive. It's a "person of vegetation"
... still a “no,” then?
You still haven’t said anything of substance—all you’ve managed to do is attempt to insult me by assigning labels to me that don’t apply. It’s boring. Don’t you have anything else?
If there isnt enough time to listen to a long vid with muliple interviewees, check out just one point, check out the point at 8:45, it only runs a few minutes.
The second interview is a much more engaging conversation.
Brings to my mind these questions. Does something become racist or not racist depending on your point of view? Does that mean if you could look at it objectively, that is no longer true? Are we just justifying things regardless and against our own principles we actually believe are true and that evidence proves? Why?
At 29:45, a good point I think.
At the 39:35 min mark, handouts could be deceiving.
[This message has been edited by 2.5 (edited 03-11-2021).]
The Social Justice "menu" has other options. Social Justice is not limited to Affirmative Action and there can be more Social Justice without resorting to Affirmative Action.
Parts of the newly signed American Rescue Act ($1.9 trillion Covid relief legislation) are about creating more Social Justice. The results have yet to be measured and so the pragmatism or practicalities of the legislation (or some of the legislation) are still open to question, but at least that's the intent.
I've long been intrigued by the "21st century Homestead Act" which is only a proposal or research paper, but that would be an attempt to increase Social Justice without resorting to Affirmative Action kinds of policies in terms of workforce recruiting, hiring and promotions.
The Social Justice "menu" has other options. Social Justice is not limited to Affirmative Action and there can be more Social Justice without resorting to Affirmative Action.
Parts of the newly signed American Rescue Act ($1.9 trillion Covid relief legislation) are about creating more Social Justice. The results have yet to be measured and so the pragmatism or practicalities of the legislation (or some of the legislation) are still open to question, but at least that's the intent.
I've long been intrigued by the "21st century Homestead Act" which is only a proposal or research paper, but that would be an attempt to increase Social Justice without resorting to Affirmative Action kinds of policies in terms of workforce recruiting, hiring and promotions.
So you agree Affirmative action is racist and wrong, and thusly that other tactics which act on the sameprinciples as Affirmative action are also?
Originally posted by 2.5: So you agree Affirmative action is racist and wrong, and thusly that other tactics which act on the same principles as Affirmative action are also?
No. I'm too "cagey" of a "politician" to actually agree to that.
I move in such small circles in my life that I never think about Affirmative Action unless it becomes a top news story.
I wonder how big of a deal it actually is, in terms of actual numbers of people that are directly advantaged or disadvantaged because of Affirmative Action.
[This message has been edited by rinselberg (edited 03-14-2021).]
.
